/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12370126
>It's a lack
So it doesn't exist

>>12370945
>It doesn't exist on its own, but is a description of another thing(s), aka the planets/particles/etc and their distances.

Based post explains it best.

>>11840309
>This is an /x/-tier thread on /sci/. Go whine to a janny to have the thread wiped you crybaby, probably isn't the first time they've taken pity on you.
says the guy who post pseudoscience here constantly and is “tolerated” unlike flatearth. your Electric Universe shit is really obnoxious and you should feel grateful you even get a chance to post it here. Jon Tooker gets his threads deleted but you don’t, not because what you say is even close to being as high-quality but rather because you cloak your pseudoscience in oblique rhetorical questions and ken-wheeleresque sophistry. Jon at least is straightforward instead of using the /x/ tactic of always shying away from any actual argument

>>11516652
rofl a berzerkfag meme, and phoneposted at that. priceless.

>>11312547
fuck off berzerkfag. we all know you are schizo.

the anon replying to you has schooled you over and over and you need to give up your sophistry. answering everything with a question is the shillest game in the book

>>10899526
sort of, but it's not definable as "flat".

>>10893647
>They never explained what a field is, correct.
yes they did. the physics is written in terms of math and the various fields have rigorous mathematical definitions. if you demand word salad to do better than rigorous mathematical definitions, then you're at the level of a popsci brainlet who wants to be spoonfed some word salad mangling of the concepts. learn math anon.

>If it seems like it's leaning toward that direction then sure. Explain what causes a field philosophically.
okay, let's talk philosophy then. how about we start with this example. "One plus one equals two." can we agree on that? i hope so. but, if i were you, i'd go "but you never EXPLAINED 'one'. you need to give me words that help me to feel good about the concept of 'one' otherwise you are wrong." see how that is faulty logic? anyhow i could say "one is a mathematical object that is postulated to exist as an axiom in Peano's axioms". does that make you feel better? no, it's just an axiom.

"but whyyyyy is that axiom the way it is. explain axioms"
axioms don't have a why. at least nothing better than "it just works" or "it's interesting." see? it just werks is pretty powerful. explain axioms? now we're in deep philosophy land. axioms are things assumed to be true. what is truth? [insert some definition here]. "Okay, but whyyyyyyy?". [insert explanation here] "Okay, but whyyyyy?" [wash rinse repeat]

this line of arguing hasn't debunked math, has it? is 1+1=2 false? no. complaining about "you haven't explained why" isn't an argument.

so back to the topic. physics just werks. fields are part of the math we use to model things, and if you study the model you will get a feel for what they represent. if you want to do better, you need to provide a model that works better. but you can't. except for schizophrenia that has no equations and works exactly 0% of the time, pic related

why does /sci/ has so many shizzos?

>>10843592
yes, this. however berzerkfag goes full schizo instead of actually following his own logic to this conclusion, pic related

>>10828542
PS: pasting classic berzerkfag schizorant