/sci/ - Science & Math

>position is relative
>therefore, velocity (which is relative to position) is relative since something that is relative to something that is relative is also itself relative
>therefore, acceleration (which is relative to velocity) is relative
>therefore, if two objects are moving relatively away from each other then are moving relatively toward each other, it is a relative statement to claim which one was accelerating and which one (if either) was still or at constant velocity
>therefore, the "solution" to the twin paradox is false
>therefore, Einsteinian relativity theory is false and the aether exists
Unironically.

>>14615856

Survey time to see if there is any trend between mathematics skill/knowledge level and positions on various controversial topics.
>How old are you?
>What is the highest level of mathematics you are comfortable with?
>Do you hold that .9...=1? (yes or no)
>Do you know what hyperreals are? (yes or no)
>Do you hold that belief is a valid concept in science? (yes or no)
Example: 'Professor Roberts believes that gravitons exist and will one day be discovered' or 'Professor Jensen believes that Special Relativity theory is flawed and is not entirely true.' Is the concept of 'belief' and the use of the word 'believes' valid in this context, and/or other scientific contexts?
>What is the answer to the famous portal problem? (A or B) As in OP pic at >>11559659

There is no better way to demonstrate that you are an egotistical pseudo-intellectual hack than to use the terms 'infinitely many', 'demonstrably so', and 'QED'.
>infinitely many
We have a word for that. It's 'infinity'. Anyone that says 'infinitely many' instead of 'infinity' is a pseudo-intellectual retard.
>demonstrably so
There isn't necessarily anything inherently wrong with this phrase, but whenever I encounter someone using it in practice, they're using it with the exclusive intent of inflating their ego. I would instead say something like 'provably so', not because it is inherently better, but because the egotistical pseudointellectuals have ruined the phrase 'demonstrably so' by using it for ego inflationary purposes instead of legitimate purposes.
>QED
Valid when used to refer to quantum electrodynamics. When used to refer to having demonstrated or proven something, it's retarded as fuck and again used as an ego inflater, not as something of actual value or meaning.

>>10826035

Do you study in silence or in loudness? I listen to loud heavy metal while I study.

There is no better way to demonstrate that you are an egotistical pseudo-intellectual hack than to use the terms 'infinitely many', 'demonstrably so', and 'QED'.
>infinitely many
We have a word for that. It's 'infinity'. Anyone that says 'infinitely many' instead of 'infinity' is a pseudo-intellectual retard.
>demonstrably so
There isn't necessarily inherently wrong with this phrase, but whenever I encounter someone using it in practice, they're using it with the exclusive intent of inflating their ego. I would instead say something like 'provably so', not because it is inherently better, but because the egotistical pseudointellectuals have ruined the phrase 'demonstrably so' by using it for ego inflationary purposes instead of legitimate purposes.
>QED
Valid when used to refer to quantum electrodynamics. When used to refer to having demonstrated or proven something, it's retarded as fuck and again used as an ego inflater, not as something of actual value or meaning.