/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #9757556

150KiB, 640x640, jVZCxRz.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 21 May 19:27:24 2018 No.9757556 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>9757584 >>9757590 >>9757622 >>9757681 >>9757686 >>9757699 >>9757717 >>9757784 >>9758018 >>9758189 >>9758297 >>9758314 >>9758681 >>9758935 >>9759959 >>9761025

I've recently been pointed out that no one in the scientific community can actually explain what atoms are.

Is this true? Do we not actually know what atoms are?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:36:07 No.9757584 Report

Quoted By: >>9757592

>>9757556
This is so stupid that I feel like I am misunderstanding your point. What do you mean by "know what atoms are"?
We can directly observe atoms. We can accurately model their structure and behavior. We know where they come from. We know a good deal about their components. What else do we need to understand about them for you to think we know what they are?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:37:40 No.9757590 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
No, but explanation isn't the purpose of science, just transcription and modelling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:38:30 No.9757592 Report

Quoted By: >>9757614 >>9757775

>>9757584
>We can directly observe chairs. We can accurately model their structure and behavior. We know where they come from. We know a good deal about their components. What else do we need to understand about them for you to think we know what they are?
How about "What the fuck are chairs?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:44:26 No.9757614 Report

Quoted By: >>9757640

>>9757592
>Chairs are chairs. They're for sitting.
>Atoms are atoms. They're for making everything.
Are you an idiot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:46:39 No.9757622 Report

Quoted By: >>9757654

>>9757556
A collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons that exist within a space and demonstrate predictable interactions and whose components sometimes have wavelike characteristics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:52:08 No.9757640 Report

Quoted By: >>9757675 >>9757737

>>9757614
>a physical reality is the same as a model of physical reality
You may be too stupid to participate in this conversation

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 19:56:29 No.9757654 Report

Quoted By: >>9757705

>>9757622
But what are protons, neutrons and electrons?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:04:33 No.9757675 Report

Quoted By: >>9757690 >>9757729 >>9757990

>>9757640
That's why I said we can directly observe atoms (electron microscopy, no modeling required). Do you think that because you can't hold a single one in your hand and look at it that it isn't a "physical reality"?
We can observe, model, and explain planets. But you can't hold one in your hands. Is it just a model to you? Is it not a physical reality?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Ducks.jpg, 25KiB, 450x292

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:06:46 No.9757681 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
I'd say the real problem is that even though we can always reduce everything into components like that, we usually don't have good explanations for the emergent behavior of such components. Instead, those explanations are usually pretty underwhelming.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:08:18 No.9757686 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
An atom is the intersection of all sets with a certain property P, and is thus the smallest set with a property P.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:09:41 No.9757690 Report

Quoted By: >>9757707

>>9757675
How does us being able to observe it answer what it is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:11:55 No.9757699 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556

Atoms are the smallest division of an element that you can have. If you take a gold atom, you have the smallest possible piece of gold. if you divide that atom into sub-atomic partials, than it's no longer gold.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:14:09 No.9757705 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757654
fermions

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:14:51 No.9757707 Report

Quoted By: >>9757718

>>9757690
Help me understand your definition of "knows what they are." Please provide a short list of things that are physical realities, in your view.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Nikola-Tes32.jpg, 71KiB, 305x432

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:18:37 No.9757717 Report

Quoted By: >>9759071

>>9757556

Atoms are charged clumps of neutrinos surrounded by a sea of neutrino plasma. Similar to how our planet and atmosphere are arranged. The naming convention describing atomic structure is based on polarity. The most fundamental forces are frequency, vibration and energy. These 3 basic features are responsible for nuclear, electromagnetism, and gravity. Look into Bohmian mechanics and luminiferous aether for details.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:18:56 No.9757718 Report

Quoted By: >>9757728 >>9757758

>>9757707
If someone throws a brick at you it hurts less than if someone throws two bricks at you.

So 2 bricks are a heavier reality than 1 brick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:24:29 No.9757728 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757718
Wildly faulty conclusion because f=ma, the two bricks could way arbitrarily less to non zero. Its not possible to be this retarded sage this thread people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:25:03 No.9757729 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757675
Electron microscopy is nothing to do with "atoms", it's just detecting electromagnetic radiation, it's an electromagnetic universe, it's pretty obvious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:27:32 No.9757737 Report

Quoted By: >>9760898

>>9757640
>physics explains WHAT things are and not HOW things behave

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:36:26 No.9757758 Report

Quoted By: >>9757768

>>9757718
Ah. You're defining reality based on the observer. And the only observer that counts is probably you. So unless you're personally using an AFM to push atoms around, they will never be "real" to you since they can be characterized as part of a larger whole.
This makes you an idiot, by the way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:40:33 No.9757768 Report

Quoted By: >>9757779 >>9757785

>>9757758
Are you just avoiding answering the OP question truthfully?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:42:41 No.9757775 Report

Quoted By: >>9757802 >>9757900 >>9757975

>>9757592
Well, let's say you're a creature with no spatial intuition, and don't really have the brain structures to think about chairs intuitively, only abstractly.

How do you make a workable definition of a chair? You could try for the shape, but lots of shapes are chairs. Lots of things shaped like chairs don't work if you try to use them as chairs.

A different test of whether or not an object is a chair could be something like "can I sit on this?" and while this isn't a great test, since it yields a whole bunch of false positives, it's still a start. We can build on this model.

This is how we approach fundamental particles, essentially.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:44:38 No.9757779 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757768
You're defining "truth" based on how it impacts you, personally. You will never be able to understand larger truths because you will always need your answers to be anchored to your own personal experience.
You seem to lack the basic ability to conceptualize abstractions or understand anything without a fucking metaphor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:45:24 No.9757784 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
But we do. You’re just an idiot and don’t understand it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:46:04 No.9757785 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757768
OP's question begins with a false premise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:54:36 No.9757802 Report

Quoted By: >>9757819 >>9757831 >>9757846 >>9757847 >>9757848 >>9757873 >>9757881 >>9757902 >>9757905 >>9759708 >>9761072

>>9757775
>Lots of things shaped like chairs don't work if you try to use them as chairs.

Out of curiosity, what are some of these things?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 20:58:05 No.9757819 Report

Quoted By: >>9757846 >>9757881

>>9757802
Chair made of air

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:01:47 No.9757831 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
A chair with three legs balanced so you can't sit on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:08:12 No.9757846 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
>>9757819
Chair made of fire.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:08:14 No.9757847 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
A chair made of electrons

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:09:03 No.9757848 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
Over- or undersized chair

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:14:45 No.9757870 Report

Quoted By:

An chair made of dark matter and stardust and spacetime and quark gluon plasma

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:17:00 No.9757873 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
A chair made of a weak material

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:19:03 No.9757881 Report

Quoted By: >>9757886

>>9757819
>>9757802
A very very high temperature chair

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:20:33 No.9757886 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757881
A chair made of the heliocentric model

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:26:58 No.9757900 Report

Quoted By: >>9757903

>>9757775
Chairs solve a human problem. Atoms solve a _____ problem ???

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO WKU exhibit.jpg, 361KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:27:37 No.9757902 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
A chair made of art.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:28:42 No.9757903 Report

Quoted By: >>9757912 >>9758828

>>9757900
Atoms solve a material existence problem, you dumb shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:28:56 No.9757905 Report

Quoted By: >>9761236

>>9757802
A chair the size of a building.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO wtf_am_i_reading...jpg, 16KiB, 304x217

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:31:01 No.9757912 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757903
>Atoms solve a material existence problem

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:34:40 No.9757917 Report

Quoted By: >>9757925 >>9757942 >>9757998 >>9758001 >>9758074

you're a fucking "philosopher" right?
I can smell it on you. This is some kind of dumb ass shit a philosopher major would say

Philosophy is for idiots who want to impress other idiots.
I don't have patience for this
"but what is it really, how do your really know"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:38:30 No.9757925 Report

Quoted By: >>9757936 >>9757937 >>9757943 >>9761154 >>9761196 >>9762299

>>9757917
Ok smartass. Answer this then. If atoms are 99.999999999999% empty space, then what is the rest?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:42:18 No.9757936 Report

Quoted By: >>9757976

>>9757925
Interactions between atoms, which are proportional in strength to $\frac{1}{r^2}$ and as such are ridiculously strong when they get close to each other

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO standard-model-of-fundamental-pa (...).jpg, 467KiB, 1500x1137

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:42:29 No.9757937 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757925

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:44:27 No.9757942 Report

Quoted By: >>9757994

>>9757917
>doesn't realise that theoretical science is just a branch of metaphysics that uses mathematics rather than formal logic to produce its models

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 21:45:01 No.9757943 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757925
Protons, electrons, and neutrons. And those are made of quarks. We don't know what's below that, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything there.
You're the type of prick who says "well actually, there's no such thing as X because everything is made of atoms." Pull your head out of your ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:02:07 No.9757975 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757775
A structure purpose-built for humans to sit on, with a back to lean against.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:02:09 No.9757976 Report

Quoted By: >>9758013

>>9757936
So it's empty space and interactions between empty space? I appreciate that interactions may be the driving force but interactions of what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:09:05 No.9757990 Report

Quoted By: >>9757992 >>9757996

>>9757675
Why must everything observed by an electron microscope be coated in gold/ a conductive material? Isn't all that's being observed resistance in this case?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:10:41 No.9757992 Report

Quoted By: >>9758015

>>9757990
stop trying to say this in every atom thread like its true

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_SEM_equipment_which_do_not_need_gold_coating

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:11:17 No.9757994 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757942
>manipulating empirical mathematical relations is metaphysics

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:12:19 No.9757996 Report

Quoted By: >>9758015

>>9757990
It doesn't. The conductive coating is for electron dissipation. I've done SEM on fully organic samples. You just have to be quick about capturing images. If you leave the beam on for too long in one place, you burn a hole in your sample.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:13:20 No.9757998 Report

Quoted By: >>9758011

>>9757917
all science is fundamentally based on philosophy, you have no argument. If you do have an argument then please explain the position of your:

>secularized metaphysics
>AKA religion

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:14:11 No.9758001 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757917
classic pleb. you are just angry because you can't provide an answer that allows itself to be understood in a broader sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:19:46 No.9758011 Report

Quoted By: >>9758014 >>9758040 >>9760354 >>9760361

>>9757998
>science is fundamentally based on philosophy
nope, there are philosophies that apply to sciences but philosophy isn't required to conduct an experiment, write down results, adjust the experiment, write down results, repeat, write a paper.
just because science started off as "natural philosophy" a very long time ago doesn't mean one needs the other

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:20:09 No.9758013 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757976
They're point particles (Absolutely zero volume, literally a point in space) and the effects of their presence, as far as you're concerned unless you want to get into quantum mechanics, where the "99.99999999% empty space" situation doesn't really apply anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:20:46 No.9758014 Report

Quoted By: >>9758038 >>9761080

>>9758011
Wrong. Philosophy is so ingrained in you you don't even recognize it anymore. What do you suppose gives you the motivation to do the experiment?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:21:18 No.9758015 Report

Quoted By: >>9758030

>>9757992
>>9757996

>alter thing you're looking at
>say it was never altered and pretend nothings is wrong

Fucking smart.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:22:30 No.9758018 Report

Quoted By: >>9758027 >>9758054

>>9757556
Do you know what a dog is? In the sense that you know what a dog is, science knows what an atom is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:24:22 No.9758027 Report

Quoted By: >>9758043 >>9758050 >>9758053 >>9758058 >>9761088

>>9758018
Come to think of it, no, I really don't. What is a dog?

Any label you use to describe a dog, can't be the real dog. So what is a dog?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:26:13 No.9758030 Report

Quoted By: >>9758057

>>9758015
We don't claim it was never altered by the electron beam. But we do understand when and how the beam alters the sample, so we can avoid damaging it and getting an erroneous image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:27:05 No.9758038 Report

Quoted By: >>9758046 >>9758082

>>9758014
My brain that by natural selection has a compulsion to know about the environment around me because knowing more about it gave me certain advantages to put my genes into the next generation over the caveman next to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:27:21 No.9758040 Report

Quoted By: >>9758054

>>9758011
>nope
Read a book, nigger.
>philosophy isn't required to conduct an experiment
If you cannot even comprehend what classifies as a "thing" you have no place doing experiments since all you're doing is reinforcing a flawed hypothesis and parroting what previous experiments parroted to you. A massive circle jerk in other words.

>write down results, repeat, write a paper.
"junk science"
>just because science started off as "natural philosophy" a very long time ago doesn't mean one needs the other
Both metaphysics and physics relies on observations so I don't think this has changed. You might call it something else, but words and definitions have changed before and will most certainly change again, especially with dumbasses like you around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:29:58 No.9758043 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758027
Nietzsche was a mistake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:30:23 No.9758046 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758038
Yeah, or, we can use the Occam's laser to figure out that in fact as humans we have the intellectual capacity to derive desires from philosophy and not simply instinct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:30:53 No.9758050 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758027
>it’s a babby’s first philosophy class episode

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:31:39 No.9758053 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758027
and that's the point, we can't know "what" anything is in such a strong sense. So you have to be more specific in your question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:31:41 No.9758054 Report

Quoted By: >>9758071 >>9758077

>>9758040
>just because science started off as "natural philosophy" a very long time ago doesn't mean one needs the other
>Both metaphysics and physics relies on observations so I don't think this has changed. You might call it something else, but words and definitions have changed before and will most certainly change again, especially with dumbasses like you around.

okay guy keep arguing over what a "thing" is and while you are at it, you and >>9758018 can argue over what a "dog" is. which is what I would consider an actual massive circle jerk
while actual scientists are producing results

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:32:32 No.9758057 Report

Quoted By: >>9758066 >>9758067 >>9759568

>>9758030
>We don't claim it was never altered by the electron beam
Well I guess that settles that then.

>But we do understand when and how the beam alters the sample, so we can avoid damaging it and getting an erroneous image.

You morons don't even know if an electron exists or not, don't give me that baloney. Go ahead and mention how oil drops "prove" their existence so I can laugh at the fallacy of believing that permeability, permittivity, motion, and resistance equals weight/"mass".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:32:33 No.9758058 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758027
I hope you're too young to vote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:34:19 No.9758066 Report

Quoted By: >>9758080 >>9758085

>>9758057
Are... are you saying that electrons are a hoax?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:34:31 No.9758067 Report

Quoted By: >>9758085

>>9758057
yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:36:41 No.9758071 Report

Quoted By: >>9758075 >>9758076 >>9761094

>>9758054
it's not a circlejerk. the point is the question is spurious. we know what an atom is in the sense that we can point to and model one, and use it to model other things. Our model of the atom even includes building blocks for the atom, and building blocks for those building blocks. But what are those building blocks? As far as we know, they just ARE. There's always a limit to empirical understanding.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1523819963811.jpg, 40KiB, 600x532

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:38:01 No.9758074 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757917
>being this much of a STEM-tard brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:38:18 No.9758075 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758071
i.e. eventually you arrive at a phenomenon you can only define in reference to itself

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO smoking-pipe.jpg, 46KiB, 580x300

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:38:58 No.9758076 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758071
Wow. Someone gets it

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 005[1].jpg, 223KiB, 2047x788

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:39:04 No.9758077 Report

Quoted By: >>9758286

>>9758054
>okay guy keep arguing over what a "thing" is and while you are at it
There is no argument you moron. There are no "things" except the one rationally divided. How do you define "x" when "x" is never at rest, always changing and in motion. How do you define a whole that isn't actually whole? You don't, unless you have a psychosis.

>while actual scientists are producing results
Theories and conjured up equations=/= producing results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:39:32 No.9758080 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758066
about once a day it does

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:40:44 No.9758082 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758038
well, isn't that just the point? it's not exactly natural selection if 'science' only started maybe 500 years ago and has become more refined since. so clearly there's philosophical development underneath that you haven't learned. granted, you don't necessarily have to learn it in order to participate in the results of that philosophy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:41:49 No.9758085 Report

Quoted By: >>9758088 >>9758092 >>9758102

>>9758066
Are you saying that magical particles are bouncing around in and out of existence like phantom pool balls? Go ahead and mention you're little oil drop experiment so I can destroy that flawed hypothesis experiment.

>>9758067
So is it just you forcing this meme or what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:44:43 No.9758088 Report

Quoted By: >>9758091

>>9758085
okay all glorious oracle of knowledge what do you propose is there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:46:28 No.9758091 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758088
>okay all glorious oracle of knowledge what do you propose is there?

Yes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:46:32 No.9758092 Report

Quoted By: >>9758094 >>9758109

>>9758085
You're right. Electrons are made up. Feel free to stick a fork in an electrical outlet to confirm.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO heehee.jpg, 32KiB, 700x747

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:48:10 No.9758094 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758092
>tfw phantom pool balls hit the prostate

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:53:08 No.9758102 Report

Quoted By: >>9758109

>>9758085
the only meme here is whateve kooky electronless version of the universe you imagine we live in

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 22:59:58 No.9758109 Report

Quoted By: >>9758116 >>9758124 >>9758147

>>9758092
electricity/magnetism=/=electrons

>>9758102
Certainly not the one with fantasy "particles" flying all about for no reason whatsoever.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Insulting.png, 86KiB, 500x501

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:04:54 No.9758116 Report

Quoted By: >>9758120

>>9758109
You aren't even trying anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:07:54 No.9758120 Report

Quoted By: >>9758129 >>9758130 >>9758283

>>9758116
You aren't even arguing anymore. Do you actually believe electricity works like water in a pipe? Do you think that "electrons" are flowing through a solid copper line like candy through a pez dispenser?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:11:26 No.9758124 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758109
>fantasy "particles"
yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:13:51 No.9758129 Report

Quoted By: >>9758155

>>9758120
Those two behave very differently though, fluids have all sorts of properties like turbulence and pressure, none of which apply to electric currents. Your understanding of the electron model seems to be deeply flawed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:14:11 No.9758130 Report

Quoted By: >>9758155

>>9758120
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4719v3
Pretty much brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:20:28 No.9758147 Report

Quoted By: >>9758152

>>9758109
I would also enjoy an explanation of acidity

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:26:20 No.9758152 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758147
That's a chemical reaction involving the acidic molecules' hydrogen atoms reacting with other compounds, usually breaking them up and settling into a lower energy state. Perfectly consistent with particles existing, and actually best explained by that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:27:23 No.9758155 Report

Quoted By: >>9758178 >>9758187

>>9758129
>Those two behave very differently though
Precisely. All electricity is is a hybrid of magnetism and dielectricity, a perturbation to be more specific.

>>9758130
>"A longitudinal (scalar) wave traveling..."
Discarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:37:49 No.9758178 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758155
>Two things are different
>Therefore they must be different in the exact way that supports my claims

No.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Wojak.png, 9KiB, 645x773

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:44:30 No.9758187 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758155
Every great leader needs followers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 21 May 2018 23:44:41 No.9758189 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
Tiny ping pong balls

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 00:58:24 No.9758283 Report

Quoted By: >>9760069

>>9758120
Not him but actually water in a pipe is a pretty good analog for electricity. There are lots of differences in the physics but if you wanted to teach both at macro level to a child your best bet would be with some clear pipes and glitter to see the movement of the water.
Voltage is analogous to pressure
current is analogous to flow rate
resistance is analogous to friction

voltage source = pump
Resistors = tubes with high friction/small diameter.
Capacitors = springy barriers like a balloon or something
Inductors = pump/propeller hooked up to a flywheel
switches = valves
Diodes = one way pressure valves

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 01:01:33 No.9758286 Report

Quoted By: >>9760069

>>9758077
Just wanted to appreciate this meme.
It is really good.

The Lord

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ACES___hd5fe24egwhrdfwer3ret87fr (...).png, 258KiB, 836x862

The Lord Tue 22 May 2018 01:06:56 No.9758297 Report

Quoted By: >>9758653

>>9757556
>I've recently been pointed out that no one in the scientific community can actually explain what atoms are.
Atoms are bound energy states. The hydrogen atom is an exactly solvable one.
>pic related
>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 01:18:48 No.9758314 Report

Quoted By: >>9758321

>>9757556
sci is so easy to troll

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 01:22:13 No.9758321 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758314
Agreed and the trolling isn't even funny, it's just mind numbing.
I need to take a break from this board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 04:03:14 No.9758611 Report

Quoted By:

I remember asking dumb “philosophy” questions like that once. “What are doors, really?”

Trolls should be perma banned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 04:42:48 No.9758653 Report

Quoted By: >>9758679

>>9758297
>The hydrogen atom is an exactly solvable one.
only if you limit it to the electron orbital, and only if it's a single isolated hydrogen atom.

The Lord

The Lord Tue 22 May 2018 05:07:34 No.9758679 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758653
i agree

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 05:11:54 No.9758681 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
This question is about unreasonable standards and expectations for knowledge and explanation. Within the philosophy of science, we are happy and content with the current explanation of what atoms are. In more esoteric or introspective branches of metaphysical philosophy, perhaps not - but in those branches, knowing is not the point of the endeavor, so that too is not a problem.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO F0E2BE3F-8C73-46F7-B022-8B85D3E0 (...).gif, 464KiB, 255x184

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 08:33:15 No.9758828 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757903
Top JeJ

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 10:20:07 No.9758935 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
Atoms are a higher component of a wider model, anything you think you know about them is probably just antiquated analogies and not the real model, let alone real reality. You can take some semi-realist position but unless you are proficient in the material it's best if you simply think of physics as approximate models and not reality. As you've yet the ability to take up more realist views.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 12:38:58 No.9759071 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757717
Faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 18:00:05 No.9759568 Report

Quoted By: >>9760069

>>9758057
>You morons don't even know if an electron exists or not
You can come up with much better baits anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 19:07:15 No.9759708 Report

Quoted By: >>9761236

>>9757802
A chair made of hair

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 20:28:37 No.9759955 Report

Quoted By:

atoms don't actually exist, everything is a massive ocean of energy. atoms and particles don't truly exist. they are just abstractions that we deal with. this is quantum. we break up the world but it is actually whole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 20:30:01 No.9759959 Report

Quoted By: >>9760083

>>9757556
particle cluster, nothing else

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 20:30:10 No.9759960 Report

Quoted By: >>9759968 >>9760069

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1518650556650.jpg, 30KiB, 657x539

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 20:32:28 No.9759968 Report

Quoted By:

>>9759960

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 21:16:55 No.9760069 Report

Quoted By: >>9760087 >>9760096 >>9760286 >>9760618

>>9758283
>Not him but actually water in a pipe is a pretty good analog for electricity. There are lots of differences in the physics but if you wanted to teach both at macro level to a child your best bet would be with some clear pipes and glitter to see the movement of the water.

Sure, just as long as you clarify that a "wave of water" is not a thing nor does it make the water travel. Nothing is traveling in anything electrical, it's a perturbation.

>>9758286
"Ze particle is BOTH a wave AND a particle" -t. delusional patent office worker who never invented anything.

>>9759568
There is no empirical evidence of any made up "particle". Yes the burden of proof lies on you.

>>9759960
>atoms and particles don't truly exist
>this is quantum
>i.e. Quantity
>Quantity of things that don't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 21:25:59 No.9760083 Report

Quoted By:

>>9759959
What are particles?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 21:29:25 No.9760087 Report

Quoted By: >>9760119

>>9760069
i never said they didn't exist, I tried to convey that they don't truly exist as objects. you cannot deny the nature of the existing energy, which is a conjoined sea of waves at the more fundamental level. the energy very much exists.
we divide up the world but it is not so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 21:31:08 No.9760096 Report

Quoted By: >>9760119

>>9760069
Seek mental help guy

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 21:45:47 No.9760119 Report

Quoted By: >>9760154 >>9760252 >>9760324

>>9760087
>You cannot deny the nature of the existing energy, which is a conjoined sea of waves at the more fundamental level.

A wave is what something does, not what something is.

>>9760096
Seek how to make an argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:02:45 No.9760154 Report

Quoted By: >>9760170

>>9760119
>It doesn't exist because I disagree with that definition of existence

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:07:25 No.9760170 Report

Quoted By: >>9760187 >>9761109

>>9760154
No. I said;
"There is no empirical evidence of any made up "particle". Yes the burden of proof lies on you".

Now prove it you dodging scarecrow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:13:40 No.9760187 Report

Quoted By: >>9760191 >>9760227

>>9760170
No, the burden of proof is on you to explain what happens in alpha decay if there are no particles. That's just about the latest point in history where the idea of particles is at all controversial, so do tell us what your alternate model is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:17:11 No.9760191 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760187
This. Gtfo OP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:35:29 No.9760227 Report

Quoted By: >>9760301

>>9760187
>No, the burden of proof is on you to explain what happens in alpha decay if there are no particles.

Another dodge. You can't give me any empirical evidence of a particle because there is none, you can only explain things using descriptions of made up particles. "uh I uh Alpha Decay, Alpha particles.decays". No. I want empirical evidence of a particle. Do it faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO fea.png, 82KiB, 1300x892

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:39:03 No.9760229 Report

Quoted By:

Daily reminder

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 22:53:40 No.9760252 Report

Quoted By: >>9760271

>>9760119
As a rule I dont argue with the delusional and the uneducated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:01:15 No.9760271 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760252
>can't even form an argument against the "delusion" and "uneducated".

But it's really easy, just look at what I'm doing to you. So either:
a.counter what I said.
b.continue appealing to an authority which you haven't even stated.
c.keep making yourself look stupid by giving me (you)'s and making the most unscientific remarks possible on a science board.
or
d.GTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:08:09 No.9760286 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760069
>There is no empirical evidence of any made up "particle".
yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:15:16 No.9760301 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760227
Tell me what you mean by "empirical evidence" for a start. Is an experiment performed by multiple people across the globe, with well-documented results and clearly defined methodology not empirical evidence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:32:43 No.9760324 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760119
i said more fundamental, not fundamental. whatever constitutes motion (think time crystals) is even more fundamental, and below that is logic at some stage.
but waves do infact build objects, but something creates the existence of waves - motion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:44:22 No.9760354 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758011
Science is just natural philosophy, you should know this if you know anything about science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:45:40 No.9760357 Report

Quoted By:

i said more fundamental, not fundamental. whatever constitutes motion (think time crystals) is even more fundamental, and below that is logic, geometry & more at some stage.
but waves do infact build objects, but something creates the existence of waves - motion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 22 May 2018 23:47:00 No.9760361 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758011
man is all measure, what are you searching for?
but yes logic does exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 01:54:14 No.9760618 Report

Quoted By: >>9760629

>>9760069
>Nothing is traveling in anything electrical
Electrons travel in a DC circuit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 02:00:51 No.9760629 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760618
Very slowly, like in the order of a few centimeters per second. The only thingt that matters is the EM signal in the wire. Not supporting him, btw. Electrons and beta particles and a variety of species of atoms unambiguously exist--and can be verified to exist emperically. This isn't the early 19th century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 04:24:44 No.9760898 Report

Quoted By: >>9763503

>>9757737
are you being facetious? if not, gr8 b8 and all, but please stop shitting up the board

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 05:36:07 No.9761025 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757556
atoms are not real. the goverment has lied to us about the shape of the earth, vaciens, and so much more. things are actualy made of diffrent types of ethers. like wood ether, air ether, fire ether, stone ether. so like lava is stone ether and fire ether combined

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ICR HOTPLATE.jpg, 30KiB, 448x336

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 05:52:49 No.9761062 Report

Quoted By: >>9763468

>IIT atoms are not real

and here I was thinking we cant sink lower than /x/.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:00:09 No.9761072 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757802
A chair made of spiders

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:03:34 No.9761080 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758014
The desire to test my hypothesis

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:07:00 No.9761088 Report

Quoted By:

>>9758027
>what is a dog?
Canis lupus familiaris, a widely distributed terrestrial carnivore first domesticated by humans 15000 years ago. They tend to enjoy liver treats and being scratched behind the ears.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:09:40 No.9761094 Report

Quoted By: >>9761127

>>9758071
>But what are those building blocks?
I believe they current hypothesis is that they are a form of super condensed energy but don't quote me on that, it's been a while since I did any serious study involving quantum physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:16:13 No.9761109 Report

Quoted By: >>9761135

>>9760170
Explain the photoelectric effect then nerd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:22:30 No.9761127 Report

Quoted By:

>>9761094
yes but what is energy? At some point you just have to accept that some basic thing IS -- you can only define it in terms of itself. And so while in the sense that most people would agree that they know what a dog is, we know what an atom is, we don't know what an atom is in some absolute sense (because in this sense we don't really know what ANYTHING is)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:24:06 No.9761135 Report

Quoted By:

>>9761109
THE FIRE ETHER IN THE LIGHT

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:34:31 No.9761154 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757925
aether, subatomic plasma of neutrinos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 06:53:27 No.9761196 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757925
Wrong. It is the aether.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 07:05:09 No.9761222 Report

Quoted By:

And the eternal battle rages on...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 07:14:51 No.9761236 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757905
>>9759708
Wrong. You can use these as chairs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 23 May 2018 19:07:02 No.9762299 Report

Quoted By:

>>9757925
Magneto-Dielectricity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 May 2018 03:34:34 No.9763468 Report

Quoted By:

>>9761062
I honestly don't think that atoms or physics are actually real and that it is actually just God's thoughts given form. I know it isn't "scientific" but science is limited. I still believe in science though I just think God is real and that God actually actively "creates" the universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 24 May 2018 04:04:39 No.9763503 Report

Quoted By:

>>9760898
>says the guy who claims electrons dont exist

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches