Threads by latest replies - Page 997
(6 replies)
(23 replies)
(46 replies)
>there's no hard evidence for electrons
>neutrons don't even exist kek
>string theory is full of shit
>the concept of "matter" doesn't mean anything
>complex numbers are completely made-up
But that doesn't stop the hords of faggots scraming "muh science!!!!", "stand up for science!!!!"
>neutrons don't even exist kek
>string theory is full of shit
>the concept of "matter" doesn't mean anything
>complex numbers are completely made-up
But that doesn't stop the hords of faggots scraming "muh science!!!!", "stand up for science!!!!"
(5 replies)
For homework, I need to develop the make an formula to switch from acetone to propan-2-ol with dihydrogene. Thanks for your help !
(495 replies)
How do modern physicists justify the fact that any available systems of modeling the universe (big bang, quantum foam, string theory, ZFC, other set theory, chaos, game theory, whatever) are all built on a system of numeration that, at its origin level, is built on the contradictory logic -0=0?
This core contradiction results in a deductive explosion via the law of explosion that yields infinite truths within the numeration process that allow infinite patterns, infinite forms, and infinite potential physics models via infinite symbolic numerical representations (the simplest of which being binary, 0 and 1), so when you are using numbers you are basically just playing memory games with shapes, not necessarily accurately modeling reality.
Their most reasonable physical explanation at a beginning of the universe is just a reflection of mathematically setting an absolute finite origin that is its own negation, a contradiction unto itself, resulting in a limit to the absolute smallest physicists could ever physically justify. This limit means physicist can just tell an illogical beginning myth most reasonably categorized as some random explosion or infinite inflation, due to using numeration to arbitrarily differentiate 0 from 1, preceded by an undefined state, -0=0, because their physical model is just the result of a logical deductive explosion derived from contradictory origin point logic and an arbitrary separation of 100% from 0% via the illogical process of numeration.
This core contradiction results in a deductive explosion via the law of explosion that yields infinite truths within the numeration process that allow infinite patterns, infinite forms, and infinite potential physics models via infinite symbolic numerical representations (the simplest of which being binary, 0 and 1), so when you are using numbers you are basically just playing memory games with shapes, not necessarily accurately modeling reality.
Their most reasonable physical explanation at a beginning of the universe is just a reflection of mathematically setting an absolute finite origin that is its own negation, a contradiction unto itself, resulting in a limit to the absolute smallest physicists could ever physically justify. This limit means physicist can just tell an illogical beginning myth most reasonably categorized as some random explosion or infinite inflation, due to using numeration to arbitrarily differentiate 0 from 1, preceded by an undefined state, -0=0, because their physical model is just the result of a logical deductive explosion derived from contradictory origin point logic and an arbitrary separation of 100% from 0% via the illogical process of numeration.
(5 replies)
Stoner's Stupid Theory
No.14148393 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>14148410 >>14148413 >>14148424
Right so what if something is faster than light. I'm thinking gravity. I heard about a hypothetical quantum particle called graviton that applies the force of gravity or something like that. What if those graviton particles are able to travel faster than photons. This is just a wild shot in the dark by an armchair physicist feel free to call me a retard, it's deserved.
(17 replies)
Why are university ppl so incredibly stupid?
Is lack of self awareness a requirement for participating in the higher education industry?
Is lack of self awareness a requirement for participating in the higher education industry?
(5 replies)
Why is purity an acknowledged concept across all cultures?
No.14146087 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Quoted By: >>14146097 >>14146103 >>14148020
(10 replies)
be a scientist
>have to do months or even years of research to even publish a single article all for almost no pay
>reviewers, your fellow scientists do charity work for the publisher for free
Be Chad publisher
>do nothing
>content is flowing to you for no effort
>they are actually competing to get printed by you
>you don't even pay them
>they just want the ego boost of having their article being printed in your funny book
>you then sell that book for hundreds of dollars per unit
>have cuck reviewers who do it for free like they are 4chan janitors
>earn infinitely more money in a year than any loser scientist will see in his lifetime
Imagine being a soientist lol
>have to do months or even years of research to even publish a single article all for almost no pay
>reviewers, your fellow scientists do charity work for the publisher for free
Be Chad publisher
>do nothing
>content is flowing to you for no effort
>they are actually competing to get printed by you
>you don't even pay them
>they just want the ego boost of having their article being printed in your funny book
>you then sell that book for hundreds of dollars per unit
>have cuck reviewers who do it for free like they are 4chan janitors
>earn infinitely more money in a year than any loser scientist will see in his lifetime
Imagine being a soientist lol
(5 replies)
What causes this phenomenon?
