Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:35:50 AM No.16703897
I hate physics.
Why is that?
Why is that?
Replies:
I love maths - /sci/ (#16703897) [Archived: 806 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 8:45:27 AM No.16704060
>>16703897 (OP)
i dont know
i dont know
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 12:14:03 PM No.16704105
I love physics
I hate maths
Why is that?
I hate maths
Why is that?
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:13:04 PM No.16704158
>>16703897 (OP)
Physics is just doing the job of proving that everything in the universe is made out of math at the smallest scales
Physics is just doing the job of proving that everything in the universe is made out of math at the smallest scales
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:47:28 PM No.16704188
>>16704158
It's not though. It's made of abstract entities. Math doesn't let you experience anything. Nor does it give you the "last digit" of pi.
It's not though. It's made of abstract entities. Math doesn't let you experience anything. Nor does it give you the "last digit" of pi.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:48:28 PM No.16704189
>>16703897 (OP)
physics has been jew infested since the early 20th century
physics has been jew infested since the early 20th century
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:00:44 PM No.16704200
>>16704189
without the jews, usa wouldn't have invented the atomic bomb (a different yurocountry would have done it instead). go ahead, track how many jews were in the manhattan project and led it. since you're a totally giga-based /pol/brained nazi, i'm going to assume you like history. the events of WWII are what turned USA into the de facto super power of the world. jews made USA the lovely country you support so much. without who, we'd be canada-tier. but hey, maybe that's what you want.
without the jews, usa wouldn't have invented the atomic bomb (a different yurocountry would have done it instead). go ahead, track how many jews were in the manhattan project and led it. since you're a totally giga-based /pol/brained nazi, i'm going to assume you like history. the events of WWII are what turned USA into the de facto super power of the world. jews made USA the lovely country you support so much. without who, we'd be canada-tier. but hey, maybe that's what you want.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:12:24 PM No.16704216
>>16704188
no literally when you zoom in really close everything is just made of math
quantum field excitations, probability waves.
no literally when you zoom in really close everything is just made of math
quantum field excitations, probability waves.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:39:19 PM No.16704236
>>16703897 (OP)
I think this kind of mentality is why there hasn't been any good discoveries in the past 40 years
I think this kind of mentality is why there hasn't been any good discoveries in the past 40 years
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:22:23 PM No.16704281
>>16704216
You're just repeating what you said. I already understood what you meant.
You didn't understand my post.
You're just repeating what you said. I already understood what you meant.
You didn't understand my post.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:40:12 PM No.16704291
>>16704200
shalom
shalom
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 4:27:11 PM No.16704315
>>16704281
well the last digit of pi is 6 so I don't know what you're going on about
well the last digit of pi is 6 so I don't know what you're going on about
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 4:30:46 PM No.16704318
> According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy necessary to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a precision of one atom.
I would say calculate it down to the precision of one planck length, after that it becomes meaninglessly precise.
I would say calculate it down to the precision of one planck length, after that it becomes meaninglessly precise.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 4:33:40 PM No.16704320
There you have it!
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 5:36:17 PM No.16704367
>>16703897 (OP)
Because physics is reality.
Learn a model, and you also have to learn its "weird" assumption and its seemingly randomly occurring laws, then you learn of its baffling limits and they tell you that the model completely falls apart at some point, making your research of "pure knowledge" look like some kind of waste of time.
"why didn't they teach me the CORRECT thin to begin with??"
You move on onto the next model, and the process repeats.
This is because physics is reality. We try to model using math better and better, getting as close as possible to the real thing, but a model is still just a sketch of the real (usually much more complicate) thing and so it will inevitably fall apart for the n-th time eventually.
In math, you have none of it, because math is pure abstract logic, it's correct by construction.
This doesn't help you directly understand and predict the behaviour of the real world, however: the only practical use of math is to provide instruments to more efficiently (but still approximately) model physics.
Of course if you simply like to pursue "pure logic" this is a non-issue, and instead you get annoyed and stressed at physics because of all the pesky laws, costants to remember, "unelegant" parts of a theory and mostly, the inherent approximation of the thing.
So if you feel annoyed at the "dark number" in that picture, create a better model in which all the "right" numbers come out more naturally (and prove that your model STILL describes reality just as well or better than the current thing).
But just remember: no matter how pretty your theory will look, it will almost surely end up being proven wrong in the end.
Because physics is reality.
Learn a model, and you also have to learn its "weird" assumption and its seemingly randomly occurring laws, then you learn of its baffling limits and they tell you that the model completely falls apart at some point, making your research of "pure knowledge" look like some kind of waste of time.
"why didn't they teach me the CORRECT thin to begin with??"
You move on onto the next model, and the process repeats.
This is because physics is reality. We try to model using math better and better, getting as close as possible to the real thing, but a model is still just a sketch of the real (usually much more complicate) thing and so it will inevitably fall apart for the n-th time eventually.
In math, you have none of it, because math is pure abstract logic, it's correct by construction.
This doesn't help you directly understand and predict the behaviour of the real world, however: the only practical use of math is to provide instruments to more efficiently (but still approximately) model physics.
Of course if you simply like to pursue "pure logic" this is a non-issue, and instead you get annoyed and stressed at physics because of all the pesky laws, costants to remember, "unelegant" parts of a theory and mostly, the inherent approximation of the thing.
So if you feel annoyed at the "dark number" in that picture, create a better model in which all the "right" numbers come out more naturally (and prove that your model STILL describes reality just as well or better than the current thing).
But just remember: no matter how pretty your theory will look, it will almost surely end up being proven wrong in the end.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 10:41:31 PM No.16704601
>>16703897 (OP)
you hate actual math? no surprise chud
you hate actual math? no surprise chud
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 11:58:29 PM No.16704643
>>16703897 (OP)
"Physics" is full of faggot philosophers who want to LARP as scientists to pretend their religious creation myths are scientific instead of religious in nature, like the big bang, they don't want to lose access to tax-funding to indoctrinate kids with their religion.
"Physics" is full of faggot philosophers who want to LARP as scientists to pretend their religious creation myths are scientific instead of religious in nature, like the big bang, they don't want to lose access to tax-funding to indoctrinate kids with their religion.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 1:17:42 AM No.16704698
Terrence Tao said science has 3 parts responsible for getting closer to true reality from accessed reality
Observation
Modelling
??? (something rather schizo)
Anyway math is like physics except once observations have been made and a model created, you are free to both change the law of physics and explore the consequences of the model (beyond predictions).
If you hate physics and like math you really hate the non-axiomatic foundation of math (which actually created the axioms). This puts you firmly in the third ???? realm of schizo thought experiments.
Observation
Modelling
??? (something rather schizo)
Anyway math is like physics except once observations have been made and a model created, you are free to both change the law of physics and explore the consequences of the model (beyond predictions).
If you hate physics and like math you really hate the non-axiomatic foundation of math (which actually created the axioms). This puts you firmly in the third ???? realm of schizo thought experiments.
Anonymous
6/22/2025, 1:23:21 AM No.16704705
>>16703897 (OP)
Either you really like physics but hate the current popsci focused shilling, or you're a neurotic moron.
Either you really like physics but hate the current popsci focused shilling, or you're a neurotic moron.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 5:31:10 PM No.16705720
>>16704200
Without the Jews the war wouldn't have happened to begin with, so your point is retarded.
Without the Jews the war wouldn't have happened to begin with, so your point is retarded.
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:28:18 PM No.16705800
>>16704189
>everything I'm too retarded to grasp is Teh Heckin Joos
can you explain for me why the only people that fall for retard copes like antisemitism and white supremacy are the absolute bottom dregs of our race?
>everything I'm too retarded to grasp is Teh Heckin Joos
can you explain for me why the only people that fall for retard copes like antisemitism and white supremacy are the absolute bottom dregs of our race?
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 7:31:01 PM No.16705806
>>16704643
>like the big bang
>he thinks the Big Bang is some concretely historic Event rather than a theoretical abstraction that's logically borne out of the math of astrophysics
this board is supposed to be for people with the cognitive capacity to be able to handle Abstractions
>like the big bang
>he thinks the Big Bang is some concretely historic Event rather than a theoretical abstraction that's logically borne out of the math of astrophysics
this board is supposed to be for people with the cognitive capacity to be able to handle Abstractions
Anonymous
6/23/2025, 10:38:04 PM No.16705964
>>16703897 (OP)
Physics is for me foremost, mathematics a tool of it. In this context I often think about how Max Planck resolved the ultraviolet catastrophe by calculating what would happen if light came in discrete packets, which we now call photons, and thereby invented quantum mechanics.
Physics is for me foremost, mathematics a tool of it. In this context I often think about how Max Planck resolved the ultraviolet catastrophe by calculating what would happen if light came in discrete packets, which we now call photons, and thereby invented quantum mechanics.