https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/
Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.If you want help with your homework, go to /wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.
Previously >>10637606I've been thinking about getting into algebraic surfaces edition.
>>10663481
You know it's 5am so I guess I'll wait until I'm fully awake and rework the question.
>>10663481Yes, you can just rotate it any number of degrees less than 180.>>10663537WAKE UP ANON I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.
What kind of maths projects have you done in your spare time?
>>10663481Yes, proof: use the set of equations { y = x/n : n integer >= 1} as example.
Hello /sci/. I tried asking in /biz/ but there's too much buzz around cryptocurrency right now to ask a serious question there, and /sci/ might actually be a better place for this question anyways.I have a novel idea to create a new industrial chemical product with a wide swath of positive traits for the liquid transport fuels market. The product has a strong positive effect on:Carbon emissionslocalized SOx/NOx, ozone forming compounds, PM (all sizes)localized economieswaste reductionmy idea is the IP surrounding small scale, decentralized industrial processing to create this product. The baseline input/output balance looks quite lucrative on paper. I've poured over every paper I can get my hands on surrounding the topic, and the science seems sound. The issue lies here; I quit my [engineering] job last summer to give a go at freelancing. Things are going ok, but I'm struggling as it is to keep enough work volume to support my family. I cannot afford to take after this endeavor entirely alone, especially since this will require a pilot project to prove the tech out and make sure it looks as good in reality as it does on paper.how in the fuck do I finance this? No way I'll be able to borrow enough capital on my own, especially considering my lackluster personal finance situation. Where do I go? Who do I talk to? Do I just look for angel investors? Do I try to go the formal route and try for federal (U.S.) grants? Do I have to just sell the idea? If so, who the fuck do I talk to about this?Frankly this is a subject I'm extremely passionate about, and I see serious potential to improve the world and make money doing it - I need to figure out how to make this work.
dunno didn't read
>>10662132:Canon I need help
>>10662127For the record I don't have any clue how to go about that, but if I were in your shoes...Step 1: Write out the synthesis/production method for this "new industrial chemical product" you believe has value, assuming someone hasn't monopolized it yet.Step 2: Verify it works BEFORE pumping significant money to it, but don't post it online. Find a chemist with a degree irl, and ask for a moment of his time.Step 3: If he actually bothers to read over it and sees nothing wrong with it, hire a professional to make a micro quantity of it.Test it for your intended purpose and gather proof.Step 4: Patent the idea.Step 5: Two options: 1) Sell the patented idea to a corp by setting up a meeting showcasing your product and how it can make them money/help the environment. (Best bet)2) Gather the money to start a business, keeping in mind it could fail at any moment. I doubt a fundraiser is going to help with the cost for something like that. Nobody will invest in it. A loan, just make sure you can pay it off as a fail safe.
>>10662821>step 1complete>step 2/step3I guess this is where I'm struggling.I actually don't need a chemist (I'm skilled enough that I can handle this myself). I can certainly grab some feedstock and crude chemicals and do it in some 55 gallon drums in the back of my house. I'm actually very skilled in testing as well. The issue arises in cost. It will be fairly cost intensive, even for the "bucket & stopwatch method" style of production that I would do to test it. I could see the equipment costing me a few thousand dollars (2-3k USD), and there will undoubtedly need to be some laboratory samples which will be a few hundred a pop. And the chemistry I would say is 90% proved out in acedemia - the real value comes in the commercialization of the process, which is undoubtedly the hard part (and also the part I think I have handled). This requires a pilot plant at some appreciable scale, unfortunately and these get expensive, especially since you're going to go through multiple iterations of custom fabricated equipment to "fine tune" the processes.Long story short, I'm certain I couldn't handle the financial portion of it myself, let alone could "still be able to pay it off" if it fails. No way in hell. As I'm typing this out though, there could be the possibility of doing it "backyard" style and still getting a patent, at which point I could approach a corporation.
>>10662127>I quit my [engineering] job last summer to give a go at freelancing>struggling as it is to keep enough work volume to support my familyare you out of your bloody mind
Help a brainlet here, /sci/Is the cosmic horizon a true, physical section of the universe past which space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light, therefore ending in absolute nothingness that cannot be crossed by any traveler or is it a mathematical point after which -looking from any given point in the universe- the expansion of the furthest reaches causes light to never be able to reach us, rendering a traveler able to journey past their "original" cosmic horizon as this mathematical horizon exists in mathematics but not in real life?I cannot wrap my head around the idea of infinitely expanding space from any given point in the universe, as this would mean that the "infinite" section of the universe is different for us than for Andromeda, still rendering this infinity achievable with enough travel time.
>>10662133Thanks.>>10662135Would that, then, mean that a traveler at the mid point between our center -us- and our cosmic horizon would be casually connected to a galaxy we cannot possibly be casually connected to? If we traveled to that mid point, would that third galaxy -the one which wasn't originally casually connected to us- be, then, casually connected to us? In other words, if we were to travel in the direction of our cosmic horizon, would -in theory- new galaxies appear and, once the expansion of the universe has affected everything past our local group, we would be travelling forever unless the speed of light were to reached? Would our galaxy, in such a case, be forever casually connected to us or would it, eventually, also fade into the point of infinite expansion behind us?
>>10662040>radius of [speed of light]*[age of universe]That's in a static universe. Expansion of space over the lifetime of the universe makes it bigger. >>10662183You have to take time into account with causal relations. Look up Penrose diagrams.The present mid point is causally connected to past us and to past distant galaxies we can't ever causally connect with. If we traveled there that would take time, we'd arrive at the future mid point which would be causally connected to present us but disconnected from present distant galaxies.>would -in theory- new galaxies appearNor from beyond the horizon.>Would our galaxy, in such a case, be forever casually connected to usThe past of our galaxy has to remain in causal contact (since it's where we came from) but if you move away from it then with expansion its present/future and yours would eventually causally disconnect.
>>10662677>The past of our galaxy has to remain in causal contact (since it's where we came from) but if you move away from it then with expansion its present/future and yours would eventually causally disconnect.Would a return to our galaxy after the disconnection be possible?>Nor from beyond the horizon.I cannot understand. Wouldn't we see -future- galaxies we could not see at our original Milky Way start point if we traveled 8 billion light years -in any direction-? I understand that, in such a case, those galaxies would be their 8-billion-year-old images yet we would be causally connected to a -past- event we were not causally connected to in the Milky Way.This may be a silly proposition but, if the Andromeda galaxy took a picture of a distant galaxy at the edge of their cosmic horizon and sent it to us, would that not mean we can study this galaxy past our cosmic horizon? I understand it would be a picture of an 8-billion-year-old galaxy with a delay of 2 million years to reach us, but, in this case, we would still be able to "see" past our cosmic horizon. What's more, wouldn't this photographer be able to -with time- reach this distant galaxy at a speed slower than light while we would have to travel faster than light to do so? This final proposition is the one I cannot even begin to understand.
>>10662752>Would a return to our galaxy after the disconnection be possible?No.>we would be causally connected to a -past- event we were not causally connected to in the Milky Way.Causal connection depends on both space and time, basically events are causally connected if they're inside each others' light cones. I think you're imagining a static non-expanding universe. In that case there would be no cosmic horizon. With enough time any signal could travel between any two positions so the extreme distant future milky way would be causally connected to all past galaxies in the universe. With expansion the distance increases with time and at some range the distance is increasing by more than light speed so you get the causal horizon.With Andromeda if they sent us a photo then the photo would have to be of something we're causally connected to, which would be the past distant galaxy. With expansion the distant galaxy will have moved, going over the horizon and losing causal contact with us at some point in its history.When the Andromeda photographer takes the photo that's causal contact between present Andromeda and the distant past of the distant galaxy, but with 8 billion years of expansion the present distant galaxy will have gone beyond Andromeda's horizon and will not be reachable.
>>10662919>With expansion the distance increases with time and at some range the distance is increasing by more than light speed so you get the causal horizon.This is what makes me not understand. If any point in the universe has its own cosmic horizon, wouldn't this mean that the photographer in Andromeda would be able to reach galaxies -at subluminal speeds- we would be forced to travel to at superluminal speeds?What you are saying is that, as far as we currently understand astrophysics, we will find a hard boundary past which human expansion will be impossible -the isolation of the local group-?
how the hell does this work? I've been feeling like a retard all class because everyone says its easy but I just don't seem to grasp it? I get how many electrons belong on each shell, but wtf does this shit mean all jumbled up together??
>>10662524They have, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about. It's never an exact solution but it is incredibly close to emprical measurement
>>10662651lmfao no you retard. it's quite literally impossible because it's a N-body problem
>>10660628>if youre doing chemistry you probably dont want the answer to thatt. physicist
>>10662653You really don't understand, buddy
>>10663611>multivariable calculusaw fuk bye
what is the opposite of gravity??
>>10663528Dark energy
>>10663528Anti-gravity
>>10663528Slim Shady
>>10663528Get bent
The more I learn about science the more obvious it is that the galaxy is teeming with life. However, it has also become increasingly obvious that life capable of technological feats on a galactic level almost certainly does not exist.We are almost certainly going to be wiped out on this rock or shortly after if we ever attempt to leave. The technological feats required to overcome the vastness and harshness of space are simply too great for 99.99% of life out there to ever achieve.
>>10663003First of all I'd like you to show me any kind of proof that random interaction of molecules can at least theoretically give rise to aminoacids, the building blocks of life, all by themselves.Second of all, even if it happened like that it still doesn't change what I said, given enough time the chance for these random interactions to happen is still 100%.>all speculationLet's say I have a dice with 10^10^10^210 sides, the chance for the dice to show 1 from a single throw is basically 0 but if you let me throw the dice as many times as I want for however much time I want the chance of the dice to show 1 at least once is already 100%.There is no being saying "Well I already created life on that planet so I won't create any here.". Every single planet has it's own thing going for it, each planet has it's own natural processes that have a chance to create life independently to each other. Also, no planet have just one chance to create life and if they don't they lose that chance, every planet has a chance to create life for as long as it exists.If anything the chances that there are 0 other planets with life on them other than ours is really low.
>>10660984
>>10660984I too am fascinated by this. I can't remember the name of it, but a long time ago I read a scifi novel about a science team that was studying massive, slow moving creatures that existed in the upper layers of a gas giant. They would occasionally fly up and suck in light gasses, hold them in a bladder of sorts, and use the gas to float through lower layers.
>>10662848You're the one being stupid and arrogant. I'm not saying aliens definitely don't exist, I just think it's interesting how all pop science faggots say they do know aliens exist.>Or it's because they're smart?Or it's because they were raised by Hollywood?With our current knowledge both options are 100% possible. Don't (you) me.
>>10663595See >>10662895The statistics are literally in favor for there actually being aliens out there. If anything, you must be crazy to think there aren't any aliens out there.
Is it true?
>>10662563>all movement is sound>we are sound-stuff>our every motion is the music of the stars>we are the universe trying to hear itself
>>10662551>>10662566>>10662569>>10662572>>10662639>>10662963>>10663217The absolute fucking state of /sci/
>>10662551The stick doesn't travel from your hand to the one you poke, the stick is traveling at the same distance as your hand.Doesn't matter if the stick is 10 lightyears long or 10 centimetres long, it still travels at the speed of whatever pushes it.This is like those shitty troll science things, how could you not understand something this simple?
>>10663217When you think about it all movement is waves just like all signals are waves, via fourier transforms etc. If you break it down this way you can see exactly how much of your motion is sound, how much is radio, etc.
>>10663474The issue with this is that, if the force transmitted instantly, this would imply faster than light communication and break causality. As some anons pointed out, for any real material the speed of transmission of force through it is the speed of sound in that medium. However, the maximum theoretical rate of force transfer, independent of medium, is the speed of light.
Mathematically speaking, what is the optimal number of fingers should be on each hand if the trade-off is between mass (bulkiness) and dexterity?Will we eventually genetically engineer ourselves to have more than 5 fingers on each hand?
>>10662773Yes they can move independently
>>10662773No. Polydactyly does not result usable extra fingers. Even "proper" looking extra digits lack tendons (and as such cannot be moved) and lack the nervous connections to the brain that a finger normally has (and as such cannot be moved). They're effectively growths of bone, skin, and fat that happen to look like fingers.
>>10662911Firefly larva
>>10663535Well, that worked well enough for Steven Hawking.
>>10663535http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/6807/1/DD-DR%20preprint.pdf"The research published to datesuggests that cognitive impairment is more prevalent among persons with lower limbamputations than in the general population, and is linked with a number of importantoutcomes in this patient group, including mobility, prosthesis use, and maintenance ofindependence following amputation."Go home.
Nasa has said they're going to the moon, you can find a video on it here (more like a commercial but I don't give a shit, google it if you want to find out more)
>>10662876China's super heavy lift rocket isn't planned to fly until 2030.
>>10662884SLS Block 2 is canned if I remember right.
>>10662884>Russia has 1 rocketI wonder if the USSR would have a modern super-heavy lift vehicle if they didn't collapse.
>>10663546Mir 2 would have likely been built with Energia lofting two modules with each launch, and if the USSR was still around today, we'd probably see them flying the 6-booster Energia as a no-frills super heavy lift workhorse in the same way that they fly Soyuz and Proton.What would have been really be interesting to see would be how they chose to use Buran. Remember that most of the cost of the program was already paid for at the time of the collapse, and it would have cost them relatively little to finish the other 4 orbiters. The lack of reusable engines combined with the USSR's more pragmatic safety culture means that there probably would have been a good chance of Buran being able to hit the turnaround times that NASA originally wanted for the shuttle. I don't think the USSR would have used Buran as a shuttle to/from Mir 2, as they already had Soyuz, but they probably would have used it to swap out modules and such. I could also see them using it as a recycleable Salyut/Almaz with an on-orbit endurance pushed to weeks or months and modules in the payload bay turning it into something like a manned KH-9 or Polyus. With that fast turnaround time, they could fly a constellation where two shuttles were on-orbit continuously for 6-month patrols while the other two were serviced on the ground.Now, what would have been REALLY interesting would have been if the USSR managed to build the flyback Energia in the 90s. They already had the auto-landing software down pat as Buran proved, and given how massive the USSR was, it would have been nothing to build an array of recovery runways for the boosters and the Energia core. It could have been Falcon Heavy 20 years earlier.
>>10663529Yea. Technically not canned but postponed indefinitely, which in NASA terms is as good as canned.
As a commerce student who majored in finance?
>>10663287Not a chance.
>>10663267As a math major who is dabbling into finance, I'd say that the difference between a finance major and an engineering major is equivalent to the difference between an engineering major and a math major. I'm sure most will agree.
>>10663267I'm not even entirely sure most engineering students have the ability to deal with most of the math/science of their disciplines. t. Mechanical Engineer
>>10663561Two Sigma and top quant funds in general. As for Renaissance, I would say that, given your credentials, you could get in only thanks to a miracle.Top quant funds are very competitive and they seek a particular set of competences, which someone from a finance major usually hasn't. If you are certain about the fact that you want to work only as a quant then my advice would be to do a Master in Financial Engineering at a top American university. You can find the best programs with Google. Nonetheless, given that you don't have a degree in math/physics/engineering, you will struggle a lot.
>>10663604Eh fuck it. There are so many other ways to make money. I'll probably end up starting my own business.
Guaranteed death?
>>10663463I believe most people do. Some examples- Getting an education- Buying a house- Finding a spouse- Getting a kidetc..
>>10663398We're limitied creatures and life is very hard.Everyone dies. Everyone you love is going to die. Most of the things you do - all of the things you do -will eventually fail.Suffering is a certainty and it's very easy for peopleto become resentful about being, about existence. These kids who shoot up high schools and these mass shooters,they're perfect examples of people who run on nothingbut resentment. They're out to kill the innocentbecause that's the best marker. That's the best wayof showing just how much resentment they havefor existence itself.Why punish the guilty, they deserve to be punished. It's a lot more malevolent and vengeful to punishthe innocent.People are motivated to a great degree by resentmentof being.
>>10663505they don’t actually have actionable definite plans for any of that shit usually though or grossly misjudge their own capacity to read their environment and own life/behavioral trajectories to properly create conditions for their plan to materialize.
>>10663517It can be argued that a multiyear plan needs to be inherently dynamic. But yeah, you're probably right.
>>10663374Absurd god-tech nanites aren't necessary for compelling brain changing technology.https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-terms/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/Here are some highlights from this listhttps://neurosciencenews.com/tms-addiction-cues-9055/https://neurosciencenews.com/music-brain-stimulation-7986/https://neurosciencenews.com/depression-tms-6899/
>>10663073U hav 2 turn in2 a qt girl n kiss me
>>10663073that might not be necessarily doable.it helps if:-the theorems are closely related to what you already know-you have already practiced how to make proofs by not using rote learning-sheer luck-you do the relevant exercises
>>10663073memorization isn't understanding. face it, there is no passing your final
>>10663073>halp, how do i quickly learn to play the piano, i have a recital in 2 days
should people with down syndrome be considered human?they are physically and genetically diferent and incapable of reproducing. scientifically speaking, are they human?
>>10660660/thread
>>10654369If dumb cunts like you are considered human, then yes, they are human too.
>>10662229Fuck off summerfag
>>10654369Hopefully with the rising rate of abortion for babies diagnosed with Down syndrome ~85% in US and >90% in Europe this ethical issue won't exist in a few generations. We just need to focus on providing more access to abortion in places like Africa, the Middle East, and South America. Instead of feeding these countries and allowing their population to explode, we should put our money towards subsidizing abortion and birth control.
>>10663071>wholesomeTime to go back
>mfw I just finished my last final>mfw I got an A on my final paper for the same class>mfw I finally have time to work on my research without having to split my time between that and busyworkSo how did /sci/ do this semester?Mathematical Statistics: B+Econometrics: Probably an AMacroeconomic Theory: B-Research: Still in progress, it's a multisemester project, will probably get an A.Fucking macrotheory, it was one of those classes where it's just rote memorization and the teacher or the TA used some fucked up wording on the questions.
>>10661814Yeah I'm fine now, just starting to get back on track. My fall schedule is all over the place; I don't know what I'm gonna do/take
>>10661785My father also passed away, while I'm studying in Japan. 15000 km away from my hometown. Haven't been to uni in a month this week I came back. I'm extremely depressed and I need to retake a fuck ton of courses and I'm not following along class and its difficult and its in japanese (my fourth language) and I really really want to kill myself. I'm just waiting for my grandma to pass away so I can kill myself without anyone caring help sci
>>10662804Do you need someone to talk to anon? I can't provide any profound insight but I can do my best to help.
>>10662804Grit your teeth, go through with it, think of what your father would want you to do and accomplish. Life's not over yet, keep going at it, nothing else to do kohai.
>>10661588retard
