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.
You should be able to solve this.
>>14878501this is the right answer
>>14878545make me. chud
>>1487849464
>>1487849432 because then we look good if we ship more. Aim low and then coast. I don't even know what we're shipping, and I don't care.
>>1487849432
This theoretical physics paper apparently proves beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt that light has mass but I can't read the handwriting.Please someone explain
>proving light has mass in Newtonian physicsNot bad
>>14879206>I did notSee >>14879039In response to me asking "All of it, even set theory?" You said all of it.I did not take for a liar Johnny
>>14879256I did not. You are lying. Why do you make up strawman logical fallacies?Are you genuinely insane or do you hate science?
>>14879237Strawman logical fallacy is insane. Do you hate science ?
>>14879224You are a mentally I’ll moron who cannot face facts and so personally attacks the person presenting them. Do you hate science or are you genuinely insane?
-Wizard edition-Previous >>14795159We discuss research, DO NOT offer advice (just fucking go see your doctor), make fun of premeds and shitpost. Please keep vaccination/clamping/vitamin K/soliciting advice out of this thread and start your own because it takes a lot of space.
>>14858619Based.Only thing I can add is that any em physician worth their salt should have put a probe on the chest themselves to exclude hocm, then turf to cardiology opd in 6-12 months
>>14876660Ear cancer>>14876782Ass cancer>>14878350Brain cancerGod the non med people are retarded here, can't you read the OP
>>14878350>5 - 7 litres of water a daywew, lad
>>14847133Asking here because it's ridiculously hard to get help in the UK.I've had this strange numbness in my hands for the last 2 years, which seems to be brought on by cold weather, and overuse of my hands specifically or gripping for a long period of time like on a steering wheel. It also seems to stem from my back because I feel a craving of sorts to crack my back whenever it comes on, and I suspect it's a trapped nerve or something like that. But I do also have a history of amphetamine abuse (1 year clean now) and alcohol abuse (several years clean), along with many genetic disorders like asthma/hayfever, a schizophrenic parent (I have no symptoms as far as I can tell), and heart disease (I do experience heart palpitations quite regularly and considered it "normal" for a long time) killing literally every single male in my family before they hit 65.So at this point I just want to know why it's happening, and don't care if it's treatable or not. My initial suspicion is a trapped nerve, then possibly a heart issue, and finally psychological issues.It feels like I've lost complete control of my hands sometimes, even though I can still move them, they just feel dead. I just fear that one day I might actually be paralyzed or something.
>>14878528I can and I choose not to care
It is literally impossible for normies/glowies to understand or research 4chan in any meaningful way, the best they've ever managed is literally just slide threads which are almost immediately btfo.What are the political implications of 4chan anons managing to subvert all attempts to investigate us, and why is /pol/ so powerful?Lunk to study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461444820948803
>>14879208The UN did what?
>>14879204And rarted anons still think that stuffy government people are performing psyops on this shitboard. Don't make me laugh. This is all strictly self-imposed retardation.If academics really wanted to learn about 4chan, why not just lurk for a few days on the board? Once you've posted for a while, you have basically ascertained all you need to know about the chan: It's just of anonymous people clawing for attention, some of them posting outrageously offensive shit and others just wanting to chat or start flame wars. It's not rocket surgery.
>4chan and the Alt-Right4chan has become indistinguishable from alt-right in eyes of normiesLoosing m00t was a mistake. Please come back. We need you to delete /pol/ permanently.
>alt-righthonestly they're closer to the old left wing
>>14879255I know you're being contrarian, but you're actually right and don't even know how.If you imagine the distribution of political ideologies it may look something like pic related.Republicans in red will fall somewhere on the line, where a left leaning republican will be in the middle and an "alt right" will be far out on the right edge. This forms a bell graph represented in red.. Ditto this for the dems represented by a blue bell graph. MOST people whether dem or republican will fall somewhere in the middle. There is much common ground and much both sides share in common. This is important because this is how both sides work together, cooperate, and form compromise when disagreements arise. The ones on the edge share nothing in common with the others on the other edge. For these people where there is no commonalities or common ground, compromise and "working together" becomes impossible. There is a concerted and coordinated effort to drive a wedge in American politics so there is less and less middle ground. This is an attack on America. It is a "long game" strategy from nations that hate Democracy and American in general, and wish to see it in a state where it's literally impossible for anyone to work with anyone else. This gap has grown in recent years, not because people have inherently changed, but because their elected leaders have changed and are leading them in this direction.So what do "alt right" and far left wing have in common? Those are the "extremists" who are not capable of working, as as they're not capable of compromising, may be forced to settle disputes with violence and force. Extremists can easily become terrorists.
science becoming popular was a mistake
look at them, blissfully unaware that the earth is humanity's tomb>fusion>antigrav>warp drivehe's certainly right about the crack part
>30 more years.So what great innovations have happened in the past 30 years? Transistors becoming small enough that Joe Average could turn the most revolutionary computational machine into a glorified TV for instant-access porn?
>>14879250we found out about trannies
Summary: any species-bridging mutation is necessarily going to be evolutionarily disadvantageous and this can be deduced simply from the definition of species. Hence it is impossible (or at least extremely unlikely) for one species to evolve into another.Argument:The evolutionary narrative implies as a matter of logical necessity that an individual from one species at one time gave birth to an individual from another species. Incrementalism doesn’t save you here, for we can simply perform a thought-exercise to show that what I am saying must be the case: take any individual from species B and ask “who was its mother?” over and over again. If species B evolved from species A, we will eventually get to a female from species A giving birth to an individual from species B. We can designate this individual “B1” because he’s the first individual from species B. Now, the definition of a species is the ability of its members to produce fertile offspring. If B1’s mother was from species A, and B1 is the first instance of species B, then it logically follows that B1 WILL HAVE NOBODY TO REPRODUCE WITH. Since species B cannot produce fertile offspring with species A (as per the definition of species), nobody in B1’s community is going to be a suitable mate. Unless, by some magical circumstance, someone else from species A, in the same area as B1, also has offspring with the exact same mutation and gives birth to B2, and then B1 and B2 get together and reproduce; unless that improbable circumstance occurs, species B is bound to die out immediately. This argument is one of the strongest proofs against evolutionary theory, and I’ve never even heard anybody else use it.
>>14875619>All species of the genus canis can interbreed and being fertileThus they should all be considered one species and be distinguished by breeds. >>14875926>Your ancestor from 300k years ago could breed with youAnd that makes them the same species. >Her ancestor from 600k years ago could breed with her. Then go to 1.2 million and so on and so forth. You probably can't breed with a human from 1.2 million years ago>probably can'tRing species concepts are nonsense and on top of that you're adding in speculation. Provide evidence of this. Saying "probably can't" is not evidence. >Species only exist within one specific timeframeYou forgot to add "probably">The transition from one species to another is a gradual slow process with no direct cut-off.You are arbitrarily deciding the time frame. Above you chose time frames of 300k years, 600k, then 1200k etc. That is clearly a multiple of 300k years. Why? Let's make it 100 years. Nothing changes in your argument and viola we now have "transitions" from one "species" to another "species" rapidly. Since interbreeding doesn't matter you are left with nothing except your arbitrary time frames to demarcate species. Going slightly beyond the scope, punctuated equilibrium is also a theory that directly contradicts your arguments here. If species in the cambrian explosion paradoxically went from sponges to complex eyes in 20 million years then it's certainly no jump in logic to think reproductive isolation can happen in just a few thousand years and after that have long long periods of interbreeding.
>>14877234>Thus they should all be considered one species and be distinguished by breeds.I'm not wasting time, the genus Canis and its species is well established. A 4chan retard without sources cant change the phylogenetic tree to his own convenience.And there're many fertile hybrids in other genus.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis
>>14877234>Ring species concepts are nonsense and on top of that you're adding in speculation. Provide evidence of this. Saying "probably can't" is not evidence.Genus Larus gulls are the "type specimen" but data was a bit ass to get conclusive, Caribbean Euphoriba are the proper proof case. Seems to be more common in plants, for some reason.The way it works is basically that the differences slowly result in garbage minutia conflicts which slowly reduce interfertility, until eventually it's genuinely non-viable. We're pretty sure that the first generation of Sapiens/Neanderthalus humans were incredibly fucked on a fundamental level.
>>14877247>I'm not wasting time, the genus Canis and its species is well established. A 4chan retard without sources cant change the phylogenetic tree to his own convenience.You don't have to bloviate with all that you can just say "I'm not allowed to think for myself and must consult my masters and only repeat their dogma">And there're many fertile hybrids in other genus.And they should be considered mixed breeds. It's very simple. >>14877323>Caribbean Euphoriba are the proper proof case?? Of what? A"Ring species" is allegedly a connected SERIES of, possibly dozens, of species. It makes no sense to point at just one species. Do you not know what a ring species is? It honestly should be called a "ring genus" but it's hogwash anyway so who cares. Garbage pseudoscience tends to get basic things wrong, like a valid name of itself. It's not at the species level nor is it a ring, it's diagrammatically shown as a horseshoe ROFL. >Seems to be more common in plants, for some reasonSure it is.https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/>The way it works is basically that the differences slowly result in garbage minutia conflicts which slowly reduce interfertility, until eventually it's genuinely non-viable. ROFL I know the conjecture behind it. You don't have to repeat wiki you probably read for the first time just now.>We're pretty sure that the first generation of Sapiens/Neanderthalus humans were incredibly fucked on a fundamental level>pretty sureThere it is again ladies and gentlemen. Conjecture presented as evidence. You missed the point of the post anyway. I wasn't asking for evidence showing a ring species series exists.. I was asking for evidence of the alleged fertility issues that was obviously made up to fit his argument.
>>14873116Le philosophy major #567 who thinks he is so smart and can barge in any field and arrogantly speak his mind by using his "simple logic reasoning" like thousands of actual scientist didn't work in this for more than 100 years has arrived.How about you read a high-school biology book on the matter before saying incredible bullshit such as "at some point species A gives birth to species B" you dumb fuck?
/sci/ PDF thread Starting off with ancient pharm researchers attempting to kill stray dogs using a marijuana overdose. Once again, please refrain from uploading PDFs which contain child porn. If that sort of abuse continues to be common then we will eventually lose our PDF feature and privileges.
>>14876249other people can do it, you lack the knowledge to do so
>>14879252What in the world am I reading
Why does the 'qualia' argument even exist? Language hasn't evolved enough to describe conscious 'feeling' states in detail. At most, 'qualia' is just an abstract noun. It means nothing by itself and it's commonly misused to describe other traits of perception, such as color or perception of pain, etc.Every societal, or social, or embodied event can be described deterministically. Pink noise selected out of phase space transitions, according to chaos theory allows for a compatibilist theory of free will. ERP (Event related potentials) can be measured using semantic primes. We can objectively measure the emotional content of a word, gesture, or the neural correlates evoked. Gestalt theory and cognitive heuristic biases determine how we memorize new material. For the rubber hand illusion, bottom-up perception overrides top-down consciousness, therefore body ownership can be transferred. Botvinick and Cohen regard 'proprioceptive drift' as evidence in favor of a connectionist model of trimodal processing with all three sensory inputs. (vision, proprioception and touch)So again, why does this 'qualia' argument exist? And why do people believe consciousness can't be described in materialistic terms? Is this just a misuse of language?
>>14879238The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how physicalism can explain why I exist as myself rather than someone else.
>>14879241I have an idea. Instead of trying to "make points" like a brainwashed drone, try to comprehend what I told you and then formulate a concrete rebuttal.
>>14879243What exactly is it that you think I don't understand?
You're fundamentally wrong.The only we know for certain to exist are qualia. We are aware of or experience sensory data.Then we invoke the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and use abductive reasoning to select the most suitable theory to describe their cause.But determining their physical cause has left us no closer to understanding the details of their identity.What are qualia exactly? I have my own theories on the topic, but it involves a philosophy of Idealism. (Everything is idea or thought, in the mind of a God).
>>14879245Anything at all, since you're unable to address my post in any capacity. lol
https://www.rationality.org/resources/rationality-checklist
>>14874081I don't want to spend so much time on the test but I'm certain that I'm one the few remaining rational people on this website
>>14874507>If that's rationalIt's not, it's shitty design.
>>14874081This whole questionnaire reads like a 115 IQ reddit teenager's self-image.
How do you increase rationality?It is something that is learned?A skill that needs to be practiced?Is it inherently genetic like IQ?
>every question is paragraphs longno
Science is freaking amazing!
>>14879042The latter, and they don’t know yet it's the next step in the mission, they'll observe it over the coming weeks. It's expected to be a very small change in trajectory.
>>14879047>astorid nukesaren't asteroids pretty soft due to low gravity?nuking one would be like using a grenade to "gently push" a spoonful of mashed potatoes
>>14878654>>14879042>>14879185>>14879202It’s just a waste of money. It’s completely obvious to anyone that if you introduce energy into a system in space, then it will change its trajectory by an amount relative to its size/energy.They should’ve gone all out and nuked an asteroid.
>>14879214saying its possible to kick an asteroid and having a tested-to-work system that is ready to kick an asteroid are two very different things
>>14878654This is fake. No camera can auto-focus itself so quickly to get high-resolution images of the asteroid. The spacecraft was speeding 24,000 km/h apparently.More like it's a blender animation.
A homeless man approaches and loudly declares, "The universe cannot be infinite. Gravity is a long range force, if there were infinite stars in the universe, there must be infinite mass in the universe: we would experience infinite force in all directions, tearing us apart."You begin to stammer something about an inverse square law, but he yells, "Infinite mass, infinite force!"He's wrong, of course. But can you prove it?
>>14877149There has to be a limit to the universe, it would be expanding otherwise. It has to grow to expand, which means there is an outer most edge of it.
>>14877149Literally who said there's an infinite number of stars in the universe?
>>14877265>I would rather kill myself rather than have a job, money, food and a place to liveOk
>>14879046No one really knows, but it's thought that an infinitely dense singularity in the beginning could mean there's an infinite amount of matter now.
>>14877149I cant find the satelltes only the muun with my backyard telesco
Watch live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Z1E0mW2ag&ab_channel=NASAMore info: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasas-asteroid-deflection-mission-spotlights-planetary-defense-effort-11664081582
1 min to go
WE DID IT REDDITWE HIT THE THING
Splat!
>>14878120I see the resemblance.
>>14875258>moonletswhen will they ever learn
What is the space-time fabric made of? If space-time is emptiness, how do masses bend space-time? Or is the fabric of space-time itself a kind of medium?By the way, I am aware that the fabric mentioned is an analogy.
>>14878533No doubt space-time behaves like a fluid. In fact, the ether theory was the scientists of the time's own interpretation of space-time. It was a hypothetical substance that filled the interatomic space and the vacuum of space space. Today we use an updated version of the ether which isn't luminiferous one.
>>14877745It's the field.
>>14879125Field of what? What is it made of? Descriptions are not explanations.
>>14879220Difference between field and aether is that aether needs a universal frame of reference.
>>14877745not shinto
If it's not aliens then what is it?
>>14875469>. We're not at the center of anything,Oh boy, time for some cosmic horror.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)The "axis of evil" is a name given to the apparent correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle as assumed in the concordance model.
>>14874083I want to fug Mami-chan
>>14875568Oh I see your problem. You think the universe is actually billions of years old, that's cute. The JWST results are probably very confusing for you huh?Anyways, in regards to the alien argument, it's a lose-lose situation for the theist because...A) "So God only seeded one planet with life and let the other 99% of the universe go to "waste"? Wow, great design."B) There is alien life, thus theism is false.B) There is alien life, thus
>>14870464Reminder that UFO doesn't mean alien, it just means unidentified.
>>14878944>JWST results indicating a younger universeCare to elaborate on this? Link something? I'm seeing articles on JWST imaging galaxies that appear to be around 13.5 billion years old. Nothing that upends any previous understanding
