[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: sciguide.jpg (9 KB, 200x140)
9 KB
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.

What's the best place to get glassware from right now? The best prices i can find are on Amazon but i want more options. Are there any good used glassware sellers?

File: 1620244171781.jpg (820 KB, 4096x2304)
820 KB
820 KB JPG
meme edition

prev: >>13779288
248 replies and 62 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1618737521824.webm (2.89 MB, 1280x720)
2.89 MB
2.89 MB WEBM
The combined explosive forces from the tank farm and fully fueled full stack starship will crack open the shells of all 50,000 endangered texas sea turtles.
>The combined explosive forces from the tank farm and fully fueled full stack starship will crack open the shells of all 50,000 endangered texas sea turtles.
if only
File: FCa9qYPWUAAXxEy.jpg (589 KB, 2048x1536)
589 KB
589 KB JPG
Ariane space control room
prank call them and ask for Battletoads
File: YrYMceJgTG4XB6dh5yYqxL.jpg (157 KB, 800x530)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
MCC-H is more kino

i'm retarded when it comes to science, so i'm looking for people who know what they're talking about.

how firm or sound is the darwinian theory of evolution? are there gaps, miracles, or anomalies in the evolutionary record? my dad is saying darwinian evolution requires faith and a materialist worldview, and that there are mysteries that it cannot explain (like the evolution of the eye).

thanks in advance
148 replies and 18 images omitted. Click here to view.
>The source has a caveat
It literally says the distinction is hard to draw. It's not a caveat whatsoever. You are projecting what you want it to say to make you feel like you are correct, nothing more.

>You just contradicted yourself, yes. It's pretty funny how
Not an argument and not a contradiction made up by your fee fees. Hilarious projection though

Not an argument

>>Your terrible e coli example you lied about and claimed was a "new species"
>Where did I say that? Take your meds.
Ok my mistake I referenced the wrong one of you retards who said the e coli experiment had novel traits/new species. It must have been in a another thread unless someone here deleted it. See it's not hard to admit.

>Then why are you talking about gradualism in the context of macro-evolution? What exactly are you trying to refute?
You claim speciation is micro for some random reason and now ask if I'm not talking about speciation then why am I talking about macro? You are getting dumber.

>"Speciation, novel traits, or whatever cannot be feasibly observed in a lab" is a list and not a description of speciation and novel traits.
More of your ignorant projection of course it's a list.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>he said Darwinian natural selection is unfalsifiable
Thanks for agreeing with me

>He layer said he was incorrect
He did not

>You should try it.
hey what do ya know I coincidentally just did admit I made a trivial mistake and referenced the wrong anon. It's still hilarious you are so pathetic you can't evendo this. Try and read the civil conversations I'm having with other evolutionists in this thread and maybe learn something.

>And when you borrow something you don't understand or know how to use, it can actually hurt you.
It worked out pretty well since you just admitted I was right so it looks like I must have understood it.

>LOL, you're the only one here driven by anger. You're incredibly angry that you're incapable of grasping the argument or refuting basic facts and logic. So you post these little excuses. Your lost, get over it. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Such continual projection.
Nobody gives these long pointless shotgun posts towards every post someone else makes in a thread unless they are angry. I'm already consistently just ignoring half your posts now because I don't even think about them aside from how hilarious they are to read. And already other people are asking me questions because you are bumping the thread so much. So keep it up. Don't quit.
You're being bombarded by retards such as myself OP, I didn't even bother to look at the other replies. it just boggles my mind that people like you exist.

It boils down to really simple mechanics, completely indisputable and very easily measured. If you can't accept that mutations occur, environmental selection happens and that genetic material propagates from parents to their offspring, then you can't be helped. Evolution is nothing beyond those extremely simple axioms, it doesn't require an ounce of faith and if you adapt the materialist worldview, you are capable of doing actual science and engineering, but those who don't will forever be a useless burden, stumbling blindly in the dark and getting in the way of progress.

Please actually read the fundamentals of the theory, it should take you 3 minutes max and you can probably find a childrens youtuber to read it for you with pretty pictures. You will feel retarded for making this thread, but that's just because you are.
>Yes. An extremely low, negligible chance I would say.
Yes, based on our understanding is key though so I hope you caught on to that. It's not simply negligible odds due to lack of evidence.

>>one can't prove a negative,
>By a negative you mean the lack of the presence of a thing?
Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic so I think you'd be better off just looking up articles on it instead of me explaining it. Sorry.

>You must have some kind of reason to believe it takes some amount of time that's longer?
Tons. A quick one is just a comparison to what a mainstraim evolutionist claimed is the low odds of abiogenesis happening based on current understanding. He thinks, based on current understanding, it would take many many universes before abiogenesis would be feasible. He doesn't state this directly though, you have to understand the comparisons he's making.

I think neo-darwinism producing complex life is an equally difficult feat as abiogenesis, so if abiogenesis is insanely unlikely then by default so is complex life via natural means without intelligent guidance.

>I think evolution could do unintuitively fast things
You probably think that bc society has tried to brainwash you into believing it since childhood, no offense.

>Also, it might not be that it always happens that fast. It could in principle be that evolution only rarely accomplishes getting to the point of (higher intelligent) life, but if it hadn't on this planet, then we wouldn't be here to see this (Anthropic principle), and perhaps on a planet where it did they would say the same thing.
I think countless eons would not be enough time. LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe. The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.
>Not being able to prove a negative is a pretty ubiquitous introductory concept in logic
I don't know what you're talking about. If there is a system of logic that you can't prove so-called "negative" facts it is not a good model for use in the real world. Unless you think I can't have "proof" there was a negative blowing up of the sun yesterday. That is based on things we know, evidence.

It seems whether evolution would usually get to human-level that fast may not be actually the most important point of contention. I think Nick Bostrom has a paper that mentions an attempt at estimating something about how long it might usually take with anthropic reasoning.

I was also appealing to the fact that even if anthropic reasoning can be relied on to explain humans managing to exist in our observation, there are also unintuitively complex developments in other branches of evolution not needed that exist. Actually that doesn't imply it is because it evolved because that is even less likely to happen, but I still think the fact there are at least some things that have explanations that seem unclear at first means the possibility of non-evolution explanations are outweighed already.

>LIke if every star in the universe had a Goldilocks zone planet we'd still get shit for the lifetime of the universe.
I'm not completely sure how all of this works, but I don't think that part is true with respect to evolution after groups of animals have evolved, since if it's making a big demand on how rare of a scenario it is for humans to evolve past that point, there wouldn't be other relatively compared to it complex evolutions in unrelated branches of animals. Maybe the problem is getting to an earlier point, that of abiogenesis?

The paper I was thinking of is "Dissolving the Fermi Paradox" by Sandberg and others

>The anthropic principle is quite moot at that point unless you believe in multiverse.
Well, yeah. It's just taking the anthropic reasoning even further.

File: progidy.jpg (24 KB, 474x266)
24 KB
how do i teach my kid to add subtract and multiply numbers at age 4?
18 replies omitted. Click here to view.
start with peano axioms and arithmetic
Since everyone's bickering about whether it makes sense to teach a kid like that so early, I just wanted to say that if you take that route and he does end up interested in the stuff, please don't abandon him to the slower pace of the school system once he's in it. My folks did that and it was basically the perfect recipe for a burnout
As for how I just got workbooks thrown at me, so idk if there's some better way than that
I like the Khan academy idea, could sit down with him and go through those together maybe?
I came here to post this
>let the hecking kiderinos be kids!

Yes goy! let your child's brain melt watching cartoons ad playing video-games while I teach mine mathematics and finance!
That's what I would do anon

I'm thinking of getting a vasectomy once I'm old enough to legally get one. The reason being is that I have assburgers, and even though I live a fairly happy and healthy life, it's totally possible that should I have biological children, they could inherit a far more disabled form of autism. I'm concerned I could spawn another Christian Chandler on this planet, fortunately I'm high functioning enough to the point I don't even qualify for something like his tugboat disability check. I really don't want my child to do shit like draw retarded Sonic/Pokémon fanfiction comics and get bashed by internet trolls for 15 years in a row, I would like to do my part to prevent this from happening.

I'm making the decision to withdraw myself from the gene pool on purpose; I don't hate myself or autistic people at all, but in my case, I think I'm being (sort of?) "merciful" because I don't want to bring unnecessary suffering to the human race. I'd like to adopt a child from an orphanage in the far future, maybe in 10 or 15 years.

Does this count as eugenics? I have heard in high school it's 20th century pseudoscience, but I'd like to know what /sci/ can tell me about the subject.
14 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>Christian would be a peaceful being if he wasnt attacked by semi autistic people.

Not sure I agree, mate. He sexually harassed Mary Lee Walsh and Megan Schroeder before trolls at Encyclopaedia Dramatica found out about him in 2007.

Before this he used to be bullied only by his babysitter who locked him up in a bathroom overnight, IIRC.
to me autistic children are the fat civlians from wall E. I believe that through the process of putting those with the mentality of hunter and gatherer into their designated role society will have nothing to fear. The true genesis of autistic people is the failure for them to compromise with farmer society instead of hunter gatherer brain. The start of the world and the way society is right now will make many kids have to transfer from how they genetically were designed to how the world is designed and many of those kids will end up autistic. Yes these have sources just look them up dont debate me. There is good people and there is bad people that are failed parenting it was never about genetics
It has been scientifically proven that almost all the genes related to cognitive development are only inherited from the mother because they come from the x cromosome and males only have one while females have two, just make a little google search.
That's just not true. The X chromosome controls dimorphism, i.e. how intelligence is distributed among the sexes.
>eugenic public policy does stuff like
this is where you are wrong. such a policy would be called eugenics, but a eugenics program could just as easily be nothing but propaganda to gently pressure people to consider their genetic worthiness before reproducing.
Anything you do to try and guide things is eugenics, its actually a dumb term because society is doing eugenics all the time by changing certain traits ability to attract a mate.
Eugenics is any kind of self inflicted selection a society puts on itself.

Formerly >>13760859

Someone take over making /scg/ already edition.

>what is /sqt/ for?
Questions regarding math and science.
>where do I go for advice?
>where do I go for other questions and requests?
>>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc.
>how do I post math symbols (Latex)?
>a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here?
>where can I look up if the question has already been asked here?
>how do I optimize an image losslessly?

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
140 replies and 38 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1634731964051.png (119 KB, 585x638)
119 KB
119 KB PNG
Hello anons, just have a question about solving this inequality for K (for the two roots).

My professor said that for the blue boxed equation, if we plug in K=0, then the inequality is true, which I agree with.

However, he then drew the graph below that and then said that the range between k1 and k2 also satisfies the inequality because k=0 so the interval between them that also includes 0 counts, where did the two roots k1 and k2 come from and how come everything between those also satisfies the inequality?

He then said to be extra careful because "this might not always be the case" then drew the second graph with his explanation there along with "this inequality isn't satisfied unless K is very large on the negative end or the positive end".

Any idea what's going on?
File: 1591567101645.png (1.06 MB, 650x800)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB PNG
go to desmos, graph the parabolas, and look at which portions of the parabolas are negative.
or positive, in the case of the second inequality
File: 1634095805657.png (146 KB, 1916x907)
146 KB
146 KB PNG
Oh crap that's really neat, thank you anon.
It's been years since I last touched inequalities and roots so I've forgotten everything
i think it would help your intuition if you actually saw the parabolas
>this inequality isn't satisfied unless K is very large on the negative end
>very large
that << is K<

Do you need science to believe in gravity? Do you need science to believe in displacement in water? No you fuck heads you believe that because you see it not because you performed a rigorous experiment that proved it beyond all doubt. Science just lets you understand a more detailed view of something and solve problems. Fuck off with this idea that it is the basis of belief.
13 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>before science
Maybe they can get someone else to write things down for them. Do you have any other stupid questions? If so, take them to /b/.
>what if someone can't write, can they not be a scientist?
Yea obviously
Yeah before the scientific era.
If you can find some way to predict what's going on then yeah, pretty much

Do recent attempts to politicize and delegitimzie valid scientific hypothesis, such the Lab Leak Hypothesis, reflect a growing culture that is hostile to science and the free exchange of ideas? I have personally seen the effects in my own university. A biologist where I go to school has publicly expressed support for the Lab Leak hypothesis, and it created a shit storm on Twitter.

These sorts of events really suggest to me that popular culture, the mainstream media, and public official are beginning to police what is and isn't a valid scientific hypothesis. Unfortunately, this is directly contrary to the very nature of empirical science and the scientific method. If certain hypothesis are a priori labeled as "conspiracies" and are beyond the scope of acceptable academic discourse, then what you are doing is no longer science. I will also add, that a recent article published in the Lancet, one of the top medical Journals in the world, has expressed similar concerns about the use of polarizing labels like "conspiracy theory".

Also disclaimer, before I trigger the thought police: the NIH states that it funded research to enhance the infectious capabilities of the coronavirus, but NIH officials did not explicitly use the phrase "gain of function" - presumably, in order to protect Fauci from charges of perjury. This is basically an empirically meaningless semantic distinction, however.
39 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1634101638297.jpg (362 KB, 1024x791)
362 KB
362 KB JPG
I'd say roughly 70% of the commenters on Y Combinator's Hacker News would agree with that assessment and say it is a good thing. Average people cannot be trusted with full access to information because mixing that with the right to vote is too dangerous. Information to voters should be tightly restricted so they don't vote the wrong way.
This is significant because the bulk of the commentators there are movers & shakers in Silicon Valley. These are the people who have the power to control much of the information exchange in the population.
It's interesting that they never argue that these people whose access to information should be restricted simply should not be able to vote. They want those people to vote but only after their information flow has been controlled.
>simply should not be able to vote. They want those people to vote
Not the anon you're replying to, but this is perfectly rational as voting is (by and large) a placebo to cure the revolutionary tendency of large groups of unsatisfied or jealous people.
Lmao cling to retarded ideologies. Obviously I meant for the vast majority of healthy people such as myself, my retarded antivaxxer boomer parents etc. There are almost always edge cases.

This is why we are fucked, because most people (who wouldn't have 5-10 years ago) are starting to fall into those two categories instead of being mentally healthy adults.
>but they literally DONT want to hold journalists or public health officials to be held accountable for misinformation that is objectively more dangerous and kore dishonest

The UK just had a major petrol shortage the other week caused by the media creating literal mass hysteria. It's one of those things that is so unjust you wonder how it isn't actually a crime
Only if the public believes the elections are fair, both in terms of ballots being counted correctly and everyone being able to have their voices heard during the campaign before the election. Without these, elections lose their legitimacy and end up becoming a point of contention instead of unity. The plebes no longer feel responsible for the "elected" leaders and no longer feel responsible for the messes these leaders make. In such situations, revolution isn't only fired by anger at the leaders but also by moral conviction that democracy has been spoiled and must be restored. Perception matters quite a bit.

File: 201.jpg (286 KB, 806x626)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
Waste of time yes or no
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Industrial engineers have no street credit and get shat on by every technician and real engineer. But that doesn't change the fact that the career prospects are pretty good, as long as you're fit for the roles.
Every single one
>Make a shit ton of money with an MBA tho, if you like managing wagies and pathetic 21st century "engineers."
just get an mba

File: sfsc_9fj81.jpg (38 KB, 612x451)
38 KB
When I type the question "What was there before the Big Bang" into google, it returns a lot of leddit and quora threads where many a 'scientists' proclaim in a matter-of-factly way that the question itself does not make sense, since without matter and spatial dimensions, time does not mean anything.
The arrogance that's conveyed in that smug certainty is slightly annoying to me.
But does the non-existence of time in the way we understand it, preclude the existence of 'something'? How are they so certain of the existence (or better non-existence) of a timeless nothingness?
Or better yet, how can we be so certain of the non-existence of matter before the Big Bang? What if there was matter, just not the kind that the Big Bang birthed?
Apology for retard
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>I like the theory that time and space are just huge endless loops.
its all a matter of preference, there is just an much evidence to back up your particular favorite cosmology as there is suggesting the legitimacy of the big bang conjecture.
>When I type the question "What was there before the Big Bang" into google, it returns a lot of leddit and quora threads where many a 'scientists' proclaim
Why doesn't it bring up the Wikipedia article about it - Why is there something rather than nothing?

>How are they so certain of the existence (or better non-existence) of a timeless nothingness?
Not sure what and why you are reading this but you seem to be misunderstanding "timeless nothingness". Let me rephrase it for you: it's possible that there always was something and there never was nothing and existence just has to be with anything else (non-existence) being impossible. If "there was something like matter without time" then that's just the starting point, still without anything "before". I guess the Big Bang itself may be controversial, people only theorize backwards up to a certain point after the beginning/s.
File: hqdefault.jpg (25 KB, 480x360)
25 KB
>How are they so certain
Here's the problem, OP. Scientists aren't "certain" that it happened anymore than they're certain they're not living in the fucking Matrix. But this universe appears to have rules, and those apparent rules suggest that, since the universe has apparently been expanding for 13 billion years (apparently), logically all of these points were not-expanded back then. We can take the math down to immediately following the start of this expansion, but we'll never know what was before it, because the math (that we currently have) gives us no clues.

File: 1580415668540.png (486 KB, 909x500)
486 KB
486 KB PNG
Special Australian edition: another year with no pay rise.

Welcome to the STEM Career General!
This thread exists to answer questions regarding careers in STEM.

>the ins and outs of academic career progression
>how to penetrate industry from academia
>anything else in relation to STEM employment or advancement within STEM academia!

Resources for protecting yourself from academic marxists:
>https://www.thefire.org/ (US)
>https://www.jccf.ca/ (Canada)

General information:
>*The Chad author is seeking additional input to expand the text so it discusses all STEM fields. Said author regularly views these /scg/ threads.

No one has answered your question? Consider posting it here:

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
67 replies and 8 images omitted. Click here to view.
pointless suffering does not make one stronger. life is not lived for the struggle, that's a lie told by the haves to the have nots
I'm currently in CS but hate it, and hate the idea of programing for a living despite it being good money. Thinking about changing to either math, physics, or MechE, and was wondering if others have had a similar experience or done the same. MechE seems to be the most practical, however I love math and physics like an autist.
Actual cope. Take your doomer shit to another thread.
>B.S. in biochem
How fucked am I?
I'm doing Solidworks like 20 hours a week.
Half the time it's neat, the other half it's kind of a drag.

File: its all so tiring.png (93 KB, 342x245)
93 KB
>just want to learn physics and math
>have to take humanities classes
56 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
The absolute state of this board
Women study social work and psychology they need a Mrs.
cuz you're dumb
i got a 790

File: ok.png (434 KB, 3300x2550)
434 KB
434 KB PNG
Are there shitty radioactive elements that decay in like 3 seconds completely useless or what?
3 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
elements ending with -um are not important
After the cold War fade out with all that naming autism
Ah yes, the gas Oganesson.
Fuck me I forgot that.
I'm in my twenties but I recall old posters in classes
Pretty much, it's pretty much blue skies BS, it's like trying to force two lego bricks to kind of work, sure it might, maybe it looks nice, but ultimately it's too unstable to keep it attached while it lives on your shelf

File: saturn.jpg (70 KB, 1200x600)
70 KB
I used to have weird nightmares about this planet as a little kid. What makes Saturn so fucking creepy? What are the chances of undiscovered life on it?
That hexagon on the bottom is pretty spoopy
>What are the chances of undiscovered life on it?
practically the same chances as saturn even being a real planet, i bet the saturn shills are also the type to believe in 'infinite' sets
>i bet the saturn shills
Wait...I'm not the first? Are Saturn threads actually a regular thing on /sci/?

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.