Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 583. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Today you got a rejection for studying Physics at Oxford, what do you do?
Study physics at Cambridge
>>7695072
If he's at the undergrad level he can't apply to both.
become an hero
Hello brothers and sisters
So I wanted to ask you about physical chemistry. To be more accurate: Im chemical engineering second year student, and to be honest I found organic and inorganic chemistry really fucking boring, but got crazy about physical chemistry. I got to physical chemistry (electrochemistry) research group (dunno how its called in english desu) and its dope.
But my friends say that the money are hidden in organic chemistry and physical chemistry has no future <- i find this fucking retarded but I wanted to ask you my dear /sci/ what do you think about...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7695030
It's a meme, like mechatronics.
If you're going into research with a Ph.D then ya, there's a future for your career. Its the people that dont want a research career that struggle with jobs. Some profs get paid 100,000 anually to disect a single shitty novel for their entire life.
>>7695037
Why is mechatronics a meme exactly?
What's the best engineering major and why is it railroad engineering?
>>7695022
dildo engineering
>>7695022
Geological Engineering
Ecological Engineering
Water Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
>>7695022
memetic engineering desu
someone plz explain me the very basics of quantum mechanics
>>7695017
discreetness
now read a fucking book
>>7695025
Wrong. Take your own advice. Why do highschoolfags with no knowledge of QM even comment on this thread?
Simultaneous states
How was a stable ecosystem achieved through evolution?
If a species required to keep another in check, in order to prevent other species going extinct, due to over hunting, took millions of years to evolve, why was there always a balance? Also, if there weren't carnivores to keep herbivores in check, how was plant life not extremely in danger of being wiped out?
Yet it seems the ecosystem was always stable, and the only thing which has ever been a detriment to it, is Human life. Which is mostly caused by over hunting and pollution.
Another question, how does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion? It can't.
Aside from that, there are many things which go against evolution.
Why have we stopped pursuing truth?
I thought Science attempts to better itself, yet the evidence against evolution keeps piling up, and we continue to feed it to young minds when we know it is not correct.
>>7694843
- Ecosystems are never stable, as they are always changing to some degree small or large. A truly stable ecosystem is technically not possible, as if a stable ecosystem is artificially created it would destabilize once the artificial control is lifted.
- Species don't keep other species in check, as what this describes is artificial selection not natural selection. Evolution by natural selection occurs as a result of various factors like competition, adaptation to new niches, and large changes in the inhabited ecosystem.
- Plant life regulates itself through ground surface area and access to sunlight. If there is no more surface area for seeds to grow into plants on, then those seeds don't grow into plants. This occurs in rainforests today.
- Humans being a detriment to ecosystems is true if you are considering biodiversity. Species that go extinct usually do not have that high of a fitness in respect to other species that do not go extinct with human settlement anyways.
>>7694843
You are making the very common mistake of assuming evolution is going "towards" something. It doesn't have a purpose or end goal. It just happens.
Are there any studies about how Attractiveness correlates with intelligence and ability?
>>7694797
Yes, but it's shitty science
>>7694797
Why do people start these threads instead of using Google Scholar?
Please explain. Couldn't be arsed?
>>7694797
The more intelligent you are the more money you make, the more money you make the hotter chicks you can get, the hotter chicks you can get, the more attractive your children will be coupled with your intelligence.
In 4.5 billion years of life, no aliens have ever discovered Earth and left a sign?
>>7694711
Earth could be ahead slightly
>>7694711
Much evidence, but no proof.
The difference between 9.999... and 1.
>>7694723
>The difference between 9.999... and 1.
The difference is 9.
Not sure if this is the place to post this.
space elevators, practical or not?
if we agree we should try and build one why where would you place it?/ route it?
if its stationary why would you not want it on the earths axis on the south pole in Antarctica? this eliminates the moving platform problem and no terrorist is going to be able to get to it, who would run it? I would think US/NATO with UN backing.
i remember reading on a technology to move an object by having a laser beam at it, perhaps transport the pod/vessel that way down the tether? same...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
It's a garbage idea
Completely pointless
Massive, fragile super structure
Wouldn't be cheaper either.
>>7694651
but it make travel to space economically viable, otherwise its like 10k per kg correct? do you think rocketry is the answer? to you think it will get cheaper? how do you propose to either fix the problem or what would your alternative be?
>>7694663
nuclear pulse propulsion could bring costs down to triple or double digits
Fully reusable rockets would bring it down to triple digits
Building trillion dollar engineering project that isn't even physically possible yet, and will just get allah ackbar'd, is a way to save money.
My math professor told us that real numbers don't exist. Is he trolling?
not if its wildberger
either way hes full of it
Does 3 "exist".
The answer depends on how you define "exist", and experience shows you can waste a lot of time discussing this.
>>7694614
Does "3" exist?
Lets go back in time to the time of the greeks, before we abstracted our number system to make it more useful and we still defined everything around geometry.
Define the unit segment. Just draw a straight segment on a piece of paper and call it the unit.
Can you draw a segment 3 times as long as the unit segment or draw 3 unit segments and put them together in one longer segment? The answer is yes.
So the number 3 exists.
>Take IQ test 1 year ago
130
>Take IQ test today
123
Help me, am i turning retarded? Or is this attribute to temporary variables like: sleep deprivation, hunger, etc etc?
I'm really curious about this, please leave a comment if you have a opinion.
ur fine dude just hit the books
Do you really need to be told that you don't always use the full potential of your mental capacity ?
your iq is inversely proportional to how much time you spend on 4chan
Do you know anything about fuzzy logic? Is it good or just a meme?
>>7694528
It's only a meme.
>>7694528
its good for what its good at
>>7694538
you are stupid
>>>/lit/7409382
>The point is that science tends to ignore other forms of "knowing" like intuition or reflection, and base itself around complete adherence to empiricism, even though empiricism has plenty of arguments against itself.
How do I bring up the craziness of considering "intuition" to contribute to "knowledge"?
>Pic unrelated
It's not, really. All knowledge is intuition in a sense. when you get down to it, everything you learn comes from a long chain of sources that need to be trusted. A scientist does an experiment, writes a paper, the paper is published, your computer reproduces it for you and your eyes tell you what they see and your brain interprets the meaning. Every one of those links HAS been wrong before, so when you say you know something you're really just making a statement that you trust that the chain of sources was completely reliable for that specific piece of knowledge....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7694515
>How do I bring up the craziness of considering "intuition" to contribute to "knowledge"?
Intuition will completely fail in areas or situations which we are not used to, or which are new to us. Just take relativity. We are evolved animals, living at sub-relativistic velocities, so of course we couldn't have guessed relativistic effects from our intuition alone (at least, very unlikely). And the results being "unintuitive" certainly won't make them any less correct for the same reason.
But of course intuition CAN be used to formulate new laws which may turn out to be correct, and I wouldn't say intuition tends to be ignored. It's just that those laws would have to be tested, either way. Because, surprise, Newtonian physics simply isn't applicable in every situation, even though some would say it is the most intuitive.
As for reflection, you can of course reflect your own misconceptions and prejudices back and forth against each other, how do you know you're right? Can work or fail.
> even though empiricism has plenty of arguments against itself.
That is also true, like "only things that can be empirically proven are acceptable knowledge" can't be empirically proven.
Most sciences use math and that is not empirical (inb4 logical positivism).
Also, hypotheses are created using intuition and such. You don't just do random experiments. And either way, all results must be interpreted.
So i got a number with 4033 Digits
(101010...0101)
Is there anyway to ensure that it is not a prime number ?
if yes what way ?
>>7694485
divide it by every number lower than half of it and see if you get a whole number.
>>7694497
that would take a really long time.
also to the squareroot of it is enough
>>7694485
AKS Primality Test
What do you think about this /sci/.
I'm telling my friend that it doesn't feel like it, but the air around you is pushing you so hard from all directions that if you removed the air above you, you would get pushed so hard that you'll fly into space by the air below you.
He says:
"1. theres no air below you"
"2. it's gravity that holds you back on the ground"
"3. air pressure isn't that high pressure"
Who is right?
I think your friend is right. Air pushes you hard but not quite THAT hard I think.
>>7694517
Although what do you mean OP? If you create a big enough vacuum above you then you'll get sucked upward...
>>7694455
Well, if you assume the pressure below acts on an area of 0.1m2, you face a force of about ~100,000N, where gravity only provides ~1,000N for a 100kg person. By removing the air above, you'll experience a net force upwards.
As removing the air above someone is a rather strange scenario, I'm not quite sure if it really could get you to space, but it certainly would lift someone.
Planck Time. The Butterfly Effect. Uncertainty. Many Worlds.
You exhale at this exact moment in time. 2,000 years from now, the motion of particles in the air caused by your breath has caused a pebble at the top of a mountain thousands of miles away to shift slightly, creating a rockslide that kills hundreds of people.
You do not exhale at this exact moment in time. The pebble does not move, and the people are spared.
Which world line are you living? Can you feel the other world line occuring parallel to yours?
In one unit of Planck Time, there are an infinite number of variables that can (and according to Many Worlds, do) occur. Our consciousness travels along a very specific world line, namely the intersection of the space/time vector and our own probability (read: reality) vector. Thus, for every miniscule quantum of time that passes, an infinite number of world lines spawn and continue parallel to our own. This compounds every miniscule quantum of time, meaning an infinite infinite number of realities that travel along the space/time vector we do, albeit with a different probability quanta of change in each one.
There is a universe next to ours that is virtually indistinguishable as a single electron gained fractional momentum of spin and immediately lost that momentum, causing no noticable change to beings on our scale. There is a universe next to ours that is utterly alien because a molecule of water in the Precambrian era was not converted to oxygen, eventually leading to the atmosphere being inhospitable to air-breathing animals for millions of years after animals in our world line could survive in it.
An infinite, infinite number of worlds. The air is so think, sometimes I feel like I'm wading in dimensional soup. Sometimes I worry about waking up in an unfamiliar one.
gay lol
>>7694287
>Planck Time.
>The Butterfly Effect.
>Uncertainty.
>Many Worlds.
Nope, not going any further, sorry.
>Implying there are variables and multiple timelines and that our particles aren't all on a set collision course determined by the basics of physics
