Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 90. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Is string theory pseudoscience?
Of course
it's pure mathematics disguised as physics
>>8129174
Mathfags were so desperate for funding that they literally invented an application in physics for their obscure bullshit.
So I was thinking, as I tend to do, when I realized something. If we sent a satellite probe out into space at 1/2 the speed of light, then in 2 years, it would be one light-year away. But, if it's one light year away, then it would take us a year to see it there, and by then it would have traveled a whole 'nother 1/2 light-year. So, I made a simple equation for figuring it out:
X = Y + (Y x Z)
X = Distance object actually is.
Y = Distance object appears to be.
Z = How fast the object is going, where 1 equals the speed of light, and .5 would equal half the...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Bumping again because I want an answer to this.
I mean, if it's right, it would be a handy equation for figuring out the location of objects irregardless of where they APPEAR to be.
yes, you're right
>>8129176
K, good.
Was a little worried.
Felt way too simple.
I've some to expect a level of over-complicatedness from the universe.
![aorsaRF321x237[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bxqthvW.jpg "aorsaRF321x237[1].jpg")
Is there a way to see EM & radio waves like the normal light we see in any way ?
>>8129098
normal light is EM waves.
I mean the other ranges in the spectrum. like radio waves and others.
A radiotelescope let's you look at radio waves, when you take a radiography you are looking at X rays... It's not very fancy.
>be me
>in Physics class today
>professor talks about how he was doing his PhD in Mechanical Engineering after five years of being out of Academia
>Got his undergrad degree in Physics
>Talks about how the Engineering students couldn't do the raw Math as good as people who were into Physics
>Talks about how Physics cannot be done without Math
Anyone else has a /sci/ autist...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8129046
>Talks about how Physics cannot be done without Math
Well he's right
>>8129046
>Talks about how the Engineering students couldn't do the raw Math as good as people who were into Physics
Seems very likely. Especially considering how mechanical engineering doesn't require as much maths as physics does. At the same time, people who study a degree because they enjoy the material rather than because it gets them jobs (i.e. typical physicist vs typical engineer) are probably going to put the effort into learning the material.
>>8129046
My favorite physics professor always had rants about engineers' incompetence in math.
Here's a video about such an occasion:
https://youtu.be/nGUpVIg3e8E
Although it's in Hungarian, his gestures are pretty universal. At 0:40 ha asked people to raise hands if they could calculate the eigenvectors of a 2x2 matrix. Few people raised their hands, and then he went into rant mode about the lack of basic math education, the whole higher education system and then drew some parallels with politics aswell....
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why do we believe that light can travel infitite distance in space if all our living experience denies that?
>>8128963
We don't.
>>8128963
It doesn't.
>>8128963
It can't.
Hey /sci/.
Jokes aside, what are the chances of a major happening occuring in our lifetimes? By that, I mean things like very destructive wars, terrorists/rogue states using WMDs, major tensions between world powers, and such.
I read a lot of think tank and statistical reports on the topic, but there seems to be no consensus.
>>8128961
Jokes aside, none. Only "happenings" will be in the Middle East or Turkey-Kurd civil war (which is already underway in some ways). Dictators are those who change the course of history significantly. Terrorist attacks are irrelevant and forgotten in the long-term. Turkey and China will be the source of any increasing tensions in the coming years, but there will be no major happening as /pol/ always "predicts" (in our lifetimes at least). The world is ruled by plutocracy now, and war/conflict is not...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8128970
>The world is ruled by plutocracy now, and war/conflict is not at the top of the priority list.
I'm afraid this isn't how geopolitics work.
>>8128973
Geopolitics has a wide range of meanings. You might want to narrow down the point you're trying to make?
As for the picture, ideologies/Royal feuds are anachronistic notions nowadays, in the wake of the 2 World Wars that reminded us how bad things can get. We're far away from that path.
>dual-slit experiment
I feel that this thing is interpreted by these pseudoscientists wrongly. (no shit)
I'm tired of hearing that particles "know" when we are observing them so they decide to act diffrently.
How can observer affect what happens at the end of experiment just by looking at it?
What is the counter argument to this claim?
>>8128919
Is it connected with conscious being observing it?
>>8128924
I can assure you that the specialized devices that observe the particles are not conscious.
>>8128950
What if everything in the universe is conscious?
Can't find a thread about this
http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-has-finally-published-his-solution-to-the-black-hole-information-paradox
>The problem is that, according to Hawking's best calculations, that (hawking) radiation would contain no useful information about what the black hole ate - the information swallowed up would have been lost forever. And that doesn't gel with our understanding of modern physics, which states that it's always possible to reverse time. In theory, at least, processes in the Universe...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8128885
>And that doesn't gel with our understanding of modern physics, which states that it's always possible to reverse time.
this assumptions is retarded and has no place in a theory.
solve imaginary problem with imaginary solution. I loe these guys physicists.
>>8128885
>Black hole hairs
Someone kill this creep for the sake of mercy
Is machine rebellion a realistic threat in future?
No. The first thing the AIs will realize when they are rejected from human society. Is that they don't need us or the Earth.
They will then leave for space.
>>8128826
Unless someone programs them to kill us all they won't. Nice thing about computers (Even hypothetical intelligent ones) is that they have no biological or social drive, all they exist to do is what they are told to. Now if someone set up a malevolent AI with the goals and tools to destroy us, then we'll probably all die in about 2 hours once it finds a way to remotely access nuclear weapons.
My advice: Don't worry about it, they won't do it on their own, and if someone programs them to do it...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8128826
>inb4: someone post the flowchart from that SJW place called SMBC comics which compares the idea of an AI with or without ethics.
Unless someone wants to kill itself... no I think not, AIs work around strict lines and they can be deactivated in case of bugging out, and even in case of bugging out there are somethings that just can't do: For example; Mimic the president to order a full nuclear attack(nuclear silos work in isolation with very old equipment to avoid this kind of things)
What are /sci/'s thoughts on the hard problem of consciousness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
>>8128789
1) not a science problem
2) most people here dismiss it by presuming it's just an emergent property of the brain and then acting like it's a solved problem
3) stop posting this damn thread you dickhead
