It was said that Einstein's special relativity (particularly spacetime curvature) various experiments, like Hafele–Keating experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
And so they tried to prove that time dilation exists. So is spacetime curvature.
The problem is: I have alway thought that time is an invention. Time objectively does not exists. Humans need something to record events (record months, minutes, seconds), so the concept of 'time' was invented.
I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'
That's an observable fenomena.
It actually doesn't bend with velocity.
>>7967762
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
And yet the speed of light in a vacuum is still constant
>>7967762
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
But you can't say who is at rest and who is moving - A sees B moving quickly, but B sees A doing the same! That means that A's clock appears to tick slowly compared to B's FROM B'S POINT OF VIEW, but B''s clock appears slower than A's from A's point of view!
Also, time dilation happens even without spacetime curvature, and curvature is part of general relativity, not special relativity (which is like general relativity but without gravity).
Why haven't we adopted Social Darwinism to create a superior human race yet? Why is it shunned in human circles yet its evidence is clear in animals?
oh plenty of people have tried but it never works
Because everyone want to breed. If you forbid it, you are violating his rights.
>>7967636
>Why is it shunned in human circles yet its evidence is clear in animals?
We can define "civilization" as a LACK of social darwinism.
>create a superior human race yet?
Because if your definition of "Superior" is a creature that can exist without the support of society, your "superior" human would be a chimpanzee.
You know what would be nice? If we became an interstellar species.
Why?
>>7967345
We already are, Voyager entered interstellar space years ago.
>>7967348
I meant as in humans going out and colonizing other star systems and worlds.
Say you're writing your dissertation, and in the last months before deadline you realise what you did was done before in some paper cited by zero people.
Do you mention it, or do you pretend it doesn't exist?
>>7967040
You fucked up during your literature review, m8. Either you are working in an area nobody else gives a crap about or there is a reason people are not considering your approach to the problem.
Can you get the other paper and spin it somehow to look like you were aware of it? Are you doing theoretical stuff? If it's empirical, I always say that research has been "thus far scarce and inconclusive" regarding the issue at hand.
All the same, if your thesis committee/PI didn't direct the paper to your attention when you proposed your thesis, there is something weirder going on. If anybody is researching anything remotely close to my PI's work, he practically seems to know their street address and the name of their firstborn.
>>7967088
Well it's a BSc final project, so I imagined no one expects too much from me. It's pretty much in an area that nobody gives a crap about (myself included).
That paper seems to do kinda exactly what I've done (same objective, same experiment, same results), but given that it's empirical, I can use your quote but I don't think I want to reference the paper? I just want to get it over with this report tbqh, but I need a good mark
>>7967101
Which uni?
(plz say imperial :3 )
Name a field that uses tensor calculus that is not physics or engineering
>protip you cant
Mathematics
>>7966580
Statistics
/sci/ how do you feel about kids that cheat in your classes?
I had a test today in my differential equations class. Long ass test. But its curved. And some kid in front of me was on his phone the whole time googling answers. fucking up the entire curve.
curved grades are fucking retarded
>>7966569
Damn bro. That's pretty shitty of him.
I don't like people that cheat, but in a weird way I feel bad for them. They had to resort to fraudulence in order to pass.
As much as I may pity them, I also clearly see that they're hurting themselves as well as doing a disservice to others. I've been offered to cheat in a few classes and I've always refused. No point in building success on top of lies. I'd rather fail on my own than succeed by another. But I also didn't attempt to expose anyone. Mostly because it would probably boil down to word vs word and it would only result in a headache.
I'd like to say is that their cheating eventually catches up to them and they get fucked, but sometimes liars prosper.
>>7966569
>not telling the professor
>not getting his ass banned
There is nothing I hate more than a cheater. You should have told when you had the chance.
What if you had an incredibly thick metal cube that could withstand a nuclear blast in itself. You put a cube of sugar in it then seal it off and detonate the nuke inside of it.
Could that theoretically cleate a black hole or any anomaly?
Would not you indestructible cube be the anomaly?
sry "...your* cube..."
Well it would not be indestructible. Sure it would be hell to manufacture.
Only thick enough to contain a nuclear blast. It doesnt have to be a cube.
Can you prove that P=NP?
N = 1 or P = 0
ez, can't believe it took computer scientists so long to figure out.
>>7966014
Its not algebra you mong
How do I evaluate the limit of things involving factorials?
Heres an example problem my textbook dismissed as "trivial". Am I missing something here?
try the ratio test and see what cancels
Factorials grow faster than just about everything
>>7965630
If you're looking for a formal answer, take the limit of e^log(10^n/n!) and simplify. Remember properties of logs, e.g. log(ab)=log(a)+log(b)
What are the odds of life on Europa?
We know there is liquid water and geothermal energy under the ice
In my understanding Water + energy source = Life
I think there is nearly a 100% chance of at least something like mold or algae
There might even be something like tube worms or fish / crabs if we are lucky but I am less optimistic about multi-cellular life
If we could find two sources of life in our own little solar system then the universe MUST be full of life IMO
what does /sci/ think?
>>7965425
One of the reasons life prospered on earth was that it could stabilish a perfect carbon cycle, which we don't know yet if it's possible in europe
simple life IN europa i'd say is "very likely"
>>7965425
Simple, microscopic life there is a high possibility. Anything more complex than that is a pipe dream. But we won't really know for sure until we send a probe there
When all science and math related questions are answered
What will the point of life be?
>>7964856
provably never
>>7964859
Then there will always be a point to life.
>>7964860
there already was
I just wanted to revisit in new light what I've for a long time accepted as fact.
For example like how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is popularized as an irrelevant bastardization of a simple idea into an almost mystical process of cat magic. While in reality it just states that the photons you observed the electron with would have changed the momentum of said electron before hitting your eyes, rendering your observation wrong now.
All this quantum stuff can get pretty "mystical", like with electron tunneling and teleportation, etc. So is any of that also bastardized to appeal to popular science and can you de-mystify it?
(One for example is I read some thing a long time ago about how there's a possibility, albeit a 1/fucktillion chance, that you could suddenly appear on mars due to the infinitely-extending uncertainty wavelength)
>>7964588
Dont know wtf youre talking about op. Refer me to some pleb-entry level readings. Sounds cool though
>>7964721
Not OP, but, the first and last chapters of Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths is a good start. It's pretty widely used and probably has a torrent or something.
Keep in mind, the book works off the Copenhagen interpretation and will be using the concept of "collapse" even though it has not been explicitly proven to exist.
Also, If you want to get strait into the philosophy of things then check out Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Z Albert. The second half gets a little weird and Albert himself has generally distanced himself from it but the first half is a good introduction to quantum mechanics with minimal formalism.
Good luck, Anon.
>>7964588
It has nothing to do with photons, asshat. There are no simultaneous eigenfunctions of the position and momentum operators. Read a book.
In the video game of real life:
1. What is the framerate?
2. What is the resolution?
>>7964349
>framerate
30 fps. It is literally impossible for the human eye to perceive more than that.
I thought I read somewhere that (1) would be related to atomic vibrations, so like millions per second
>>7964364
Yes, but i was also thinking in and of itself
How many cups of water should I drink a day? I thought it was 8 but I heard recently it should be up to 13 for men.
Also, is this glass half empty or half full?
>>7964347
>gorging yourself on large quantities of water
Filthy Harkonnen
the glass is being raped
drink when you're thirsty
there's no trick to it
What is objectively the most repulsive sound a human can make?
That gurgling sound right before you throw up. If in space, I would disengage the air lock to avoid that sound and the ensuing vomit
>inb4 a bunch of meme answers like "the sentence 'i major in women's studies' lolololololol"
>>7964037
came here to say this but you beat me to it
