Post some of your books /sci/
>>7764813
I guarantee 90% of the books you faggot post, you haven't even read properly, if at all.
>>7764819
>frogposter
opinion discarded
>>7764828
>truth hurts, the post.
I'm a lion poster now.
Please I am just curious, I am a 25 year old man who doesn't know what drugs look like.
>>7764673
look up hash oil or resin
>>7764673
Have you tried smoking it?
Looks good its shatter made for dabbing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se2RN1t-XVI
@4:20
Is the stats major right here?
Infinity makes it infinitely probable does in not?
>>7763809
What the fuck is an A-level
I'm finishing my bachelor's in statistics and I'm sure that the probability converges to 1
>>7763822
A level is basically what we take before university.
GCSEs into AS level into A level into Bachelors
>>7763836
Why do Brits think that graduating high school is a great achievement
All right let's have a serious discussion about commercial fusion energy and it's viability as a major energy source for society.
I'd like to start by saying that, even though the physics behind fusion and the engineering required to make fusion reactors is undeniably dank, I don't think it's gonna be a major power source for society. Not because we can't do it, but because we won't do it.
Fusion, compared to other energy sources like solar, biofuel and hell, just regular oil, is just too damn expensive. However let's be idealistic and ignore polluting energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear fission. Still, the price of solar power is steadily going down and heading for dirt cheap, and battery technology is advancing nicely to complement it. There's also biofuel which is a much smoother replacement of regular fuel in all modes of transportation. I just don't see fusion ever getting an economic/financial advantage over solar, and because of that, I don't think we'll see fusion reactors except in research and maybe some extremely niche industry.
Fusion strikes me as solar panels on the moon: A really cool idea, but unlikely to ever actually happen because it's just too expensive compared to the cheaper, much easier alternatives, and fusion doesn't really offer any qualities that could overpower its massive economic drain. Also, although I hate to admit it, public opinion massively favours solar panels because nuclear fusion has the word 'nuclear' in it, and public opinion matters.
Discuss
>>7763370
>Still, the price of solar power is steadily going down and heading for dirt cheap, and battery technology is advancing nicely to complement it.
I think you have neglected an important fact, in that some places it is not very sunny, and that winter exists. Battery technology also isn't really advancing that rapidly, at least not in the areas that are important for grid-scale storage- I'm not sure where you got that impression. (However, development in redox flow batteries is looking very promising for solar as a viable main energy source. Batteries aren't advancing rapidly, but they're undeniably moving towards the world where solar rules the grid.)
While I understand using solar storage as base-load power over the course of days or weeks, I don't know if it's really practical to store enough power to supply energy through months of dark, cloudy upper-latitude winter where energy demands for heating spike.
And while long-distance transmission of power can be very efficient, it would require very expensive infrastructure overhauls to offload all of the world's power generation onto sunny areas and transmit that to places like Seattle. Or Alaska.
Fusion plants, on the other hand, would be far more easily integrated into the grid. Considering all this, I suspect that (assuming commercial fusion ever, you know, actually happens) economics will favor some combination of solar, fusion, and other energy sources (Iceland is going to be geothermal for the rest of time). Fusion may be expensive, but overhauling the grid is REALLY expensive.
That said, all this depends on just how expensive fusion really is. Most current *commercial* fusion approaches have the potential to be relatively cheap, or else those commercial ventures wouldn't be able to afford to work on it. If those don't pay off and it turns out that ITER-but-bigger is really what a fusion plant looks like, certainly fusion will never be competitive.
>>7763370
Public opinion is retarded.
Solar panel manufacture is massively polluting.
Also, has net energy gain over the lifetime of the panels been achieved yet?
Sorry to say but you're a victim of clever marketing and you are about to be dashed upon the jagged rocks of reality.
>>7763403
>Also, has net energy gain over the lifetime of the panels been achieved yet?
Yes, and they have since 2010. In fact, by some estimates, the energy deficit from all the years that solar panels were a net energy loss has already been paid off.
>heat is caused by rapidly moving molecules
>heat is caused by infrared light
Which is it? Are scientists lying to me?
>>7762599
heat isn't caused by anything, it is literally energy
it's rate of transfer is related to the temperature
energy can be transmitted both via momentum transfer when particles collide and light absorption, not just IR light either
>heat is the rapid movement of molecules
>heat is often transferred in the form of infrared light
There ya go.
>>7762603
So heat is entropy in measurement?
>tfw you realise it will cost TRILLIONS of dollars to build spaceships to mine asteroids and colonize other planets and billions of dollars more to build "space hotels and space tourist spots".
>tfw you realise no corporation on the planet has the funds nor the investor confidence to see through such a risky venture
>tfw the US barely spends 0.5% of its GDP on NASA
Not even private corps like SpaceX or Blue Origin can realistically realize the economics of space tourism, mining and colonization. Even if they somehow magically are able to, they’d still have to factor in the countless (expensive) safety procedures that have to be employed in space. Lets face it. THE MONEY ISN'T THERE.
Also theres always the danger of some stray meteorite trolling around and just fucking up a trillion dollar investment in an instant.
And lets be honest here. Even a world war 3 is not going to cut it. You’d still have to find trillions of dollars from somewhere to build the spaceships and shit. Killing off a billion people and irradiating half the planet is NOT going to fund your spaceark.
So basically the future of space travel and tourism is doomed and completely economically unfeasible several times over unless we discover some kind of “space magic” that is both cheap and efficient to defy the laws of physics...
Elon is probably going to go on /suicide watch/ once he realizes that he can't die on Mars.
>>7778472
Tfw communism is the best choice but people are greedy
>>7778472
You are right, we need to develop other technology so we can put automated solar panel and hydroponic farm manufacturing robots on mars or something, but this process involves going into space at some point to help figure out which direction to go in.
>>7778472
>So basically the future of space travel and tourism is doomed and completely economically unfeasible several times over unless we discover some kind of “space magic” that is both cheap and efficient to defy the laws of physics...
and that's news to you? kek
thing is, there isnt all that much to do in space. because it's mostly empty.
'asteroid mining' is (for now) a pipedream of people who play too many scifi video games. it's just too impractical and not even remotely profitable.
same for off-planet colonies. aside from research there is nothing they provide that couldnt be done on earth for a fraction of the cost.
establishing a small research base on the moon, and maybe even on mars, is feasible. would take a LOT of time to plan and execute, but it is feasible.
actual 'colonization' of other planets though? WAY beyond our capabilities. would require so much shit we have absolutely no way of getting on the moon (or mars), and even if we had, they'd still be far from self-sufficient (which is kind of required for an actual human settlement to thrive)
>>7778488
>if only humans werent humans, then my utopian societal models could finally work!
If you're all so smart, explain pic related.
It's just a fractal bro. Nature replicating a pattern which also exists in some way on a smaller scale.
If you think the universe is a brain then you're on the wrong board.
one of them is a braincell, other is the universe
there :^)
There's nothing to explain.
How does it make you feel?
>>7778849
at least he was a genius. i'm just virgin and stupid
>implying he wasn't homosex
>>7778849
bad, because I'm not a virgin anymore
Why are these guys so fucking tough? What kind of conditioning took place so they evolved to handle such extreme conditions?
I mean.. No animal would ever have the need to survive in the vacuum of space (when dehydrated), the ability to handle colossal amounts of radiation, crushing amounts of pressure, the list goes on. Let alone that it survived every major extinction. Do they even come from Earth? The more I read about it, the more it appears to be the most successful organism that has ever lived and will ever live.
That depends on your definition of successful.
>>7778075
what the fuck is that?
>jesus christ OP, you ask a question about something without even fucking identifying it? You are the worst poster ever, and should go back to poster school.
>>7778086
It's in the gif title. It's colloquially known as the water bear and it's the hardest to kill organism in the world.
It can just go "fuck this" and sit dormant for periods of time usually preserved for seeds lost in glaciers.
>there's a guy on here claiming to be a physics Phd with a official iq of 109.
If this is true, /sci/ literally on suicide watch.
>>7776028
Physics aren't that hard mate.
>>7776031
it's just equations and memorising, ffs
>>7776028
I guess that's why he had to settle for physics. In math he would have failed.
Is Michio Kaku an actual physicist or just a meme like NeilTyson and Bill Nye
he's in his own category
>>7775321
What would that be?
>>7775325
I'm pretty sure he contributed to string theory
>Scientists at the University of New South Wales discovered that, for fruit flies at least, the size of the young was determined by the size of the first male the mother mated with, rather than the second male that sired the offspring.
>“Our new findings take this to a whole new level – showing a male can also transmit some of his acquired features to offspring sired by other males,” she says.
>The researchers found cells with Y-chromosomes in the mother after these births, meaning the mother had male cells present in her female body. The researchers also found genetically similar male cells in the mother’s female puppies from a later litter. Those puppies were newborn and had never been pregnant, strongly suggesting that they acquired the cells that were left behind by their older brothers while in the womb.
Any biofags want to weigh in on this?
http://www.returnofkings.com/70425/research-suggests-that-a-womans-body-incorporates-dna-from-the-semen-of-her-casual-sex-partners
>>7774264
As if anyone needs a scientific excuse to say "only virgins are marriage material".
Not a biofag, but if sperm cells persisted in offspring they could theoretically impregnate the virgin daughter
>CHRISTIANITY DEBUNKED!
>>7774269
They're saying the genetic information persists, not the sperm cells.
There's been studies showing epigenetic changes in females after sperm cells burrowed into their wombs too.
Who /not intelligent enough to contribute anything to science/ here?
IQ of 114 reporting in. This feel sucks.
iq is just a number.
Hard work beats natural talent every time. Stop being such a sad kunt and apply yourself.
You can always work at the budweiser bottle factory checking for cracks
I'm a grad student and I'm not very smart.
There's a lot of grunt work to be done in science these days. You can even get a PhD out of the deal.
Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from? The additives that get put into them? Or is there something inherently bad about the tobacco itself? if i grew, dried, processed, etc tobacco plants, and added nothing to them, would the self grown cigarettes be healthier as compared to cigarettes bought at the drugstore?
>>7773087
That meme bothers me.
Nickel & Cadmium are in batteries, shitty ones though. Meme-ion is what all them use now a days.
Butane, lighter fluid? Cool meme.
Methane, sewer gas? It occurs naturally and is even stored in banks of frozen water in places far up north, around Ålesund-north.
Stearic Acid, candle wax? Yeah, but stearic acid is also found in food as a saturated fatty acid, what's wrong?
Ammonia, toilet cleaner? Ammonium Hydroxide is used as an anti-bacterial agent in food, nothing wrong.
Toluene, it's a pretty good organic solvent, but are you actually going to breathe it in? lol no.
Methanol, rocket fuel? Yeah, you're not going to drink methanol, so why are you so worried?
>>7773087
Probably not measurably. Those images are just a scare tactic and somewhat misleading. They don't actually "add" anything to cigarettes besides menthol flavoring (sometimes). All the chemicals they name are just created when the tobacco is burned. The real reason cigarettes are bad is that when you burn things it creates smoke that is actually made of tiny solid floating particles. And those tiny particles clog up your lungs and stop the flow of oxygen, and also cause cancer. Smoking leaves and wood would have the same negative effects.
>>7773101
that makes sense thanks. I don't smoke so I'm just curious about where the problems come from. Is this why vaping is seen as "better"? Because it's just vapor instead of real smoke?
Is medicine part of STEM?
>>7772394
A Doctor is STEM but a pharmacy technician is not.
medicine is bro science
>>7772645
S - Sociology
T- Tourism
E- English
M - Medicine
