Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 638. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
can science explain why cats are cute
>>7648092
Big eyes remind you of babies.
>>7648092
big eyes, small mouth and nose, curious, playful nature
those are neotenous traits, our brains are programmed to find those cute because children have them and we are supposed to care for the children
>>7648156
this
there's a decent body of evidence that rather than being selectively bred by humans, some cats evolved neotenous features because it made them better-tolerated by humans and thus gave them the advantage of having access to human homes and granaries (basically mice R us, no large predators, knock yourself out).
So was thinking, what would happen if I drilled through the earth and jumped into it? Thank you!
you'd burn to death. your remains would float around the center of the earth
What eight plants are impossible to explore? Is it possible to venture on Neptune's surface or atmosphere?
>>7647987
Are you including exploring with robots or do you actually mean people in suits on the ground?
>>7647987
If we're talking about human exploration:
Mercury - Too hot
Venus - Could survive in upper atmosphere maybe (that whole blimp idea)
Earth - Duh
Mars - This could also work
Jupiter - Possible to survive in the same conditions as Venus, but much more difficult due to the extreme cold
Saturn - Again, floating on the surface of a gas giant is possible, but I don't know if it would be feasible anytime soon
Uranus - Probably too cold, we'd need some amazing life support
Neptune - Even...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7648044
It would be great though if you actually knew something about planets beyond that one national geographic documentary you saw 10 years ago.
imagine if Einstein had helped cure cancer instead of helped build the atomic bomb?
>>7647668
Nice meme.
>>7647668
>Imagine Einstein could do something else instead of physic
No.
>>7647668
Nukes are weapons that have prevented war
weapons that prevent war are a good thing
think about it
Share your own theories in this thread with others.
Others in the thread will examine your theory and try to find the flaws in it.
>>7647650
I think this is a bit too casual, individualistic, and fun for /sci/.
Sorry anon.
>>7647655
People can come up with interesting and well thought out theories though.
In dis paper, we shall present tha Hamilton-Perelman theory of
Ricci flow. Based on it, we shall give tha straight-up original gangsta freestyled account of a cold-ass lil complete proof
of tha Poincar´e conjecture n' tha geometrization conjecture of Thurston. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. While
the complete work be a accumulated effortz of nuff geometric analysts, tha major
contributors is unquestionably Hamilton n' Perelman.
An blingin problem up in differential geometry is ta find a cold-ass lil canonical metric on
a given manifold. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! In turn, tha existence of a cold-ass lil canonical metric often has profound
topological implications fo' realz. A phat example is tha old-ass uniformization theorem in
two dimensions which, on one hand, serves up a cold-ass lil complete topological classification for
compact surfaces, n' on tha other hand shows dat every last muthafuckin compact surface has a
canonical geometric structure: a metric of constant curvature.
How tha fuck ta formulate n' generalize dis two-dimensionizzle result ta three n' higher
dimensionizzle manifoldz has been one of da most thugged-out blingin n' challengin topics in
modern mathematics. In 1977, W. Thurston [122], based on scams bout Riemann surfaces,
Haken’s work n' Mostow’s rigiditizzle theorem, etc, formulated a geometrization
conjecture fo' three-manifoldz which, roughly bustin lyrics, states dat every last muthafuckin compact orientable
three-manifold has a cold-ass lil canonical decomposizzle tha fuck into pieces, each of which admits
a canonical geometric structure. In particular, Thurston’s conjecture gotz nuff, as a
special case, tha Poincar´e conjecture: A closed three-manifold wit trivial fundamental
group is necessarily homeomorphic ta tha 3-sphere S.
Actual benefits and the moral acceptability of using 'study drugs' such as Ritalin and Adderall.
Do these drugs actually aid Uni students or self-learners learn materials quicker and with less issues? Or are they mostly placebo.
Further, is it morally acceptable for a student to use one of these drugs when studying or going for an exam?
Does it even matter?
Have you ever done it?
>Do these drugs actually aid Uni students or self-learners learn materials quicker and with less issues? Or are they mostly placebo.
Why don't you read the literature and find out for yourself? Or better yet, fucking try it you nimrod.
>>7647607
>Do these drugs actually aid Uni students or self-learners learn materials quicker and with less issues?
Depends on the psychology, and physiology, of the individual. Personally I think methylphenidate is absolute garbage, regardless of the intended use. Adderall (dextro and levo amphetamine) goes either way. I've found drugs to be dualistic, they take to both give and take. While adderall inhibited a lot of modes of thought, and creativity, irt improved other functions. I found it to be net unhelpful though as far as learning and memory, though that wasn't why I was taking it. There are much better ways to learn to learn well.
>Or are they mostly placebo.
No. While a person's expectation of a drug's action can change the effect of the drug (heavy self suggestion), it has a defined pharmacological action no matter what you think.
>Further, is it morally acceptable for a student to use one of these drugs when studying or going for an exam?
Is it morally acceptable for me to eat when I'm hungry? After all, this augments the functionality of my body and mind, and offers a major advantage. Is it moral for people to drink caffeine? Is it moral to eat chocolate?
Questions like these are nonsense.
>Does it even matter?
See above. We're talking about natural law.
>Have you ever done it?
Yes. For a year and a half. Stopped when I entered early stages of amphetamine psychosis.
Placebo or not, as long as it doesn’t harm the user (which it probably does) then there is nothing wrong with making a person smarter more easily.
How much of the universe is visible to us? 90%?95%?
>>7647513
We don't know
If the universe is infinite, 0%
The observable universe is visible to us. We don't know what is beyond the observable universe because we can't observe it.
The Star Trek transporter is a device that is fundamentally unsound.
Organic matter, particularly that of entire biological organisms, would have to be instantaneously moved through some sort of quantum entanglement or else it would kill the person or being (or whatever).
Is this consensus or am I just an idiot? If I'm an idiot, tell me why at least.
Transporter A scans the biological makeup of the person and sends it to Transporter B.
A deconstructs the person the same instant that B creates an exact copy of that person.
Everyone in Star Trek is a clone of a clone of a dead person.
>>7647420
This was actually brought up in an episode, the series of which escapes me at the moment.
I want to say it was Voyager and it was Torres saying something like "There was a lot of philosophical talk on whether someone at the destination was the same person as the one at the departure point."
But what I mean is actually transporting every single atom simultaneously from all of their points in space that make them capable of creating a person or being.
So then it would be like creating...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7647413
>it would kill the person or being
This is addressed in the series, and is why some people don't use transporters.
Have you guys ever used proofs in your career or in real life in general, this is coming from a frustrated student whose grade has gone from an A to a fucking F. It's gotten to the point where I think my mind just can't learn proofs. So is it worth learning at all?
>>7647378
I study medicine so no it's not worth learning, it wont get you mad doctor pussy
>>7647424
Nice
>>7647424
How does it feel to know that medicine has a 100.00 per cent failure rate?
I want to analyze the possible outcomes and strategies of this game, however I don't know where to start. Could you direct me to the specific area of math needed, or to similar problems? Thanks in advance. The game is the following
>There are n "blocks" mounted one over another in whatever number of towers. Two players, A and B, play one turn each, one after the other one. a player can either divide one tower of blocks into two of the same number of blocks, or join two different towers of DIFFERENT SIZE. What are the winning strategies...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
what is the win condition ?
>>7647288
oh, i forgot. The winning condition is that you leave a player without options for a play, that is, the player can't join two towers or separate one
I'd start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprague%E2%80%93Grundy_theorem
Let me just say I'm not a /sci/ regular, but I've noticed that there are a lot of threads about Space explorations and colonization.
What about colonizing the Oceans? Whether its true underwater cities or artificial islands, wouldn't this be an easier goal for science to accomplish than say colonizing Mars or large Asteroids etc.?
Not that i'm against research on space exploration, I'm all for it, but I'd like know if there are any projects or research being done on Underwater colonization?
>>7647282
Why do that when there's a fuckhuge continent we still haven't colonized?
>>7647282
what would be the purpose?
>>7647293
It's illegal to colonize Antarctica under international law, you know the ones that all countries who could actually do something like that agreed to.
It's probably easier to tow a prefab module off the coast of Florida and sink it than it is to rent an icebreaker ship to sail all necessary goods, staff, and materials to the South Pole to be honest.
Mr. Rapture might have a point.
how much math and physics do I need to know to learn to program games?
would Khan academy be good enough?
dont ask the sparrow how the eagle soars
You must be able to solve triple integrals mentally.
Depending upon the game, basically none. You could make something like Farmville with an 8th grade education (excluding the computer programming skills, of course). If you want to program graphics explicitly, then you need basic trig and geometry, which I guess are also 8th or maybe 9th grade.
The top is Toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease.
The bottom is Runts, a candy.
Know the difference and it may save your life.
>>7647031
Is this to scale?
>>7647034
Yes
>>7647034
Depends. What's the resolution + size of your monitor?
Tell me why this is wrong
kek'd at therefore sign
>>7646987
It's not, you should publish it
>>7646987
>algebraic P=NP proof
Why do retarded CS majors think this is funny? Why don't they fuck off to >>>/g/ where they belong?
>people honestly believe there is a STEM shortage
Top Kek, implying it isn't a way to allow cheap labor in
300k starting
>>7646986
300k forints maybe
Seriously, the same thing happened with IT industry (in the UK) we were told there was a shortage of 30,000 jobs and needed to import labour. It wasn't true, the market was saturated as fuck and still hasn't recovered
