>scientists believed universe was permeated by an invisible aether that light particles vibrated through
>Michelson and Morley build an interferometer and fail to detect the aether wind
>today, a much larger interferometer detects vibrations that on a smaller scale, could have been considered aether wind, but is now explained as the sound of colliding stellar objects transmitted through space itself
>this is somehow not the same thing as an aether that permeates all of space
>even though nobody believes in the old notion of the aether there's this new omnipresent field made of weird Higgs particles that magically impart mass to matter as they pass through it
>everyone believes in this now
>but not the aether
>>8142619
Physicists have gone insane and abandoned all logic. They literally believe a cat can be dead AND alive at the same time.
>>8142623
They also believe that lions evolved from cats, even though there are still cats. They're fanatics.
>>8142634
Yet they haven't added "evolving" as a third option in the cat's superposition. How inconsistent. After all it might happen that Schrodenigger opens his box and finds a newly evolved lion.
What Numberphile episode is the worst/ triggers your autism the most?
>>8142611
-1/12
>>8142611
Ramanujan Sum video followed by the Parker Square video
>>8142611
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA
A friend and I were on a park bench earlier today discussing philosophy and the nature of reality and I brought up a subject I read about in the comments section in relation to a blog post I read about the physics of a cube shaped earth.
Imagine you are at the centre of the earth and you build a staircase at a 45 degree angle up to the surface of the earth, it would have to reach the surface eventually, however if you started at the earth's surface and built a 45 degree staircase downwards towards the centre of the earth surely the staircase would lead not to the centre of the earth but would exit at another part of the earth's surface as I assume to reach the centre of the earth one would would have to dig straight down at a 90 degree angle perpendicular to the earth's surface.
Although hypothetical It seems to me paradoxical and had a zen koan like quality to it which my friend appreciated as he is a Buddhist, but what is the actual science behind this apparent paradox?
Pic kinda related
>>8142233
???? If you are at the center of the square and you go up at a 45 degree angle you will reach the top left angle
If you are at the center of the top edge and you go down at 45 degrees you will exit at the center of the right edge.
I fail to see the problem
>>8142233
>45 degree angle up .. at the centre of the earth
You need to work on your visualization skills
after that, return to chan buddhism
>>8142233
If you're at the center of the earth, you can go through at any angle and reach the surface. However, if you're at the surface, because the earth isn't a perfect sphere, you would have to go at different angles depending on your current latitude to reach the exact center. It would have to be a very specific angle.
I am your guinea pig. Help me grow taller by suggesting some new ideas. What I've tried so far:
>exercise
>stretching
>healhty diet
>posting memes
>drinking bleach
eat your goddamn spinach
>>8142231
Ok I will overdose on spinach. I am allowed to smoke it in a bong?
>>8142240
Only if the bong is shaped like a dick
I have just realized that many professors in my school paid indexed journals so that they can publish their shits.
This is why they have so many papers published but none of them actually has any impact or is meaningful in science.
What the actual fuck? The school is ranked pretty high due to the publication rate. This is a fucking joke. Academy is a fucking joke.
>>8142080
your right
where do you live ?
>>8142080
do you live in China?
Terraforming other planets is such a dumb idea. Just build mines and bases and get done with it.
>b-but muh population increase! We need a new planet!
Malthus trap is proven to be false and you can just fix your own planet with such time and effort. Prove me wrong.
>>8142048
>Implying a group of enterprising humans a couple hundred/thousand years from now won't do it just to prove that they can.
>>8142048
Terraforming is only good for extremely long term plans, like 100k+ years. Better short term methods like O'Neil Cylinders can be made and used in the mean time.
>>8142144
+1 for o'neil cylinders. We need megaprojects like that.
Are there any sci-fi series with legit science in it?
Pic not releated
>>8141970
The expanse trys to be fairly realistic
>>8141970
It's a closed loop, so pretty realisitic.
It's science-fiction.
As fictious science.
As not-legit-science.
However, here's some movies that might interest you: Primer, Oculus and Inception.
Then again I liked 12 monkeys.
Does it often happen at Western universities that a professor destroys an intelligent student just because he/her does not like him/her personally?
How would you react in that situation?
>>8141917
not more or less often than in other cultures where education is part of the economic system
It always depends, most of the time if you are confident and give the correct answer the professor is just not able to destroy you because the facts, your knowledge and hopefully your classmates got your back
>>8141929
you live in some utopia where facts rule over the authority
the class does not know the facts or is not sure about them so it is not an objective judge and follows authority and its snarkily remarks
Then you just have to present your facts in a way that is impossible to disagree with.
So I was watching anime and they used the word transvection, so I looked it up on wikipedia to find out what it is and this article does not help at all, it's like reading French to me. Can someone explain transvection in layman's terms?
>super hearing
I'm guessing they're talking about supernatural bullshit.
> Transvection, in the paranormal context, is the rising of a human body into the air by mystical means.
misspelling of "transfection" which is where you inject (or otherwise transport) DNA or RNA into a cell.
>>8141890
in French, transvaser means changing the container of something.
Like taking water from a bottle and pouring it into another.
>anon's theorem
>anon's postulate
>anon's argument
>anon's diagram
How much of a retard am I for partially going into science because I want things named after me?
>>8141877
it's a motivation, probably a common one, maybe not the best one
beyond that, who cares?
You aren't retarded for wanting that.
it's an enormous feat.
>>8141877
I would cringe so hard every time I had to mention something named after me
If you had to write 4000 words from any math topic, what would it be and why ?
Statistics.
It's not mental masturbation.
modular arithmetics in Z/1000Z.
done.
elliptic curves
so many directions to approach from
is it possible to do science without equations ?
>>8141808
Yes, absolutely
biology
>>8141808
Well I don't know about you but I'd have to say that this here diagram doesn't tell you you have to use equations.
Can you help me with tips to learn organic chemistry?
I just don't get it since high school.
Like I know the basics, i can recite the theory or some reactions, but what is the logic of chemistry? It's overwhelming.
What is the most crucial part to understand why this reaction is not possible and this is? Why it goes like this?
I thought you pick the mechanism and simply paste chunks of chemical formulas where "R-" is, but you can't extrapolate it that way.
>I "get" maths, physics and kinda biology pls help what's so special about chemistry?
>>8141651
>I know the basics
Ok, now get the following books:
Fleming's Frontier Orbitals and Organic Chemical Reactions
Deslongschamps' "Stereoelectronic Effects in Organic Chemistry"
Grossman's "The Art of Writing Reasonable Organic Reaction Mechanisms"
go to bookzz.org and go nuts
>>8141651
there is no "most crucial part" as to why a reaction will or will not work
you have to consider sterics, electronegativity/electropositivity, orbital theory, inductive effects, solvent effects, and a ton of other factors when determining if a reaction will work
there isn't a set formula for these things, a large part of it is intuition and understanding how these things work together once you understand how they work separately
stop trying to apply the same methods you use in math/physics
chemistry exists in the real world and isn't the idealized model of a system, there are too many variables and factors that we don't know about so you can't solve these problems like a system of equations
>>8141674
complete and utter bullshit
Isn't science just another spook?
Nationalism, religion are only spooks so why science should not be?
Do you only use theorems you have checked by yourself? Do you use the axiom of choice or not? Do you assume law of excluded middle?
Your result is true only within some context. Is it literally not "true". It is a result of some language game. No more true than some babbling of a 3 years old child, which accurately expresses toddler feelings.
Because science is not a dogma which nobody is forced to believe ? And the outcomes are entirely dependant of the objective results of repeated experiments ?
>>8141586
the smiling faces on your image remind me of demons laughing while torturing poor souls
>Isn't science just another spook?
Nothing is a spook unless you let it be.
Someone like Perelman seems to be severely spooked by his Russian perspective on pure math.
>Do you only use theorems you have checked by yourself?
Nobody does, unless you're doing the most basic pure logic. But that's irrelwvant here. Don't throw around a naive notion of truth.
>Do you use the axiom of choice or not? Do you assume law of excluded middle?
Hardly anybody on /sci/ does actually do nath where it matters. Maybe nobody here actually does (as opposed to: reads about) the functional analysis where it's actyally used.
I'm personally not a fan of all of ZFC but that has completely zero to do with the cteative nothing.
>No more true than some babbling of a 3 years old child, which accurately expresses toddler feelings.
No it seems much much more that you are or would liked to be spooked by science. You do hope for an objective truth.
How toddler Wittgenstein relates to truth of published math papers doesn't matter. Toddle sentences are not fur nor get you fame. They are not of utility.
any good matlab textbook recommendations?
>>8141576
Why would you need a textbook for matlab?
>>8141577
I enjoy having textbooks to supplement my learning
>>8141580
But there's nothing to learn. Just ram arrays down functions and press help when you forget what a thing does.
