Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 83. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
Our planet rotates around a star, our sun alongside the solar system just rotates around our galaxycore, galaxies seem to rotate around each other. Assuming there are actually several other Universes, do they rotate too?
>>8137791
>Assuming there are actually several other Universes, do they rotate too?
Depends first on if the bulk actually exists.
You'd also have to assume that the universes existed in some extra space to be able to move. There's no reason to expect something like that
>>8137806
why
What is the science behind how long you last in bed/how many rounds you go for/how you perform?
How long do you last in bed /sci/?
Do you go for multiple rounds?
Multiple rounds? Hah, oh my, no. LTR, buddy. We're lucky to fuck once a month. After one round, we're more concerned with figuring out where we left off in The Wire than in making a bigger mess of the sheets.
>>8137592
LTRs do that?
I'm in an LTR LDR so we fuck lots when we get to meet.
>>8137614
That's how mine started!
Then I moved in with her. Don't ever do that.
So in this particular game, a drop rate of a particular item is 1/384. There are 3 unique items with this drop rate.
I would assume this would mean the chances of receiving any drop is 3/384 or 1/128.
This is where it gets tricky. If I wanted to calculate the odds of something dropping I get confused as to what I would do. Say, I repeated this process 100 times, meaning that I've hit this chance of 1/128 100 times, would the probability of me getting this item be 111/128 (symbolizing 100 attempts)? Or is this a gambler's fallacy and my odds are still...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8137578
>I would assume this would mean the chances of receiving any drop is 3/384 or 1/128.
Depends if the odds are independent - i.e. does one of the items dropping impact the odds of the other two items dropping from the same kill.
>Or is this a gambler's fallacy and my odds are still 1/128?
Correct. If you want to calculate the aggregate chance over the 100 attempts that at least one drop happened, however, I believe you can take the inverse...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8137578
>Say, I repeated this process 100 times, meaning that I've hit this chance of 1/128 100 times, would the probability of me getting this item
36,932305226788006779354614874355%
>>8137578
If you wan't to find the odds of getting at least one drop in 100 attempts you start by calculating the odds of not getting anything after 100 attempts and subtract that from one.
1 - (127/128)^100 = 54%
https://youtu.be/4Z4KwuUfh0A
>>8137174
Yes.
>>8137174
Wait I meant no
>>8137188
now I know you will say maybe
If evolution is self-replicating matter adapting to presented circumstances, why did we evolve sentience? It's not necessary for life on this planet.
>>8137144
Evolution is not adaption. Evolution is a population-wide change in genes. This does not necessarily mean the population has adapted to anything. And it does not mean such changes are "necessary," whatever you think that means.
>>8137144
niche adaptation
Who says sentience evolved? Perhaps it's more of an "after effect".
What do people usually do with tutors?
There is a tutor in my area I would like to hire (mostly because of how hot he is), but I don't know how these things work. Does he provide questions or something?
Please don't waste his time.
just go on a date with him then
ITT: things you learned from reading the philosophy of science
I learned that science uses experiments and observations.
Thanks, philosophy. Without you I would of never know this.
Albert Einstein is the smartest man in the world who invented E=mc^2
>>8136716
This is fucking creepy
>>8136716
Well yes you don't need to read p.o.s. to know that but if you for some reason wanted the justification for experiments and observations you would have to.
I learned that experiments need to differentiate between different hypotheses. If an experiment gives the same result no matter what hypothesis might be true then it is useless.
Hi /sci/ i just wonder if anybody know if gallium can dissolve in water because i just buy 40g and i melt it with hot water and it seem that the water is darker
>>8136671
lel, why would you use hot water when you could merely palm the container and use body heat to melt it?
And also some of the gallium seem to have formed little black grain is this gallium oxide
>>8136676
It is a lot quicker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKyth_yoJBc
What is it about people in STEM that makes them horrible autists and debate philosophers and act like smug cunts in general about things?
Is it something in the water? People somehow think having a PhD in a very narrow field of physics or math gives them the authority to speak on anything
>>8136440
Not all STEM majors are new atheists.
>>8136441
Of course not every person in science is terrible, but I wasn't saying that
>>8136440
>I can imagine a world without physics but not mathematics
this math guy made me cringe
First of all, I'm fully aware of how autistic I sound.
Secondly, I'm really interested in becoming more intelligent, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts/experiences. Here is what I've been doing so far:
>self-learning calculus, although it isn't used in my degree. This is basically to do practice questions, which I feel is good exercise for the brain
>reading lots of fiction and non-fiction. I try and vary the non-fiction as much as possible, reading into economics, machine learning,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8136409
Stop walking listening to informatives, that's innatural. Use long walks to relax, it will help
>>8136432
I meditate daily in order to relax
What's your goal?
For me, most of my progress has come from pushing myself, and straining/trying to deeply understand material. Without a concrete goal in mind it seems like a lot of your efforts would be wasted. What happens when you get to something that's much more difficult than your used to? Do you stop and give up when you stop making progress because you have no reason to push yourself?
Is this? No subjects. Degrees that are are and science. Is the end of true intellectual thought at hand anon?
http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/25-things-that-will-be-obsolete-by-2025/
>>8136320
>Learning styles
>The genius factor
>Right/left brain
Good fucking riddance. Can't wait for 2025.
Also, why every read this futurology shit? It's probably wrong--it's definitely wrong. Ten years from now, my peers who endorse all of this shit will be the ones in academia. They're gonna keep that fire alive.
>>8136320
>1. Traditional subjects
>We’re living in an increasingly multi-disciplinary world, so why shouldn’t our majors reflect that? In the next ten years, we’ll start to see less Biology, Math, English and more Big Data, Creative Studies, and Decision Sciences.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh wait, you were serious?
[math] \bf{ HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA } [/math]
>>8136320
>5. Tracking
>In their book, 50 Myths and Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools, Berliner and Glass explain that tracking, or separating students according to academic ability, provides little to no benefit for low-achieving students and, at best, modest academic benefits for high-achieving students:
I don't even
Question for an astrophysist or astronomer or anyone who might know. I'm reading Sagans Cosmos book and he mentions that there were several stars born in the cloud of interstellar gas and dust that formed our sun but that they have been separated. Was it the angular momentum that allowed them to leave because they were at a far enough distance from our sun that the sound gravity was negligible . Or was this cloud light years across?
>>8136282
Why don't you read an actual astrophysics book?
1. The cloud was light years across.
2. The external gravitational pull was greater than the internal gravitational pull.
star nurseries are commonly huge. next.
Is it possible to win in this position?
>>8136248
> thought this was go and black got wrecked
what are the rules of othello again?
>>8136253
I don't know. Barely know how the game works myself. I played for two or three days several months ago. I always lost by a huge margin. Now all of a sudden I seem to have a shot at winning.
Although, I forget if the diagonals will change color if I place a chip on b1. I know the four white chips in the center of the first row will turn black, but that won't be enough to win.
>>8136260
F2, brings it to 33 28
Computer will have no moves, so b1, computer will still have no moves, b2
Imagine a hypothetical alternate earth where there was no coal.
Could humans ever have invented things like current computers, the internet, and so on? Is there any alternate pathway of historical development that does not require coal, and achieves modern levels of technology?
>>8136237
Burning wood? There are very few things that coal can do which wood cannot, albeit at a lower efficiency and higher cost.
>>8136237
the Chinese were piping and burning natural gas for energy before Jesus was born, so I'd guess it's possible to skip the coal step.
>>8136237
We have other fossil fuels right? Just no coal?
The US would not be the greatest country on Earth. Our success is largely because of our enormous coal deposits (there's a reason both sub periods of the Carboniferous are named after places in the US). But with other fossil fuels available we would simply rely on them more.
I saw a reddit AMA where Richard Dawkins was asked "what is the biggest mystery to science?" and he answered consciousness was.
What do we not understand about consciousness?
To me it seems like it is just simply the ability to reason?
>>8136065
Here is my thinking for this.
intelligence = ability to reason. with reason/logic being a limited thing (deduction upon reality, reality being limited) so too will the ability to apprehend this deduction
(intelligence) be limited.
hypothetically if a person we're to be absent all ability to reason, their mind being equatable to a sort of fathomless dream, are they
still an intelligent being?
no they are not. if define intelligence as ability to reason, without reason there cant be intelligence.
consciousness = an apprehension of reality
if they do not have the ability to reason they do not have the ability to apprehend.
therefore consciousness = ability to reason
>>8136065
> biologists
> scientist
Turbulence is the biggest mystery
Being so smart that you perceive actions before you're doing them. It's a rather ambiguous term as were not the only things living, just the only ones deciding to live. Not all decisions are conscious, so how are we to tell which part of our thinking is the conscious bit? There are of course levels of conciousness as in some people are infinitely less concious in their decision making. Most decisions have been social and cohabiting ones, even though they persisted from times we would not have considered ourselves as concious. Is relating to another's intelligence...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
