>there was a time when everyone thought airplanes were impossible, and they were wrong, therefore FTL is also possible
>>8050202
>I just don't trust what """""science""""" has to say anymore. One day they're telling you to eat more whole grains and the next they're telling you to avoid gluten!
>>8050202
> '' I watch top 10 videos on youtube so I am practically a scientist now :D: D: D: :D:D :D XDDXDD''
>just because I don't understand anything that I'm taught in school and refuse to teach myself doesn't mean I'm not SMART! I'm good at other stuff like listening to top 40 music and reading young adult fiction.
>>8050207
literally my mom
>>8050202
>>8050202
Every sentence that uses "science" as the grammatical subject.
>>8050220
That scene was hilarious though.
>"I'm smart,. I just don't have book smarts."
>>8050235
One of my favorite episodes. Someone once tried to tell me it was a solid argument against evolution, though.
>>8050202
>There are things that science can't explain
Of course, every formal system is incomplete, but your magical mumbo jumbo can't explain that things either (or any)
>But science was wrong sometimes in the past
Science is a method, not an entity or a person you dumbfuck
>But X theory is just a theory
I can't even answer to that most of times because i'm too busy controlling myself to not kill the one who is talking
>>8050269
I weep for you burgers that have to live in a country where people still believe this.
>>8050270
>every person in yurope is of great intelligence
This meme is getting old.
>>8050269
>>But X theory is just a theory
This one really freaks me out.
It's partially our own fault though.
We should have a different word for "scientific theory".
In layman's English, a theory is a vague, ill-formed notion supported by one person's desire to believe something in particular.
In science, a theory is an idea that's widely accepted by the scientific community because it's been thoroughly tested, and also fits well with other scientific knowledge.
We really need a different word.
>>8050270
Burgers? I have never been in america, I have been living in many places of europe and met people who believe this things.
And the worst about it is that many times they are intelligent people, education is the problem
>>8050218
>literally my mom
My mom once heard someone who once heard someone else talking about GR treating time like a spatial dimension, so now she's convinced that "all time is simultaneous".
Never mind that "simultaneous" means at an equal point along the "t axis".
... and another one:
"I don't believe in evolution".
Bitch, evolution isn't subject to your belief any more than algebra is.
>the point of life is X
>y is the root of all evil
>stereotypes exist for a reason (whilst ignorant of that reason)
>>8050295
Oh the point of life, that one makes me mad
>there was a time when everyone thought airplanes were impossible, and they were wrong, therefore strong AI and the technological singularity is also possible
>>8050277
I don't think that's what he's implying. I think that the general impression people have is that Americans are generally more gullible and prone to wishful thinking than Europeans are. In the US, it is more acceptable to openly hold ridiculous beliefs, whereas in Europe you'll end up a public laughing stock for holding the same beliefs.
It might also just be a cultural issue; Americans are perceived to be more open and talkative, which would mean that their crackpot population is also more open and talkative than their European counterparts.
Obviously I can't talk for Europe as a whole or even my own country as a whole, but seriously, "it's just a theory" is a completely retarded thing to say, and I've never heard this phrase uttered outside of the American media. I have never heard of a non-American trying to use said phrase as an actual argument on film.
In the end, maybe it boils down to Europeans not placing all their self-worth on their beliefs. Most of us would admit our mistake by dealing with reality, correct our beliefs and go on about our day, whereas (hopefully and probably a small minority of) Americans will close their eyes, plug their ears and scream in opposition, as if wishing it was so would make it so.
Long post was long. Guess I'm bored.
>Why should I learn this shit if it's written on the book?
>>8050375
We are talking about science, not engineering.
It's possible that FTL is possible, though.
Now using airplanes as an analogy for why is faulty because even before flight it was known that flight was physically possible; we just didn't know technologically how to meet the physical requirements to get it done.
FTL on the other hand has been deemed physically impossible regardless of how much better our technology gets, and it'll require a revision of h ow we view the universe to think otherwise.
>I could probably understand x concept, but it would require thinking and I don't like thinking so it must not be real because it's too hard
>>8050375
>boyfriend
Out of interest, you gay or a grill?
>>8050418
Underated
>>8050279
No, we need to teach the savages what a hypothesis is. We shouldn't dumb down or change our language for their benefit.
>>8050202
Got something opposite.
Someone needs something and I provide the answer. They disapprove, seek a professional, they tell them the same thing. Accepts their answer.
Sure, I understand a professional has more credit. But why spend 300$ at bestbuy when I can fix your computer for free?
This is mostly towards friends or my girlfriends parents. My family trusts me
>>8050470
Its like when you were younger and you knew how to multiply two numbers in your head but had to use a calculator just to check.
>>8050418
good job m8 scared off puss puss
but something i hate is how recently some cunt tried to argue that theories and scientific theories are the exact same thing
it just twisted muh nips a little bit
>>8050432
>FTL on the other hand has been deemed physically impossible regardless of how much better our technology gets, and it'll require a revision of h ow we view the universe to think otherwise.
I'd say that depends. If by FTL you mean accelerating an object to velocities above that of light, then yes, FTL travel is impossible.
There are workarounds, though, i.e. other methods of travel that don't require acceleration of mass, e.g. Alcubierre drives and other theoretical means of FTL travel that are in concordance with our current understanding of physics.
>>8050269
>magical mumbo jumbo
Kek
Btw. skincolor implied
>>8050467
>We shouldn't dumb down or change our language for their benefit.
It's really more for our benefit.
>>8050555
>There are workarounds, though, i.e. other methods of travel that don't require acceleration of mass,
Funny you should post that in this thread.
:^)
Here's some reading for you:
https://www.google.com/#q=relativity+of+simultaneity
According to GR, *all* FTL violates causality.
So even wormholes, warp drive, etc would still require us to be really, really wrong about physics.
>>8050467
The sad thing is that we do. Every science class I've been in since 5th grade has taught us the difference between science theory and regular theories, they teach us what a law is and what a hypothesis is, they teach us all of that shit. It's just that nobody gives a fuck, it's too ''boring'' to them. They've been stimulated to their phones and computer, and living up to social stigmas and shit that school is just some thing they have to endure now, instead of a gift. It's sad really.
>>8050418
topkek
>>8050292
math isn't science so this comparison is kind of shit
but yes, science doesn't have "belief" involved
I listened to some guy telling his high school daughter that:
>the thing about math is it's like Christianity
>you just have to take it all on faith
>you have to believe in all these laws
>it's not like you can prove that any of it works
>>8050687
In it's more pure and autistic form, it is. However there are logical and clear reason why we choose to believe some shit and then prove the rest, it's not all blind.
>>8050693
We don't take anything in math in faith, no matter how "autistic" you want to be. Mathematicians decide what they want to be true, and there's no fear of it being false when you make up the rules.
>"prime numbers are random"
>"my physics/math degree is harder than your engineering degree!"
More of an /n/ thing but...
I'm in a parking lot in the park, just finished a bike ride, putting my bike on the carrier, when I overhear...
"Yeah, a regular speedometer needs to know your wheel size, but my GPS speedometer doesn't need to know that because it can sense my wheel size by how far it's off the ground."
>>8050710
>what are axioms
>infinite sets contain everything
Occurs in various forms -- examples: pi, multiverse theory. really grinds my figurative gears.
>>8050718
Jesus Christ. There's so much wrong with that.
>>8050638
>According to GR, *all* FTL violates causality.
I fail to see how GR comes into this, but that's beside the point. A quick google search would elucidate why you're wrong.
Special relativity states that no particles with rest mass can be accelerated to c, and that electromagnetic and gravitational waves travel at c. That's it. There are no other known restrictions.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
There are even things that can move faster than c, e.g. collections of photons, a shadow or two objects moving in opposite directions.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Faster-than-light_observations_and_experiments
>Most of the universe we can see is already racing away at faster than the speed of light.
Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html
This sentence implies that space can expand faster than the speed of light, which is precisely the mechanism that many FTL hypotheses use to theoretically allow FTL travel (but it isn't the only one).
I guess I did the googling for you.
>>8050742
>- examples: pi, multiverse theory. really grinds my figurative gears.
arrrrrrrgh! me too
>>8050765
>a shadow or two objects moving in opposite directions.
Neither of those have anything at all to do with moving FTL.
>worm holes are like this
*pokes hole in paper and bends it*
>see its just that easy
>>8050740
>gee I sure hope these axioms aren't false!
They're always true. That's what an axiom is. We aren't hoping it's true; we're declaring that some statement is unequivocally true.
>>8050765
>I guess I did the googling for you.
And yet you still didn't read anything about relativity of simultaneity.
Instead, because "shadows can move faster than c", your make-believe spaceship can too.
So here's what Google has to say:
>In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
If you read further, you'll learn that ANY form of FTL creates a situation where (in some frame of reference) you arrive at your destination before you leave your point of origin.
And while you can't necessarily use this to go back in time and kill your grandfather before you're born, it would mean you can send messages to yourself before you start your trip.
It's worth noting that GR itself is fine with this, but it still violates our axiomatic beliefs about cause and effect.
>>8050774
I'm sorry English isn't your mother tongue, there's not much I can do about that. If you try to explain what it is you don't understand, I'll do my best to explain.
>the number infinity
>>8050783
Keep digging that hole you're putting yourself in, dumbfuck.
Saying a shadow can go "faster than light" is retarded because the shadow isn't a thing, or moving. All it is is an area that light isn't reaching because something is blocking it at the moment.
It's like saying if you point a laser at the moon and wave it back and forth and it covers the width of the moon in less time than it would take for a photon to travel the length of that path, the laser is going FTL. It's not. None of the photons in the beam went FTL at all. Some were just emitted in different directions at different times and struck the moon in a line.
Saying two things going past each other in opposite directions means they're moving "FTL" is fucking retarded too. If you drive past an oncoming car and you're both going 60mph, your closing speed is 120 but neither of you are going 120. NOTHING in that situation is going 120mph.
>>8050796
I'm waiting for him to bring up Cherenkov radiation next.
>>8050804
Or the plane on a treadmill "problem."
Protip for the terminally retarded: it takes off just fine.
>>8050796
So what exactly is your point? Judging from your post, it looks to me that you're proficient enough at English to fully understand what I'm communicating, which is really confusing because the contents of your posts imply the complete opposite. Maybe you should read >>8050765 again and reevaluate what you're saying.
>>8050765
>Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds
Sweet Jesus-tittyfucking-Christ...
Did you even read your own linked article?
>More generally, it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c.
>One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity.
>If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B,
>others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous.
>As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling BACKWARDS IN TIME relative to another frame, and CAUSALITY WOULD BE VIOLATED.[Note 5][37]
>>8050825
Literally the link you provided actually contradicts what you're saying.
> There are situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than c, but they do not.
Unless you mean something other than "matter, energy, or information" for "things," in which case you should check your English skills. Nobody cares about sweeping laser pointers or shadows when they talk about FTL.
>>8050825
lol, this is pathetic.
Just to humor you, what about my English (which is my first language, by the way) was so confusing for your widdle bwain you couldn't figure out what I meant?
The concepts are extremely simple, I understood them as a child. What exactly is moving faster than light with a shadow, "groups of photons" or two objects moving in opposite directions? Because it certainly isn't the photons or the two objects.
Alright, I'm just going to recap because this became a clusterfuck and I no longer know who I'm talking to.
This was my first post: >>8050555. I later wrote >>8050765, which in hindsight was too elaborate. I should've just stated that there are galaxies moving away from us at velocities greater than that of c, and thus either proven >>8050638's statement or causality wrong.
>>8050774 replies to me but still shows no signs of understanding apparent FTL, which was my retort to >>8050638.
>>8050781 informed me that I was being too lazy by not reading the link in >>8050638, and that the relativity of simultaneity states that all forms of FTL travel will enable some form of time travel. He concedes that FTL travel might be permissible in theory but is extremely unlikely to be viable (which is my stance on this issue).
Next >>8050796 replies to me, and I'm fairly sure it's the same poster as >>8050774. Again he raves on about apparent FTL travel not really being FTL travel, for some reason unbeknownst to me. At this point I'm fairly sure he's just trolling me.
The rest of the replies to my posts are basically just rehashes of earlier replies to my posts (possibly not from the same anons).
Lastly, >>8050834 informs me that "it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c", but this outside the scope of e.g. the Alcubierre drive, because the drive doesn't move anything in space superluminally, it alters space itself. There are a host of other problems with the drive, though, but to my knowledge it has yet to be conclusively debunked, even if it is extremely unlikely to work.
I'm going to sleep now, but I'll check in again tomorrow.
>>8050202
>I don't know anything about quantum mechanics but...
>>8050687
Can you prove modus ponens? No, so every logical thought requires faith. And every math demostration is full of logical deductions.
>>8050335
If the human brain is possible, then what makes an AI that can operate on the same level as it impossible?
>>8050778
Then there is your faith, you can't prove that an axioma is true and always true.
>>8051015
I think that strong IA's are possible but that argumentation has no sense
>>8051026
I don't understand how that argument doesn't make any sense.
>>8051020
>you can't prove that an axioma is true and always true
You don't have to, because that's not the point. Axioms exist so we can see what other things would be true given that some basic facts are true. So you list axioms and say "These are the things that are true. What else is true?"
>>8051036
Yes, thats how formal systems work, but you are accepting that axiomas are true without demostration. That anon, is faith
>Gender is a social construct because I learned that in my sociology class a a and it's totally scientific
>>8051035
That people are wrong about airplanes dosen't prove anything about IA, well I don't think is that stupid, I'm just explaning why I think the first anon considers it stupid
>>8051099
Axioms are assumed, not believed in
>>8051106
>Social construct == "doesn't exist"
>>8050202
>They're calling it climate change now because the earth isn't actually getting warmer
>>8050777
>THE TRIPS OF ANGER AND TRUTH
also
>"man math is just soooo useless when will you use it in your lifetime omggg lmaooo" says the arse that calculates 17+42 on his Iphone
Wow, you retards are growing out of the "[thing I don't like] is a meme" phase. Your arguments are still really fucking stupid, but it's still an improvement.
>Wow, so you're a math guy? I'm terrible at math, haven't done it since high school. My dad was an accountant though. So you could calculate like 1000000+74?
>>8050213
kek'd
>>8050460
>Out of interest, you gay or a grill?
handhover-er detected!
My qt3.14's philosophy professor let this one out recently
>We cannot make an object travel the speed of light because the velocity of an object cannot exceed the speed of light.
>>8051009
>what are matching truth tables
>>8051099
The guy you're talking to is retarded. Axioms are just used as a basis of consistency.
Nobody is saying something like:
1-every set is a subset of itself.
2-if two sets are mutual subsets, then they are equal.
3-hence, every set equals itself.
Really it's more like "if 1 and 2 hold, then 3 holds"
>>8050288
But anon, everyone knows that when the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
>>8050914
I might have to screencap this post, this is too funny
>>8051336
There are no girls on the internet so its clearly a queer anyway
>>8050292
I love when ignorant, poorly educated folk put on airs because they believe in 'evolution' or climate change.'
I'll try not to use too many big words:
Evolution is observable and documented phenomena. The part that is not proven is basically a creation story, it tells that life began as single cell organisms and evolved through Darwinian evolution from there. If you have an IQ over 85 you should be able to grasp the two separate concepts at work here- one, Darwinian evolution exists (proven as well as possible, not open to debate) and the second part, that life began as single cell organism and evolved through Darwinian evolution from there. You probably need an IQ of at least 95 to question the 'missing fossil link' that would be needed to prove this part of evolution. We do not have evidence of anything evolving through Darwinian evolution across genus or phylum, let alone species. The term 'missing fossil link' is a brilliant bit of misdirection, it implies that the evidence did exist and has been lost to time. (protip: if you do not have necessary evidence then you do not have necessary evidence, arguing that Darwinian evolution is real does not make the 'missing' evidence magically valid).
Climate change also exists, and covers a wide range of phenomena. Changing temperatures, water shortages, and loss of biodiversity are some of the more important phenomena. There are different causes for these things that are lumped together- water shortages are caused by using too much ground water, and loss of biodiversity is greatly impacted by pesticides used in industrial agriculture. We use ground water (taken from wells) and rain water has to replace the ground water before there can be surface water (lakes and rivers, for example). We use more ground water than rain and snowfall replace, thus there are water shortages. The water shortages are not caused by carbon fuel use. (cont)
>>8051707
Pesticides used in industrial agriculture diminish biodiversity in nearby ecosystems. Insects are needed for some plants to reproduce, and insects feed birds and some animals. Killing the insects leads to loss of some plant species and may reduce bird and animal populations. That has a snowball effect of reducing or eliminating other populations. This is also not caused by carbon fuel use.
The third important, not well known, aspect of climate change is the annual 'warmest year ever.' There are more temperature monitoring stations in desserts and warm areas, so a sample using more dessert and high temperature values produces warmer averages. This probably takes an IQ of at least 100 to grasp. It is worth noting that as of three or four years ago more than 90 percent of news station weather people did not believe in global warming/climate change. People who study climate and temperature for a living are not persuaded by gloom and doom warnings of the end times, and are not persuaded by the cries of 'climate change deniers' when someone points out that Miami is not underwater (as predicted by Al Gore) and that there is still polar ice (according to a peer reviewed scientific journal quoted by Al Gore, all polar ice will be gone by 2014).
In summary, Darwinian evolution is real but that does not prove that all life exists in its current state due to Darwinian evolution. And carbon fuel has negative effects on the environment, but carbon fuel use does not cause water shortages, loss of biodiversity, or the annual warmest year ever.
![1508311[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kuK0qwN.jpg "1508311[1].jpg")
> mfw sitting with friends in public and someone starts talking about quantum theory which he obviously watched from some exaggerated popsci youtube video instead of reading a book which he eventually tries to tie it to some spiritual beliefs he has and how quantum theory actually proves it
>>8051707
>Connecting evolution to the origin of life
EVERY FUCKING TIME.
This fucking non-argument has been around for 150 years and people continue to use it.
>>8050202
As for faster than light travel, the 'impossibility' of ftl is based on the assumption that the rules of euclidian realspace apply everywhere. The laws of physics we use work in euclidian realspace (a fancy way of saying near a large gravity mass, like a planet or sun). The idea of 'dark matter' came about because, applying the rules of physics found in euclidian realspace, we would need a lot more mass to explain the gravitational pull of galaxies on each other. So we need 85% of the mass in the universe to be comprised of undetectable mass that can't be found- I humbly submit that Newton's laws and the laws of physics at work in euclidian realspace do not apply to the vast spaces between solar systems and galaxies. Dark matter is like the theory of evolution or Al Gore climate change, it may have started as an earnest attempt at science but is a fallacy. If my theory (theory as in possible explanation that needs to be tested) holds, the laws of physics we learn in school do not necessarily apply outside of euclidian realspace and ftl may be possible.
>>8051727
Please, oh learned scholar, explain the theory of evolution to me then.
>>8051730
genetic mutation + survival of the fittest
>chemicals are bad
>"I do computer science and the math is so hard XD"
>>8050743
Only the second part, normal speedos on cars are based on tyre size since they just measure wheel RPM and multiply it by tyre circumference
>>8050202
>A quick google search would elucidate why you're wrong.
>Newtonian Gravity is wrong because of some popsci articles I read
>>8051730
Mutation + Heritability + Selection
>>8051792
Newtonian gravity is literally wrong though
>I understand physics because I watched some YouTube videos. Oh no, I don't even have a BS in physics and the highest level math course I took was pre algebra for humanities majors but I'm a smart guy so I understand these concepts and can discuss them at just as deep a level as the actual physicists themselves!
>>8051798
my brother's highest math level is high school geometry and he asks me questions about physics because he read something in a popsci magazine
shit is annoying
>>8050777
They probably get that idea from watching interstellar.
natura > man-made
> I do biology/medicine
>>8050202
>there was a time
you sound like my Grandpa
>>8051099
The key point here is that mathematics does not necessarily have any relation with the "real world", it is a self contained excercise. Therefore, it does not require faith to adhere to given axioms, it merely is following the rules of the "game". What does require faith is claiming that some mathematical results have any bearing on reality.
>>8051156
An assumtion without a prove is a belief
>>8051420
Not sure if it's that what you mean but when you use matching truth tables you are already assuming logic axiomas. A truth table wouldn't have sense without logic rules already accepted
>>8051428
I know, but my point is any of that is proved, I can't deny 1, or 2 I can even deny that If A->B and B->C then A->C so accepting
1 A->B and
2 B->C I deny that
3 ((A->B) ^ (B->C))->(A->C)
And there is no demostration to make me sure about those aseverations.
Every axioma is taked for granted without prove because it looks obvious but "looking obvious" is not enought for me, human percepcion can be fooled, also; what we do with the believer who take "God exists" as an axioma? For him is obvious. If we consider that a belief, we have to consider axiomas as beliefs too, of course not as stronger as "God exist", "for every x, x equals itself" by example requires less faith than "I have soul"
>>8051885
Ok, on this point of view axiomas arent a matter of faith.
I think that math is a way to modelize the reality. If math knowdledge would't apply to reality, it would be just an useless game.
Anyway, your post is right anon.
>>8050714
Dont forget math is $300K starting
>if you can't explain the concept to me in laymen's terms then I'll never accept your argument even though you're clearly the expert with more than 5 years of mathematical training under your belt and I'm just an insurance agent
If it weren't for the protein powder he always gets me I would've dropped him by now.
>>8051905
You arent claiming its true though
>>8051106
What is gender then, jackass?
If you say 'muh chromosomes', I swear to fuck you're dead kiddo
>>8050257
what show was it from? Ive never seen the picture before
>>8050652
Not really true. There are lots of equally valid ways to interpret data that bring you to different conclusions
>>8050202
>science can't yet answer all of the questions, therefore other answers are automatically valid
>>8051942
>I think that math is a way to modelize the reality
Well, all models are wrong, while some are useful. Although I don't view math as a model per definition, it can be used as such. I consider math mainly as a multi-purpose tool and I think separating mathematics from applying mathematics gives a reasonable separation of concerns.
>>8051730
>Please, oh learned scholar, explain the theory of evolution to me then.
He's trying to point out that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things.
Why so arrogant?
>>8051728
U srs, or is this an example of "shit normalfags say that pisses you off"?
>>8051971
>I swear to fuck you're dead kiddo
>swear to fuck
>dead kiddo
>kiddo
Watch out! It's Mr badass here!
No but for real. There are social stigmas to one degree but saying that every role you get is from society is just fucking stupid.
If there would exist a cultural vacuum and everything would start over again, women would still be caretakers, men still providers, boys would still play rougher than girls. This is a given fact even considering specific gender roles are common in other primates. This has nothing to do with society it's biological.
There are even some new studies proving that one of the main difference in men and women does not only come from hormones but even the brain structure is different due to X or Y.
So in a sense, yes it's chromosomes and you are stupid.
>>8051220
I never said that. But saying it's "just" a social construct is unscientific and just there for political agenda.
>>8052050
>I never said that.
I didn't mean to imply you had.
Like you, I was using greentext to indicate someone else was speaking.
I was giving an example of "shit normalfags say that pisses you off".
There are plenty of real things that are social constructs, car insurance for one.
I linked your post because it was related.
Sorry for the confusion.
>>8052079
Okay. I can see that. Thanks for clarifying
>>8052014
>All models are wrong
Thats not true, is not the same "wrong" and "incomplete" a model is "right" if it has some isometries with reallity, "incomplete" means that a model can't represent exactly the modelized system with every single caracteristic.
About math being a model, I think that every form of human knowdledge is a model because is how our mind works, but thats a matter for another different thread.
>>8050336
Why do people think the world is a duality of America and Europe?
>>8052115
>caracteristic
Mwaahaa the .. French
>>8052121
Spanish actually
>>8050295
Iv never said stereotypes exist for a reason but I have told people that stereotypes don't come out of thin air. Never heard anyone say they exist for a reason though
>>8052131
Vous parlez anglais comme une vache espagnole. A spanish vag.
>>8050457
Literally said by no one ever
>>8052115
Yes, "wrong" is not the right word, however, I was quoting: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling#1980s
What I mean is indeed more like you describe it, a model can neither be wrong nor right. In fact, I'd say that no model has anything to do with metaphysical Truth.
>>8052136
Literally all atheists ever basically say that.
>>8050471
Lmao as if I still don't check
>The Drake equation pretty much guarantees that we will encounter intelligent life at some point.
>>8050687
Kekd first line
>>8051730
What?.. Anon isn't saying your description of evolution was wrong he's just saying your a fucking assblaster for involving the origin of life with it. Apples and oranges
>>8052120
Other than Japan Europe and America basically control the worlds culture
Then again I have no idea what I'm saying
>>8050471
>implying I cant do triple integrals in my head but still need to check my basic addition and subtraction with a calculator
>>8050765
>I fail to see how GR comes into this
Because relativity is the thing that excludes accelerating to the speed of light, and any kind of work around involves deforming spacetime somehow, so you need GR to describe it.
>Most of the universe we can see is already racing away at faster than the speed of light.
And the expansion of space is described by general relativity. I really don't really how you could think it ISN'T relevant.
>>8051420
He's reffering you to "What the Tortoise said to Achilles". And no, truth tables don't work in first order logic and higher.
>>8050914
>I should've just stated that there are galaxies moving away from us at velocities greater than that of c, and thus either proven >>8050638's statement or causality wrong.
That's just incorrect. Space might be expanding faster than the speed of light, but nothing is moving faster than c. With the Alcubierre metric the object actually moves faster than the speed of light, perhaps not in its little "warp bubble", but it will be able to send a signal from its start point to its end point faster than the speed of light, and because of that it violates causality. You can't use expansion to send signals so it doesn't violate causality.
This does not mean that the Alcubierre metric is an invalid solution to the Einstein field equations, for essentially the same reason metric expansion can be faster than c without violating GR.
There is a very good reason to believe that the Alcubierre drive is non-physical, though. It might satisfy the general Einstein field equations, but it violates the condition of energy being positive (specifically, it violates the "null energy condition"). Nothing in the universe has been observed to have negative energy and it seems theoretically unlikely. You can show that any kind of FTL will allow you to travel back. This is a standard construction found in any relativity textbook - the proof doesn't rely on the object moving locally faster than light, only globally, so any situation where you can outrun light leads to time travel and hence the possibility to violate causality. The null energy condition prevents you outrunning light, and ensures positivity of energy.
If you're going to travel faster than light it is going to have to involve some new theory, because it is clear that the current theory of our universe excludes it.
>>8050202
>Before the Big Bang
>>8052047
Oh wow another fucking tranny apologist trying to tell me that gender is biological.
Fuck off to tumblr.
>>8051990
It's always sunny in Philadelphia.
>>8051795
Depends on how you interpret "Wrong"
If you mean wrong as "doesn't describe the world 100% accurately" then yes, Newtonian Gravity is wrong. But GR is also wrong, just less wrong.
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Trying to explain how technology works
>Sorry anon, you know I am someone who can't read instructions
what the fuck
>>8050202
>intelligent AI is a bad thing
>>8050295
What happens when we square y tho? Is y imaginary?
I mean, you can travel at FTL speeds due to length contraction and time dilation. As you accelerate near the speed of light, distances become shorter so a trip that would take 5 years becomes far less.
>>8052593
(from the reference frame travelling near the speed of light) Outside tho, of course you would be travelling slower. Now something that really intrigues me is the mechanics of imploding light and the consequences of such a phenomena.
>>8051726
>"Scientists can't even find exactly where the electron is Anon, so God must be real because he is hiding it from us :^)"
>>8050257
It is. Or do you want to be a science bitch?
>>8051937
What are you going on about? With certain typographical rules you can come up with theorems.
Just create an initial string of symbols and apply typographical rules to them. Then you're doing math.
(~AvB)^(~BVC)=>~AvC
>>8051990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDgVlv55Uw
>>8050213
Lel
>>8050209
Who are you quoting?
You'll get fat if you eat at midnight
I would go to uni and study X if I wouldn't be lazy
My grades are bad because I'm lazy, not because I'm dumb
I don't care that I failed all my exams, I still have 2 tries left until they kick me out
>>8050714
>I'm smart because I had to do a lot of rote memorization
Reminder that medicine and law are "harder" than engineering
>>8051390
I fail to see what's wrong with that statement, we literally cannot accelerate anything with mass past C.
>>8052830
Except we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
>>8052847
From the introductory sentence:
>apparent faster-than-light travel
>apparent
Also
>exotic matter
>>8052847
>Miguel Alcubierre Moya (born March 28, 1964 in Mexico City) is a Mexican theoretical physicist.
>mexican
literal mexican soap opera tier science, you cant let these people anywhere near academia i swear
>>8052865
From the post-introductory-sentence sentence:
>resulting in effective faster-than-light travel.
>effective
>>8052946
Yes. But you are not going faster than c in any local reference frame. And it still doesn't mean you can accelerate something past c, since gravity in GR is not a force, there is no acceleration.
If you are hung up on the part where you can cover a greater spatial distance in some time t in an alcubierre metric than light could in the same time t in flat Minkowski space, then sure, maybe. There is still the little problem of exotic matter you'll have to get around
>>8052136
Well you're one of them.
>>8052830
>the velocity of an object cannot exceed the speed of light
Correct statement: The ***magnitude*** of an object's velocity cannot reach the speed of light.
So he basically said "an object cannot reach the speed of light because it cannot reach the speed of light" during a lecture.
>>8052847
>Except we can.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
Are you sure you understand what "can" means?
Call me back when you get an Alcubierre working.
>Scotland is a part of England.
>Is a char [in C++] a bit or a byte long?
>>8053627
No fucking way someone would ask a question like that
>>8052292
Are you literally retarded? Saying gender is biological goes against any trans agenda and is therefore anti trans you dense idiot
>>8053769
Yes, anon, I do have Down's syndrome, and you're a fucking asshole for making me feel bad about it.
>>8050202
>Global Climate Change is a myth
Shit triggers me
>>8050555
Are current understanding of physics is around 100 years old.
>We can definitely safely assume we are 100% correct and deem things impossible
>>8051728
>euclidian realspace
Gluing together mathematics terms does not automatically generated a mathematics term.
>>8051956
>i'm upset because someone sees through my bullshit appeal to authority
he sounds smarter than you lad
>>8050202
>I love science
>any uneducated attempt to talk about AI/machine learning
Triggered everytime
>>8053705
I keep a list of shit people at my uni say. The list does not lie.
>>8050202
Are you saying the fresh prince is normal fag, he's the most innovative actor of his time you gay lords
>>8055418
His name is will smith.......
>>8055418
cucker bot truck stfu
>>8055418
We can tell your talking to your slf you fucking cuck
>>8050336
Sweden yes!
>>8052847
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
>speculative idea
>speculative idea
>speculative idea
>>8050295
>>the point of life is X
>>y is the root of all evil
>>stereotypes exist for a reason (whilst ignorant of that reason)
Oh fuck I'm retarded I was thinking about x and y as variables for a graph.
>>8050213
>try to teach myself 9th grade geometry.
>spend 10 minutes stuck on an early proof
>curse to myself and start repeating how stupid I am
>give up, browse r9k again until I get the itch.
Rinse, repeat.
>>8051277
>calling arithmetic math
kek low iq pleb
>>8051286
>what do you study?
>algebra
>oh i did that in high school
fuck my father is annoying. Ever since I study physics and he watches Big Bang Theory, every time there is something that has two possibilities, it's 'Schrodinger this'.
>anon what food do you want
>ill have some of both
>oh it's like Schrodinger's meal
>i havent decided what car to buy
>its like schrodinger's car
Gets me every time
>>8050202
>I took comp sci 101 but I completely understand everything you do as a programmer
>yes I did drop out of the program because I didn't want to take circuits classes
>I only know Unreal, game maker, and some java
>>8055839
Lmao sounds like your dad is jsut taking the piss out of you, geek boy
>>8052847
Friendly reminder that Godel has a solution to the EFE too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric
>>8055839
top kek
>>8051336
>hoverhanding a digital image
new level of beta
>>8050279
Yeah, something you pull out of your ass is called a hypothesis, something that's scientifically established by evidence is a theory. Its not my fault normies are so stupid.
>I believe in science
>>8050687
>not even orthodox Christianity believes in the 'taking it on faith' meme
>>8050777
It's not that wrong analogy though, is it?
Obviously it needs some more explanation, not just "it's like this". The paper represents 2D projection of dimension (either be it space, time, other dimension or combination of thereof) and the hole (or any other mark) represents entry point for the hypothetical wormhole.
Bending the plane doesn't affect it, it's still plane, and it doesn't make the two points any closer. It however shows that the other endpoint can be reached without traversing the dimension in traditional way.
>>8056378
*tips fedora*
The Bible is literally true in its entirety. I know because it says so in The Bible.
>>8052243
>truth tables don't work in first order logic and higher.
They do if you're working with finite sets. But why would you know that when all you did was memorize the textbook and not actually think about it critically? It's funny because you're correcting someone with a false assumption!
>>8051099
>but you are accepting that axiomas are true without demostration
Your reasoning is incomplete. He said:
1. Assume axioms as true (temporarily)
2. Deduce all other true and false statements from axioms
3. Compare consequences of axioms to other axioms to learn about patterns of consequences of axioms
4. Build a bigger and bigger meta-theory to explain your reasoning
5. Die insane and have your work rediscovered as useful by future mathematicians who all start over at step 1.
Here is the list of steps you're talking about
1. Assume something is true (forever)
2. Die.
See the difference?
>>8052133
vache means cow nigga
>>8056378
only american """""""""""""christianity""""""""""""" is so retarded
>>8050253
THIS
>>8050213
TRIGGERED
Tachyon
>>8051466
how the fuck did Dr. Gene Ray find /sci/
>>8050207
This is somewhat valid in a few areas though. """"Science"""""" especially with an agenda cannot be trusted in certain matters. Health and wellness is certainly one of those areas due to interference from the government and from special interest groups and pharmaceutical companies.
>>8050213
>Using the term intelligence
Is ot not embaressing at this point?
>>8050222
I'm a highschool science/math teacher and I've had the janitor and so many failing kids tell me this while assuring me that I don't have their street smarts.
Put fucking nails through my eyes.
>>8057357
SHOT DOWN
>>8050687
well we do believe in axioms, which we can't prove
>>8056577
I love this meme
>>8052133
Eso es frances huevon
>>8052137
What is metaphisical truth?
>Science can't answer everything
>You need to open your mind and realize that believing in science over philosophy/religion/spiritual bullshit means you are closed minded and have blindfaith in science
>>8052604
Hahahaha
>>8052763
So you think that every lazy person is dumb?
>>8050218
my mom thinks meteorology is bullshit because sometimes the weatherman is wrong
she also thinks "western medicine" is bullshit
>>8052903
Ad hominem fallacy is not enought here, get back to /pol/
>>8053627
Bit, really?
>Kids and adults learn what a theory is every single time they take a science class EVERY SINGLE TIME
>They still think a theory is just a guess
>No, it's just a guess, if it were a fact it would be called a law
>Schoedinger hates animals
>But if you put a cat in a box it is both dead or alive!
>"man I just can't wait until I can just teleport wherever the fuck I want"
>That's not possible
>"but muh quantum teleportation!"
This shit pisses me off to no end
>>8059400
this ones right tho
quantum teleportation is literally exchanging quantum particles over long periods of distance
>>8059412
Nope. Quantum teleportation is exchanging information over long distances, not exchanging actual particles. To actually teleport, you'd need to transmit the exact states of every particle in your body
>Science can explain how but only religion/philosophy can say why
Hello everyone
>>8059440
It's just a beautiful phrase. Could you please explain what it means?
>>8059368
ur mom is bullshit
>that guy who thinks quantum fluctuations mean literally anything is possible
>that guy who thinks string theory is infalliable and touts multidimensional shit as proven fact
>that guy who thinks the drake equation proves life exists in the universe
>that guy who disregards mathematical proof and does stupid shit
>that guy who thinks tiny universes are inside atoms
>>8059457
>>that guy who thinks the drake equation proves life exists in the universe
This is my pet peeve
>>8050202
>Could you make me a sandwich?
>>8059412
>quantum teleportation is literally exchanging quantum particles over long periods of distance
It literally isn't. It's just another case of a phenomenon with a misleading name.
It's to do with having two particles and immediately gaining information on one by measuring the other. Sort of "teleporting" the info.
>we'll power the world with renewable energy!
>>8059492
hmm i dont know, i dont think thats correct
i think its like two particles exchanging over long periods of distance because theyre intangled
the information would of course obviously also teleport but the particles would exchange too if were talking quantum size
so its like the information but as well the physical characteristics of the quantum particles
>vsauce is my favorite scientific youtuber!
>>8059500
>i dont think thats correct
You thought wrong, friend. The particles don't exchange, just their states. Actual exchange of particles would violate the laws of physics.
>>8059500
No it's literally having two particles interact such that they become entangled, moving them apart and then measuring one to simultaneously get info on the other.
No joke, it has super weird implications (read about Bell's Theorem) but it's not particles teleporting over space.
>>8059500
No.
When the two particles are "entangled", both are given a certain piece of information in common.
Then, when you measure/observe one, you know the state of the other.
It's not really much different than this:
>shuffle a deck of cards
>pic a card at random, but don't look at it
>tear card in half
>put each half into separate envelope
>send one envelop to London, the other to Tokyo
>have two people open envelopes simultaneously
>ta-dah! "instant" communication
>>8052732
This thread is officially derailed
>>8059517
Well, he's not completely terrible. His video on infinities was complete bullshit, but that Banach-Tarski one was pretty good at explaining it to people without a mathematical background.
>>8050202
>we've been wrong before
>who knows in a few years we might discover something that proves everything we knew was wrong
>>8051798
This
>>8057565
> disgusted pepe . jaypeg
please be trolling
>>8059575
Why is that wrong? I get that believing literally everything we know is likely to be proven wrong is fairly naive, but is there not a chance to discover things that would radically alter our thinking?
>>8059644
>Why is that wrong?
Not him, but...
It's not completely impossible, but it's used to justify every /x/ belief you've ever heard of.
"Ghosts MIGHT be real"
"Psychics MIGHT NOT be frauds,"
etc.
>>8059644
Actually, literally everything we 'know' is probably an approximation at best.
At the same time, actual true reality is consistent with the phenomena we've already observed. Even if our thinking were to be radically altered, that doesn't necessarily open the door to fantasy practical applications.
