[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.

06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
05/08/16Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!
04/28/16New trial board added: /qst/ - Quests
[Hide] [Show All]

Voting open for the 4chan Banner Contest! See the contest page for details.

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: sciguide.jpg (9 KB, 200x140)
9 KB
Reminder: /sci/ is for discussing topics pertaining to science and mathematics, not for helping you with your homework or helping you figure out your career path.

If you want advice regarding college/university or your career path, go to /adv/ - Advice.

If you want help with your homework, go to /wsr/ - Worksafe Requests.

File: 1348363689607.jpg (73 KB, 1000x750)
73 KB
It was a warm summer's afternoon when I realized I was a brainlet. I found out that I got 39% in my calculus exam and 52% in my algebra matrices exam. Even after redoing the calculus exam later, I only managed to achieve a pathetic 55%.

Ever since then, I have developed a sort of PTSD when it comes to science and math. I can't do anything besides basic addition, subtraction and percentages.

To those who are comfortable with science and math, how does it feel to not be a brainlet? Feels great doesn't it? Does wonders for your self confidence knowing you can solve any problem...
2 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
File: image.jpg (45 KB, 460x459)
45 KB
Don't worry about it m8, it's just a normie measurement of normie tier intelligence in my opinion. We 4channers are an entirely separate race.
>You clearly didn't work hard enough

Ok now you're chatting bullshit. I studied for 10 hours a day for those 2 math exams I had to give when I was in college.
do you actually have autism? Not being mean. How the hell could you study that long and not pass?
No, I did pass my courses in the end. The pass mark was 40%.
what was the average grade for your class?

File: CjOVcwaWEAEP9HA.jpg (62 KB, 600x397)
62 KB
"ETHICS" buzzwords arguments about consent do not count.
69 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
You just want to reap the benefits for yourself by focusing on the current generation rather than future ones.

Eugenics seems a pretty good option to me. As we allow almost every kind of human to live with the help of modern medication, our gene pool is diversifying quickly. We're bound to have more and more humans that are unable to function in our society, or just have to otherwise live with constant pain etc. because of bad genetic mutations. To combat this we should either make sure that defect human beings don't reproduce, or we could alter the bad genes and let everyone have a family. Latter could be used to quickly eradicate all genetic diseases and more.

We just really need to make sure the genes we alter don't end up destroying something important. That's where the main problem is. Until we completely understand every part of our genome I think we should stick to just eradicating diseases on the larger scale.
It's only sensible with regards to well understood genetic disorders (probably a highly regulated list with a number of qualifying criteria for each genetic disorder on the list). Unfortunately as soon as the topic comes up you'll have retards on both sides assuming that you want to use eugenics for poorly understood social issues.

Altering genes is a more complicated issue because as described above, problems often don't necessarily arise from individual genes/mutations. That is they often arise from polygenes. Personally I don't think this is a good approach currently.

There is another unmentioned danger to these "solutions". That is that by restricting evolution in this blanket way we may accidentally end up missing out on some evolutionary breakthroughs. Like it could be that there's a 1/1,000,000 chance that a person who has a certain genetic mutation also has another genetic mutation that not only fixes the problem but actually has other wildly beneficial effects (i.e. it may actually play part in a beneficial polygenic characteristic).
They won't be much different from a class of today's handsome and healthy people. Even if their faculties of knowledge are improved it won't change that they'll be taught in a factory model school and raised by non-modified parents (who will most likely treat them improperly).
>genetically optimal
[citation needed]
File: 1469760769820.jpg (456 KB, 1521x1374)
456 KB
456 KB JPG
Genetically designed humans for intelligence AND personality would be a great future. Having today's 150+ IQ along with being genetically predisposed to being good with teamwork and overall wanting to help society. Would be a utopia desu.

Do you avoid GMO-free food to avoid supporting anti-science?
No I just eat whatever as long as it's not clearly bad for me. I'm not gonna miss out on tasty food just because it's GMO-free.

File: miracle_mineral_mms.jpg (61 KB, 450x1205)
61 KB
Hi all,

I got a two sided issue here which is partly scientific and partly human/psychological.

Here is the case: My step mom is convinced that her tooth inflammation got healed by so called MMS which is basically NaClO2. It is meant to be activated by an acid upon usage where it then desolves into ClO2. Thinned out with water it is meant to targets only the weak cells and claims to be a healing for almost everything, from everyday colds to HIV, Autism and cancer. MMS was invented by Jim Humble who is an engineer and former scientologist. So far for the framework. Details can be found in the net en masse. I will go ahead and post one video of humble explaining his product for convenience, interview is in english with ger subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt0D9iKoP6M
Now even my dad got convinced and I am the stupid government drone. I tried the best I can to find to convince them that mms is a big fraud (and even poison) to eat ppls money but I think i need some backup. Can you please help me to make a strong scientific argumentative standpoint above school knowledge. I am kind of desperate right now especially because I care for my dad. This situation is first grade retardation in the house.

Lol, your stepmom is an idiot.

I'm so glad I don't come from a broken home..
Explain that there is no miracle cures, nothing will fix everything and nothing has no side effects. As for hard proof, try look up the MSDS for the compound
Snake oil in a bottle?!

File: reallymakesyouthink.jpg (400 KB, 1601x823)
400 KB
400 KB JPG
How flat-earthers explain this?
150 replies and 34 images omitted. Click here to view.
Now draw flight paths in the southern hemisphere.
No, they believe the earth is surrounded by infinite frozen tundra and everything we see in the sky is the clockwork machinations of God.
Its true faggot

You guys need to read about Freemasons.. Most if not all astronauts are Freemasons...I wonder why

We live inside of a dome, if you put your ego aside and open your mind you will see the truth. The bible is accurate as you wouldnt believe, use real science and do your research and you'll find out why the Jesuits invented this 500 year old lie
File: PicsArt_07-29-08.00.56.jpg (290 KB, 2048x1536)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
Just took this photo

Sun is small, localized and much closer than you think. Just look at the sun rays. Prove me wrong science wizards
Parallel lines do not appear as such unless observed from a perpendicular perspective

Why do social scientists use least squares linear regression for everything, even when it makes pretty much no sense?
25 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
Not him but, you made me questioned my assumption of a significant political bias in social sciences because you're right that I based this opinion on anecdotal evidence. So I looked into the research and the evidence strongly suggest a left wing bias. I'm wondering how you'll respond


>305 of the 322 people (94.7%) who responded to this question voted for Obama, 4 (1.2%) voted for Romney, and 13 (4.0%) said they voted for another candidate. This gives us a Democrat to Republican ratio of 76 to one.


>58 to 66 percent of social scientists are liberal and only 5 to 8 percent conservative and that there are eight Democrats for every Republican


He's wrong. Your intuition was correct
File: 20040611.png (157 KB, 800x948)
157 KB
157 KB PNG
Of course, one could argue that due to their studies, they identify their positions as the correct ones. Anyone know if people who decide to study social sciences are disproportionaly liberal prior to starting it?
Nothing you've posted supports the hypothesis that their research is biased, all you've done is show that the overwhelming majority of social scientists are left wing (although the idea that America has a left wing is hilarious to anyone outside the the US, but that's a different discussion). The only way you could go from what you have to "social scientists only want to prove their own ideology correct" would be to assume that any social research is biased towards the authors political persuasion.

Are you like 10?
>waaahhh why won't non-mathematicians care about my mental masturbation????

Is your country becoming smarter of dumber?
32 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.

It is not just poor, it is completely inadequate measure of intelligence, because a person can be intelligent without having any sense of words, but in theory is capable to build a building.

Observing animal's behaviour instead is a very accurate and the only correct way to measure someone's intelligence.

But even that doesn't mean someone's not intelligent, if is limited somehow physically.
I am interested as well

That's great! Always a true pleasure to see people interested in joining in explaining the existence as we know it.

How about we find a place here where we can
take our time, without a risk of becoming

Since it will take some time to get to the point when you can comprehend it to the point you can apply it yourself in your lives.
Yeah it's just the oil money.

File: 1463684291243.jpg (55 KB, 500x473)
55 KB
ITT post real scientific facts, theories and hypotheses that you find unsettling, creepy or overall mysterious

>/x/-tier garbage like chemtrails, HAARP, UFOs certainly not welcome
218 replies and 33 images omitted. Click here to view.
>Simple in comparison to what?
To computer games like starcraft.
Simple mechanics, few variables in comparison.

>You would have to enroll at a reputable school at an incredibly young age and devote your entire life to go if you want a chance of playing at the highest levels. It is the most competitive game outside of sports.
Yeah it's a very hard and competitive game, but it's still simple.

>A computer would absolutely slaughter any human at Starcraft.
No they're easily overwhelmed since there are way too many ways to approach the game.
To really test the AI though you'd first have to get it to physically use a mouse and keyboard through robotic hands.
I mean, they do exist, there's no denying that. It's just that chemtrails are more properly called contrails and are made of water vapor, HAARP is a research program, and UFOs are, as the name implies, "unidentified."


It leaves me disillusioned and apathetic, which I thought was somewhat in line with the topic of the thread.
Wtf it's the result of things being manipulated inside a vaccume, the negative pressure is being spread across any surface area, colliding surface areas in order to have the largest uninterrupted surface area

Denser materials have more "gravity" because they have more microscopic surface area
The fact that scientists suspect a Neptune-sized object could be at the outer reaches of the solar system, undetected to this day, implies that a smaller object with much greater mass, say a neutron star, could be headed our way from not too terribly far off and we wouldn't even know it until it screws with our orbits. A rogue black hole could turn our sun into a gaseous disc and swallow its contents, or at the very least, take us out of our habitable zone and fry or freeze us alive.

File: 2d renge sad.png (1.2 MB, 1920x1080)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB PNG
Dead serious, what the fuck is fun?

Why do humans become depressed and even suicidal if there is no element of "fun" in their lives, how did this even arise from evolution?

Just what the fuck is 'fun' and why can I not produce fun no matter how hard I try?

Im fucking depressed, how does one make fun?
Punch lines in jokes are related to unexpected revelations, i.e. surprise. Entertainment is linkee to novelty in this sense.
Of course, we could rant about the chemical implementation and your brain to no end.
So what youre saying is the element of randomness is what makes something fun? Of course I understand this for something like, lets say gambling or flipping a coin to win a prize or something. But thats not what im talking about, im talking about the 'long lasting' "fun" which persists through life and somewhat gives meaning to live

Also, I would like to add: Is the release of dopamine really all there is to a good feeling and fun? If so it is no wonder why so many people end up taking drugs
Taking your conceptions for 'fun' as 'pleasure' there is no consistent scientific answer to 'what is fun?' besides 'chemicals in your brain.' This being said, I can offer my personal considerations of pleasure and how to achieve it.

Humans, coming from the world, naturally take pleasure in [1] nurishing themselves through the fruits of the world and [2] organizing themselves and the world to fit their own existence in it. This is done through a multitude of things such as eating and exercising, and forming artworks and understandings of the world. Longlasting happiness comes from becoming that which is best for you to become.

If you are 'depressed,' 'melancholic,' or 'sad' it can come from a variety of things, and not just the lack of pleasure. One is generally depressed when they have an uncomfortable worldview, drink excess coffee (or other drugs, such as alcohol), lack becoming of what they truly wish to become, take pleasure in excess, etc. The best thing you should do is become 'healthy' and pleasurful in the ways I've expressed above (Eat healthfully, exercise regularly [This can be as simple as a 15-minute run every day], and becoming yourselfe) so that you can find the root of your cause of depressive attitudes and stop them. I recommend Stoic literature, Epicurus, and Friedrich Nietzsche because they all helped me through melancholy, but I don't guarantee their effectiveness.

Also, some drugs can certainly help you, but should definitely not be taken in excess. I don't recommend popularly prescribed anti-depressants.

It's not about the element of randomness in itself, it's a decisive factor yeah, but what matters the most are the elements of ignorance, interest and, as the guy before me said, surprise. You get thrilled when you play a video game because you simply don't know what the next ten or so hours of gameplay will be like, your interest keeps you from reaching definite conclusions that one could formulate from an outsider's perspective under the fear that would ruin the fun. Human minds love the concept of novelty and anything that is external to them at first glance as long as it doesn't come in conflict with its many predispositions (genes, what environment it grew in, what principles it was conditioned to)

You cannot produce "fun" because it is not a voluntary action, you can't simply choose to have fun, if that were the case we'd be able to cure many mental illnesses through the simple release of neurotransmitters by mere thought. It doesn't stem from the conscious "you" in simpler terms. The reason as to why depressed people do not have fun is, in my opinion, because they lack legitimate interest in things they used to enjoy. They also tend to have more realistic views than other non-depressed individuals, which leads them to be unable to take whatever they do to heart. "It's just a video game, it's just a movie, it's just a walk"

Dopamine isn't the only neurotransmitter involved in fun, you also have serotonin as its precursor. It doesn't even need to be released all the time, a mere feeling of excitement could be translated to a release of adrenaline, hydrocortisone or other similar substances.

As for its evolutionary track, I'm afraid I'm too ignorant of that to answer your question
Even animals play and experience fun. In my opinion (since you also asked about how it evolved) is that the 'fun' factor encourages you to explore and learn. The brain is making you feel good and happy to keep you interested in the world and your abilities because that knowledge is important for your survival. Animals play by running and hunting. Humans also like to run, swim, hunt but there is something more too, and thats the most important thing to humans. Socializing! We survive as a social group so playing games, telling jokes or just talking over a cold one makes it fun because of our social interaction.

File: perspective shift.jpg (32 KB, 604x269)
32 KB
I have a small room opening with a skewed down roof. There are objects inside with sizes getting smaller as they go back of the room.

What kind of lens should I use so the viewer will see all of them as if they are all the same size ?
One with three magnifying lenses of different degree next to each other
zoom lens and from a distance
No /optics/ here ? help a brainlet out plz.
you mean
>/plz interwebs make my homework man i'll suck your dick bro/


File: engineering-pictures-12.jpg (628 KB, 2526x1661)
628 KB
628 KB JPG
What are the focuses of both of them? As far as I'm concerned, MechE focuses more on physics than EE.

I am torn on which one I should study.
3 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Ok thanks. My interest in mathematics grew a little late, but luckily I decided to take PreCalc out of instinct without knowing I would want to do EE. It seems like it worked out.
Definitely. EE is a very interesting study, 3 years from now you'll be amazed at what you know. High school calc basically just let's people test out of college calc to get a head start, but not required at all. Anyways, good luck anon!
Calc II is easy as long as you understand your calc I stuff, trigonometry and algebra rules, until you get to sequences and series, then you just need to do 100 problems a day to get the hang of it.
>MechE is more mechanics and gears?

Actually quite a bit of the core courses are based around fluid flow, heat transfer, and thermodynamics. Only one core course is really based on"gears/machines".
that pic reminds me of an Unreal Tournament map

File: QC.jpg (28 KB, 520x327)
28 KB
>Quality control
Why would anyone ever willingly pursue a career in this?
Is it easy?
Does it pay well?
Is there a good career progression?

Why lads

>when I grow up, I want to test bottled water for a living
30 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>usually do 10-12 hour days.
I guess you've never had a job in your sorry life
File: 1468344212538.jpg (19 KB, 225x225)
19 KB
>TA got his PhD and he's off to work for a company that monitors shellfish toxins
>doing QA
>mfw my shitty ass side-job during highschool paid $16/hr
>he got a PhD so he can get paid $13/hr

Suicide watch etc
No your autism and love of 4chan did that.
I work in a quality control lab, mostly using different types of chromatography and particle sizers.

Its pretty comfy. 40k/year, get paid to learn new things on the job, and when production's slow, can sit around reading or shitposting on /sci/. The only bad part is rotating 12 hour shifts.

I would, at some point, actually like to work in a research lab, though. But that's another reason to do QC; to get relevant work experience to throw in your resume.
literally what

File: 1469786089457.jpg (44 KB, 478x552)
44 KB
What causes this kind of skin? I've seen it twice, and only on Somalians.
3 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
im liking that mini gay radiator to the left
Race mixing.
it's a xylophone idiot

File: ௵.jpg (21 KB, 372x260)
21 KB
i still don't understand the monty hall problem

what's the easiest, shit-stupid way to visualize and make sense of it
8 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>mfw no code tags for /sci/

I got a revolutionary scientific development. I wrote a simple program:

int getRandomNumber(int min, int max)
static const double fraction = 1.0 / (static_cast<double>(RAND_MAX) + 1.0); // static used for efficiency, so we only calculate this value once
// evenly distribute the random number across our range
return static_cast<int>(rand() * fraction * (max - min + 1) + min);

struct Door {
bool doors[3];

void init_door(Door * d) {
int setup = getRandomNumber(0,2);
d->doors[0] = d->doors[1] = d->doors[3] = false;
d->doors[setup] = true;

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
> not using matlab
how the fuck am i supposed to run and debug this?
File: monty.png (50 KB, 374x382)
50 KB
>Any /sci/entist got an explanation for this?
your code sucks
Each door has 1/3 chance of a win. Your door has a 1/3 chance to win and the other 2 doors combined have a 2/3 chance of a win.

Even when you open one of the two doors you didnt pick, that group still retains a 2/3 chance of a win.

Thus, you have better odds of winning if you switch.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.