The new /sci/ wikihttps://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki(More resources in replies)
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
"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."how would you respond without sounding mad
I often imagine the first greeks sci cucks who encountered the eleatics and chuckle to myself at what refutations they would have offered with their limited scientific tools.
>>16131316Thats just semantics where race of running turns into pursuit for some reason. Are they racing or pursuing?
20 reuses editionprevious >>16127678
>>16131248https://archive.is/5reLe
>The way to compete against SpaceX, Beck said, “is to outsmart them and outwork them. You have to be the mosquito, that is for sure. And you have to be very agile. … The crazy thing about a mosquito is that it’s kind of annoying, but there’s a nonzero chance that you might get bit, get malaria and die,” he said.Most retarded shit I have ever read. Reddit ass looking faggot beck is just coping and seething. Also funny how people are starting to call SpaceX a monopoly now after years and years of shitting on them saying they will fail. They aren't a monopoly, everyone else is just fucking shit.
lol
>>16131258Thanks Anon. >>16131298lol. lmao. Honestly, it probably chafes horribly to be outpaced by SpaceX, but it's not going to stop as long as Elon Musk and SpaceX are both looking further ahead and more eager to get there than the rest of the industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okqNepQn_Tg>Polaris Dawn - Your Very Own Human Space Program
What is our best explanation for consciousness? And is there such a thing as reality or is reality is just something hallucinated by our minds? What the fuck is even going on?
>>16131310>>16131307>>16131306>>16131301Fags
>>16131310if you're using "rock" as an euphemism for a brain like computer made of silicon and other shit found in rocks, yeah, "rocks" may be able to have consciousness. but that's it. as far as we know consciousness happens in human brains. if you say otherwise prove it.
>>16129281Its frustrating that we still know so little how brain works. You have to give it a decade or two and we can pinpoint exactly where this or that idea or feeling in your brain arose. After this you cant retreat behind lack of evidence and claim that consciousness is some kind of a metaphysical or magical entity.
>>16131319Consc allows you to retract. Consciousness is the 'essence', the 'ness' of being conscious of things using the consc. Consc is not all of the individual's life simulation, the experience-r. Consc is about 2 steps out of the core of that. As said, consc allows us to retract mentally.
>>16131318All Rocks MatterThe thing you are trying to isolate as the source of consciousness, electrical activity, still applies to rocks.
I asked chatgtp to create a new mathematical concept https://sl.bing.net/jXDiMZCX70K
Fag thread.
>>16131314Yes. I am a fag. But at least I'm not a nerd. Have fun with the new gay theory, dorks.
Can someone explain the law of identity to me?It is claimed that for all subjects x, x = x. But I cannot think of anything that can be said of a thing other than its predicates, implying that "x = y" is equivalent to "For all predicates P, P(x) iff P(y)". If this is the case, the law of identity reduces to "P(x) iff P(x)", which is the law of noncontradiction. Am I misunderstanding the meaning?
>>16129512Why would this need to be encoded as an axiom, if it is just a part of the definition of =?
>>16129469You're totally right. It's a pseud axiom only included for historical reasons. Philosophers in the past thought they were smart for writing down the most trivial statement in formal logic.
>>16129469>But I cannot think of anything that can be said of a thing other than its predicatesThe idea that two things are equal if they share all the same properties is not expressible in first order logic. So the law of identity is a bit different than what you are saying.
>>16129469Look up the concept of intensional vs extensional equality. If law of identity reduces to P(x) iff P(x), then you are talking about intensional equality. Now consider two different definitions of pi: >The limit of area of regular n-gons with apothem length 1 as n goes to infinity>Liebniz formula: 1-1/3+1/5-1/7+...We can write them both as definitions of pi, and thus, they can be considered extensionally equal in some world, but it is clear that not every predicate about one is true about the other:>They convergence at different rates>One implies the existence of some geometry >Etc.There you have it. We're doing no more than making a rule about how '=' can be used in the symbol game.
>>16130565The sign doesn't say anything about what is equal to what. You have to show this using axiomatic statements that leave nothing to ambiguity.
If something is 100% beneficent to begin with, what's the chances it will become maleficent later?Is optimism related or optimal?
>>16128735The chances are 100%
>>161287350%The true answer to this question can only ever be revealed to sane people of which there are quite a few on this board, including namefags.pic related from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQri48UyegU
It 0%
100% with women
Does this mean there's an element of risk with any beneficence that's under 100% beneficent?
What do you autists know about mass spectrometry engineering as a field?
I demand a spaceship
>>16131274I demand a nicer spaceship than yours
>>16131280I will punch your fucking face off
>>16131287my ship will be nicer faggot
>>16131291Fagpot.
>Alcubierre Drive bro!The idea that a ship could bend spacetime around it in order to move through said spacetime seems to me to be analagous to trying to lift a chair while you are sitting on it. But lets say that a warp bubble is produced independantly of the ship, and then sent on a pre-determined path with the ship inside. Even this seems impossible, because once again it involves manipulating a substance that are are innately a part of. How exactly can a three dimensional creature that cannot willingly control it's time dimension hope to manipulate spacetime in this way? It's like a 2D creature trying to manipulate 3D space.But lets say it is possible. Clearly we can manipulate spacetime in some way. Get enough energy together and you can create gravity, which is just the warping of spacetime, but so far as we know, gravity propagates at a max speed just below the speed of light. So a warp drive based on bending space like this would not feasibly end up accelerating to FTL speeds anyway.Literally the only FTL phenomena that people can point to is the expansion of the universe itself. This is the fundamental difference between simply bending spacetime as gravity does (or is) and the actual expansion and contraction of space itself. It is likely the latter is never going to be possible because of what I said earlier, that we are beings who can not manipulate spacetime in such a way. We are three dimensional with no control over our time dimension. We are sitting on the chair we are trying to lift.
>>16130818i thought it was more like as though it was creating something like a black hold in front of the ship and the opposite behind the ship. Not a black hole with a singularity, but just compressing spacetime beyond the limit that light could escape, which is why it gets dragged along faster than light, it's basically in a constant state of falling toward the compressed spacetime it's creating. Like how light can't get out of a black hole once it's gone in beyond the event horizon, but if that happens it hasn't necessarily yet reached the singularity where the curvature is infinite
Belief in limitation is the one and only cause of limitation
>>16130818>lift a chair while you are sitting on it.Plenty of videos of people doing that not only with chairs, but with stools, ladders, barrels, and other objects.
>>16131033>Even if this is true we can still colonize this galaxy.colonizing doesn't work outside our solar system. whatever makes it out is its own lifeform that you lose all control over.
>>16130818
Is this fake news? Does this symbol represent something else?
>>16124647The Tell-Tale Heart
>>16072967No thats real, they really are that schizo and anti-christ.
>>16094080>torxa.k.a. the jewish screw
Why do they hate Jesus so much? What did Jesus do to them that was so wrong? Criticizing temple money changers doesn't seem like enough to justify two thousand years of hatred
>>16131183Jesus ended the special status of the Jews. They no longer were God's chosen people.
I don't understand gravity. The popsci explanation is that it's created by the curvature of spacetime and objects aren't actually attracted to one another but are only following that curvature. But that only explains why objects that are already moving fall down. Why would a stationary object follow that curvature and fall? If I drop a pen, where is that force coming from to push it down? Is it because they're moving through time? Please help
>>16127108you don't see it bc photons mostly dodge it, but imagine they didn't. What would you see? Where would "straight ahead" go, then? We see photons but our bodies are atoms.
>>16131083>There are no stationary objectsthe manifold of reality is stationary
>>16131141>pigfucker>fine thread>lingering mediocrity>Big Fuckhead medalCan you talk like a normal human being instead of with this edgy redditor "quip" speak, like you are delivering some epic stinger line in Rick & Morty?That shit rots your brain, son.It's the same shit every thread. You offer a veritasium tier explaination, people correct you, you fly into an autistic rage, then start regressing into quip speak.And we all know it's you. I would be shocked if numerous people are adopting this dumb persona.If you aren't willing to be corrected, you are going to go through life with this same, surface level understanding of physics.
Absolute state of this thread. No you are not smart at any level if you spend time arguing like this.
>>16131286who said I'm smart?
It's pretty self evident. How did this garbage theory ever gain traction. Oh yeah, I know, DEI and Jews.Literally 2 generations of scientists laughed Arrhenius's theory out of the academy.Also, the premise of greenhouse effect contradicts science. "Height of emissions rises against density so temperature increases" is dumb. It assumes1) Density gradient exists 'cuz (some idiots claim gravity reduces over height so "less force" holds air down, hence density)2) The atmosphere would be cold without greenhouse gas (GHG)3) GHG because of density lapse creates a temperature lapse 4) Pressure lapse resultsRetardedIt's:1) Gravity+atmospheric mass creates a force. Surface pressure equals this force and is fixed. 2) Pressure lapse rate is a given, gas laws3) Add energy, and temperature increases.4) Temperature along a pressure lapse leads to kinetic work against gravity.5) Temperature and mass climb up the pressure gradient6) Density lapse results.Higher temps means higher top of troposphere and a distribution of density upward. There is no height of emissions rising against density, that's dumb.Work against gravity is potential energy. Doesn't emit. Falls back down and compresses gas as work. Higher temperatures which emit more.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>16131264No it isn't, moron.
>>16131263>Very life. Much green.Yes, you condescending transsexual. The arctic is incredibly green in summer time, and increasingly so. Snide jokes and wilful ignorance doesn't change reality.>The Jewish religious leaders thought they saw (understood) but were blind. Their minds were made up and they refused to accept new evidence or information that might change their minds. They quizzed the blind man twice and his parents once, at first refusing to believe that the man had actually been blind. When they couldn’t deny the miracle, they questioned its source: Jesus could not be from God since He healed on the Sabbath. He must be a sinner. No amount of evidence or simple logic would convince them otherwise. They were obstinate in their unbelief—blind, though they thought they saw.
>>16131271>The arctic is incredibly green >in summer timeSo, take nothing, multiply 12% by nothing, carry the nothing... Yeah, I still get nothing.
>>16131278Yes, in summer time, because there is virtually no sunlight for half of the year.>An old English expression says, ‘There is none so blind as those who will not see.’ It means that although there is nothing wrong with their eyesight, they ignore the truth they already know;
>>16131290There's virtually no sunlight for the other half of the year either. You understand how angle of solar incidence works, right? That's why the artic is so cold and lifeless.
Do babies really scream during abortions?
>>16131049Ever heard of retroabortion
>>16131057Like with an atari?
>>16130248Without intervention, it would obviously have full personality and life within a couple years. That it doesn't at the time means nothing. I would say the difference between 25+ weeks and before is not 'personhood' but instead starting to look more like a birthed baby, which people are uncomfortable with since it puts them face to face with what they're doing or allowing- although many are quite pleased doing it and genuinely hate the things on some unhinged ideological grounds, they would advocate no limits and some would advocate freedom to infanticide after birth if it were socially acceptable. Just say you are ok with killing babies and leave it at that. Nothing wrong with that if you believe morality hinges on consensus, if you admit what it is and don't try to delude yourself. It's just prioritising one person over another. Since one of the people has no power and no connection with anyone except maybe the parents and their families, in abstract future sort of way, the decision is more one-sided and relatively easy to make compared to say a 2yo child. Of course, there's a big legal difference between the two as well. Trying to explain abortion any other way falls flat since it's just making up excuses. The simply fact is the mother, or someone else (often the father), finds it inconvenient and unwanted. That's where it begins and ends.
>>16130003if she gave you a kyswhy aren't you dead yet?KYS
>>16130925>If its the former then abortion is clearly murderous, if its the later then its still murderousBased.
due to sharing an ancestor that lived on the sea 660 million years agoThe degree of overall homology and the conservation of regulatory complexity between vertebrate and insect Hox complexes is simply amazing. In posterior regions of the embryo, miR-196 is transcribed by promoter elements of paralog 10, processed, and bound to the 3′-untranslated region of Hox-8 mRNAs. Hox-C8 mRNA and miR-196 have a single mismatch over the 22 nucleotide microRNA sequence, and binding triggers degradation by RNA interference (RNAi). More anterior mRNAs in Hox-7 and Hox-6 paralogous groups also bind to miR-196 but with more mismatches, causing translational inhibition instead of mRNA degradation. This translational repression mechanism ensures that anterior Hox proteins are not translated posteriorly, explaining earlier observations that some mouse Hox proteins were not expressed in posterior regions of the embryo, whereas their transcripts were expressed all the way to the tip of the tail.In the Bithorax gene complex of Drosophila, the infra-abdominal 4 (iab-4) gene is found at the equivalent location of miR-196. The iab-4 gene encodes a microRNA that binds to and inhibits Ultrabithorax mRNA translation and is expressed in abdominal segments; when miR-iab4 is overexpressed in the haltere it causes homeotic transformations into a wing. In the Antennapedia complex a second microRNA, miR-10, has been mapped between Deformed and Sex combs reduced and at homologous positions in the mammalian Hox-B and Hox-D complexes. Translational repression by microRNAs probably explains the enigmatic phenomenon of “posterior dominance” observed in Hox function.Such an intricate machinery dedicated to specify identities along the A-P axis would, in all probability, not have evolved in the same way twice. >For this reason, the inescapable conclusion is that a Hox complex was already functioning in Urbilateria (the ancestor of both human and insect).
>>16131281>insects and humans share some genesTheyre called "Asians", be polite.
>>16131281>660 million years agoDoes this motherfucker think he can kick my ass?! I am the Religiosa decrypter.>For this reason, the inescapable conclusion is that a Hox complex was already functioning in UrbilateriaFungal?
>>16131294>Fungal?Or "anti-fungal", Plant if not a hit. Insect and fungal have a connection but it could be from fungal's paired half.
What books are the cognitive elite reading, past and present?What books that theorize on creating the new cognitive elite? If no such books exist, who is writing them? What are your conjectures?
>>16130916>Just let a fully mechanized species whose IQ and education doesn't peak until more than two decades after birth use child labor bro>After all I heard the reason people had kids as subsistence farmers was to get more farmhands to help feed... more subsistence farmers? No other reasons.If you want a 'cultural solution' for Americas implosion and otherwise irreversible intellectual cratering, it looks like shariah law 3.0 (or maybe worse) and nobody is interested in that.I'm more of a 'let the incels and techbros 3D print artificial wombs in their basements and hard-carry us into a new golden age' kind of solution guy myself.
>>16130931maybe that is true for the urban drone soi types but you should have more faith in the rural population and technicians.
>>16130990even better, just be born in Europe and use your local language to communicate in a way that can't be understood by anglophones and all globalist traitors and kikes
>>16127708Probably something related to their scientific field and classics.
>>16127708Current ones i don't think they read anything,they are born winners.90% of them are completely turned to hedonism.
