what was the point of this shit?they didn't even go to the moon with these
>>16843490NASA's mission became confused after the moonshot and regressed to the mean behavior of American bureaucracies playing scaled up hungry hungry hippos.
>>16843490The shuttle was originally gonna be fully reusable, but they didn't have the money to make that a reality
>>16842247it was supposed to be a small crew shuttle to bring people to LEO where they would transfer to a nuclear shuttle or space stationthe budget got cut and they had to go to the air force to secure funding, who demanded it be turned into a space-pickup that could yoink soviet satellites
>>16843490NASA went to the moon in six years (if you believe, they put a man on the moon). Spacex is nowhere near that fast.
>>16843490All space shuttles are reusable. Some just require more reassembly for the second attempt than others.
You shall all bow to Indian Calculus.https://youtu.be/G23Jx0kPCSI
>>16843740I saw what ramanujan did to algebra. I don't need to see what raj can do to calculus
Nice video, thanks for sharing! Would read that book.
>>16844563Uh fuck, 86€ for digital version
>>16844527Raj invented the number system as well retard.
Calculus is kind of a dumb way of thinking about things, if we're honest.Discrete math is superior, simple as.
How do you know that even though the future was like the past in the past, that the future will be like the past in the future? and what is your basis for knowing that?
>>16770206You don't. You have extremely high confidence based on past observations and testimonial evidence that indicates, given X, Y is highly likey to occur.Everything that instills the sense of absolute certainty is heuristic and signal coalesence. It is a pragmatic illusion that reduce computational expense. You can support and validate this to be an accurate model/claim because you can see how people behave when they are given false information, different perspectives, and incomplete information. Their models and predictions deteriorate over time, and it requires continuous model remediation to counteract this. Different actors being able to reproduce identical or similar results through different models and processes also support this claim.
>>16802045(market >-< consensus)
>>16837791ie., if we successfully make it different...
>>16833962Always suspicious when anything stays still
>>16770206I know the future will be the present and then the past because causality is literally the most fundamental rule of the universe and it is applied consistently across every single point all the time. Technically I could be wrong, but an assumption based on every scientific discovery and everything ever observed by anyone ever is just about as sure as you can get with things like this.
It's all falling up. I think I get it now. Up is literally down. Up is the direction of greater coherence and down is the direction of greater uniformity. Gravity and Entropy are Up and Down.
>>16843944DO NOT LOOK AT THIS GIF IT WILL GIVE YOU SCHIZOPHRENIA OR OTHER MENTAL SHIT
>>16843978Does this cartoon bullshit theory of yours work like a joggin to the noggin and amnesia where you can also undue schizophrenia by looking at it again?
>>16844436Idk what that dude was blathering about, but I don't think anything is ever totally forgotten just like no patterns are ever lost in the universe, they just disperse into energy that could still be put back together again.We have to finish the calculation of everything before the corrupted variables will hit a maximal point and round themselves out of the whole thing before we can really see how you turn something forgotten into something truly remembered.
>>16843944Very good insight, thank you friend
>>16844911Don't mention. I'm grateful, myself. If you haven't already, consider that the universe is not a mix of causes and consequences but rather one cause, and another consequence of that cause every moment at every point. So the laws of physics are not separate from anything else. Just the consequences of things that happened early enough to become relevant to every single moment after at every single point that expanded out. The expansion itself is the same. And thank you for that neat little image. I saved it.
How come scientists can’t agree on the definition of entropy? Everyone always answers differently.
>>16842696It's the classic female/homsexual shit test. They want to be put in their place by a man but they want to weed out the weak ones first.
>>16841811Science is literally the pursuit of truth in the same way as law enforcement is literally the pursuit of justice
>>16841511Claude Shannon defined it well if you're scientifically impaired, and his definition agrees with Boltzmann's earlier one
>>16841811>Science is literally the pursuit of truthNo such thing.
>>16842696You say that as if that isn't all of /sci/.
Is it possible to travel ~100km of open water on foot using a pumice raft? Could so much pumice potentially gather that covers such an area and make it traversible?
Post hunches and speculations about science and math.
>>16844481>due to acceleration around a curve taking energythis is only true for an electron in free space, theres a reason why you cant generate microwaves by pumping 7kv through a coil of wire but you can with a magnetron tube>>16844492quantum literally means quantity, its the direct study of individual particles and their interaction with each other. there literally is a physical explanation for superconducting and if there wasnt then it should be possible to use magnetic fields to lower the resistance of a wire, but in fact all electrical conductivity and especially super conductivity dont give a fuck about hand wavy boogeyman effects
>>16844550they are superconducting because they can't lose energy, which means they can't explode.
>>16844558does that mean super conductors are bullet proof?
Time is complex-valued. A magnitude and phase. Most people ignore the phase aspect. They get by fine, but miss a lot of the bts stuff.
>>16844537Dark matter is just remnants of galaxies that were destroyed by a rogue AI
whats the point of /sci/ if I can just ask questions to chatgpt?
AI cannot be trusted in math
>>16844208But I can
Neurons that fire together dont wire together. Wow.
All Is Well With The Cosmos
>>16833160/sci/ is kinda funny sometimes, but chatgpt really sucks at humor due to the filters.
Why is anthropogenic climate change happening or not happening and why is it good or bad?>b-but some liberal activist said the human race will go extinct in 20 years. That is so absurd therefore climate change is not happeningI don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.>b-but some conservative activist said that climate change isn't happening/isn't cause by humans/is goodI don't care that's not science and they aren't scientists.>b-but liberals use climate change to push for certain policies and to get votesirrelevant to whether or not it is happening>b-but here are all the problems with an inconvenient truthA popular science documentary by a liberal activist and politician is not and should not be considered an authoritative source by anyone regardless of what they believe about climate change. In the same if I showed a documentary on evolution by an atheist activist and discovered it made errors it wouldn't be evidence against evolution. How about you poke some holes in pic rel instead?
>>16844894thermodynamics
>>16844897also bad but not the end of the world by any stretch
>>16844894>Why is anthropogenic climate change happeningwe are unleasing a shitload of chemicals in the atmosphere and water>why is it good or bad?it is causing sudden and radical changes to the biosphere and the arctics. I won't quote studies, we both know how unreliable climate science is, I will just ask this: There is a sudden and radical change to the earth with no time for life to adjust to it (including humans). Under these circumstances, would you expect the result to be good or bad?
>>16844894more co2 = white people shouting I CANT BREATH
>>16844894It's not happening. The earth is not getting warmer it is fake news.
What is the relation between probability and randomness? Which one is more fundamental?
Technically this is a metaphysical question but I can already imagine what the /his/tards would say. /sci/ it is.
>>16844520Randomness. Probability is a way to quantify randomness.
>>16844520Probability models the space of possible outcomes relative to available knowledge. It's indifferent in principle to the question of determinism vs. randomness. Even if you suppose a dice roll is deterministic (it's not), you can't rule any of the outcomes out, so you have to consider multiple outcomes as possible and model it probabilistically. Trying to give a general definition of randomness mathematically is a waste of time: you'll always be forced to define it in terms of the statistical properties of a sequence of outcomes and there will probably always be a pseudorandom way to generate such a sequence. In a more general context, randomness is a kind of deus ex machina that arbitrarily closes the gap between multiple possible outcomes and one actual outcome, implicitly assuming that counterfactual outcomes were, in fact, possible. This is obviously beyond the scope of Probability Theory and mathematics.
>>16844520the number of outcomes a system has vs whether or not we have enough information to predict the outcome
>>16844520Depends on what you mean by fundamental. In a general sense, I would argue that probability is more fundamental, because determinism and randomness are just two possibilities. Since determinism and randomness can both be formally classified under the same conceptual category (probability) without any contradiction, they must form a subset of that category.
lets say hypothetically you had a graph that represented the effective yield of a nuclear bomb with respect to the number of stages or the amount of fissile material required. how would you go about optimizing the selection so that you don't incur diminishing returns? would it be like finding the critical value on some function? what happens if it's logarithmic?is there even an optimal yield/mass ratio that's design-independent?
>>16844813bro, nobody is going to help you design a nuclear bomb.
>>16844856He's just talking about nuclear power plants in relative terms.Dude don't neo nazis love nuclear power plants?
>>16844813Assuming mass and yield are the only factors, and you want to maximize yield and minimize mass? Simply pick the highest mass/yield ratio, this is like junior high school math
>>16844878kek, look at this tard
>>16844813nuclear bombs are currently being disabled by space niggers. the best you can get away with is some nuclear fire crackers in a remote desert.
>born too early for interstellar travel>born too late for intercontinental travel
>we had supersonic airliners 50 years ago>but today we don'tthis pisses me off to no end
>>16844971bro it's not too late for intercontinental travel..at least not yet
>>16844971Interstellar travel will never happen. Space colonization will never happen.Lucky you I guess cause you're not missing out.
>>16845145What will stop us?
>>16845209a little country named israel
How do i into meteorology as a physics grad and what is the general view of this discipline?I need the cash moneyAny meteorologists here?
>>16845136Why should I tell you lol?
>>16845136weather is a hoax there's no such thingwhen God weeps it rainswhen God is angry there is thunder
>>16845136>general view of this discipline?pseudoscience due to the lack of ability to actually model the weather or climate, but since people do not know that you can bullshit them and get paid good money with your models if they can use the models to predict crop yields. John Deer just vacuums up the info from their equipment - they know when you plan, what you plan, how much, how much you harvest and when. You can look into why tree rings matched climate for many years then suddenly stopped
>>16845199>weather doesn’t exist>actually weather does exist and it’s caused by god>actually weather doesn’t exist and it’s caused by jewsthis is your mind on christ cuckery
Genuinely how do people that don't believe in evolution explain this? I'm asking this in good faith, I'm not trolling here.
>>16845150>50 jpegs and not one attempt to answer the OP
>>16844890Correlates with all the subhumans they have been importing.
>>16845191Browns are much more likely to be religious kek. On the level of rural christcucks
>>16844875Okay, here's the difference. Understanding evolution requires 3 things.Acceptance of the scientific method as a rigorous discipline, so you can generally believe that the vast majority of science is true even if you have not personally tested it yourself.An education in basic biology including the core principles of evolution such as natural selection, genetics, and gene mutation, adaptive radiation etc.An appreciation and solid conceptualization of the vast scale of the global biota on this planet and the immensity of time. The people who can not grasp evolution fail at any or all of these things. They may lack the intelligence to understand the core concepts They may lack the ability to transfer concepts from one area to another, such as understanding the implication of gradual shifts in distribution on a bell graph. They may simply have lacked access to a decent education or poor teachers. They may be hampered by religious dogma and social constraints. They may be simply unable to conceptualize immense scales in numbers, spaces, and time.For example many people have trouble coming to terms with the idea of a million. For most its just "a big number" Start throwing around numbers like 65 million years, 225 million years, or 4600 million years, and it all just the same Chinese to them.
>>16845175>. I take it you're in the retarded 1/3 of Americans whose opinion on evolution is a category error?You would be wrong.Human's selectively cultivating plants based on their usefulness to is no different from those ants that cultivate fungus which is useful to them.If you accept one as an example of co-evolution then you should accept the other as well.
>drop down 10% in bf>feel like I lost 10 iq pointswhy
>>16839301I'm around 130kg/290lbs, 1.83m/6'0, what's the best way to lose weight? should i just starve myself until I lose weight?
>>16845225btw i tried ozempic and didn't lose anything at all, it seems the only way I lose weight at all is starving myself for days... eating what my mom makes just makes me retain my current weight
>>16839301/sci/chuds lack the natural talent of /fitlit/ chads
>>16845226Try meth it might help
>>16839301Your brain needs calories, dummy. Your constant caloric deficiency is affecting your cognitive function.
