Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 1.50 MB, 4584x2136, IMG_20180623_214444834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827498 No.9827498 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Amerifat education
>Learning the equation of a potato chip

Speechless desu

>> No.9827505
File: 64 KB, 638x558, 1525967703992.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827505

>>9827498
t.

>> No.9827511
File: 34 KB, 400x308, fatAmerican.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827511

Respect American Science or GTFO



File: 31 KB, 600x750, 7e3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827486 No.9827486 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I need help identifying an object in the sky. It occurred last year in July for a few weeks (lost dates), so I expect to see it again soon. If I do, I may buy an expensive telescope just to solve the mystery. With binoculars, it’s still just a shiny dot against the blue sky. Research has shown nothing.

At around 21:00ish at dusk there is a shiny object in the sky about 335°az and 55° elevation from Columbus, GA. It only lasts for about 10min and moves maybe an inch across the sky very slowly. It appears that at dusk, the sun is at the perfect angle to reflect off of it. Before disappearing, it flickers a bit. It is moving too slowly to be a satellite, and I thought geostationary satellites would be too far to see.

Ideas?

>> No.9827491

>>>/x/

>> No.9827496

>>9827491
There is a perfectly logical explanation. I'm just out of ideas on what to research.



File: 45 KB, 800x510, opposite-words-cold-hot-illustration-85767770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827484 No.9827484 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

/sci/, in that world before atomic-kinetic theory, and indeed before atomic theory at all, how precisely was "caloric theory" (heat is an invisible fluid that repels itself) more defensible than "frigoric theory"?

What thermodynamic observations (hopefully those available to them) supported the former and not the latter?

>> No.9827490

>>9827484
It was up to taste. Like current flow vs electron flow.

It was easier to add heat than add cold so people tended to think in terms of caloric heat.



File: 98 KB, 602x498, main-qimg-a0dcda0ecda0c1a159c48151bd9b7c74.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827483 No.9827483 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

why do neonazis make such a big deal about the nuremberg iq tests?

>> No.9827485

>>>/pol/



File: 106 KB, 1000x676, hipitty hopitty get off my property.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827467 No.9827467 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

You know, in a fixed point in space so not just staying still on planet earth. Is it possible to completely stop?

>> No.9827468

>>9827467
Stop in reference to what?



File: 112 KB, 292x265, 1529183435987.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827459 No.9827459 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I need some help to write a precalculus for niggers book (trig for niggers, algebra for niggers).

anyone here wanna help write it?

>> No.9827474

Lmao I'm not helping you with your teacher evaluation Mr. Jordan. Go tweet about Black History Month or how progressive your union is.



File: 297 KB, 1295x1836, 1515357960018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827441 No.9827441 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Are fetishes psychological or physiological?

10 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.9827503

>>9827497
Are you saying that engaging in acts that stimulate a fetish without the use of a sexual organ provides the same feeling as stimulating a sexual organ?

>> No.9827506

>>9827492
Is right, but let me try:

>>9827488
>Why do I fantasize about being shrunk and swallowed whole by a woman?
I think you are enthralled with the idea of a dominating women. Where this comes from I can only venture to guess. Maybe it's the prevalence of the feminist movement in many aspects of your life, maybe you idolize those who were never good with women, the list could go on but I do not know your situation so I can only make shots in the dark. As a final point, I think you also enjoy the pain that women bring, as I'm sure you are educated enough to understand that being digested is a slow, likely painful process.

Why do I fantasize about being shrunk and kept in a woman's shoe while she wears it, being drenched in her foot sweat?
Refer to above. This question poses more biological cravings however.
You may be needy at heart. Also may be distrustful, as you want to be present in her idle life. Hopefully you don't become aware that her feet sweat more when she gets fucked with shoes on, lest you become a cuck.


Why would biology cause thoughts like these to exist?
In simple terms, you want to propagate, and will sacrifice value to do so.

>> No.9827508
File: 1.32 MB, 1477x1600, 5b007c02-0d4b-438f-86a2-2e838d351047.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827508

>>9827506
how does a giantess fetish aid in propagation?

>> No.9827516

>>9827492
Natalie... she's good in these fantasies.


>>9827506
>I think you are enthralled with the idea of a dominating women. Where this comes from I can only venture to guess.

I have my own theories but let's see where you go with this.

>You may be needy at heart. Also may be distrustful as you want to be present in her idle life.
Yes.

>Hopefully you don't become aware that her feet sweat more when she gets fucked with shoes on, lest you become a cuck.

Oh, way ahead of you there. Only sometimes though. I have conflicting theories about cuck stuff or humiliation fantasies. I can enjoy them in fantasy but when I imagine such situations in reality I become quite angry want to either leave the situation or seize control.


An important aspect of my fetishes is that i had a foot fetish since I was a toddler. However when my mother realized this aroused me, even at that age, she made me stop. I hid it ever since then and became very insecure about my sexuality in general. At some point I started imagining my sexual urges being forced on me or otherwise taken out of my control. This meant that I could indulge in my desires without admitting to them and thus feeling guilty/awkward/embarrassed.

I am beginning to think the vore thing and female dominance is a perversion of my natural male instincts to attend to women and their needs. The gyno-centrism in other words.

>> No.9827517

>>9827508
>surrendering yourself to a woman for a, albeit marginal, shot at spunkin in her pumkin



File: 258 KB, 1728x1057, 1528848794128.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827423 No.9827423 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Can you faggots show me documentaries or movies about math because I fucking hate math and I want to like it.

>> No.9827424

Do math, you fucking millennial.

>> No.9827426

>>9827423
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw/videos

>> No.9827428

>>9827423
[math]gay[/math]



File: 3.09 MB, 2704x4056, IMG_20180623_2036117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827412 No.9827412 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Zebrafish

>> No.9827413
File: 2.98 MB, 2704x4056, IMG_20180623_2036383.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827413

>> No.9827415
File: 3.84 MB, 2704x4056, IMG_20180623_2036598.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827415

>> No.9827417
File: 3.24 MB, 2704x4056, IMG_20180623_2037242.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827417

>> No.9827421

Second to worst animal model, just above Xenopus.

>> No.9827435

>>9827421
that's funny considering my department head has fellowships based off them

what's so wrong with them



File: 28 KB, 680x344, 1528848584466.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827385 No.9827385 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How do I enjoy math?

5 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.9827407

>>9827406
I'm talking about precalculus.

>> No.9827409

>>9827407
that's admittedly one of the worst taught subjects in the US imo

>> No.9827469

>>9827407
Even the name is garbage. No one likes pre-cal.

>> No.9827494

>>9827385
• work some easy problems
• get correct answers
• build confidence upon success
• profit

>> No.9827502

>>9827385
>>9827391
>>9827401

1) It is exactly like learning a foreign language. Where am I going to use all these tenses or vocabulary etc. When you go through the abc stuff, you are not gonna be enjoying great literature. Things only pay off once you get good enough at the language to start reading more wonderful books.

2) A more concrete goal would help. Find something you want to learn that requires maths. For me, it was general relativity and quantum mechanics. I oriented my mathematical life around stuff pertaining to physics, and it has worked out great for me, as the joy of being able to read about the higher achievements of theoretical physics is something that no money can buy. I wouldn't want to live my life without knowing it.

3) Maths is a series of small games and puzzles. If you like games and puzzles, maths can offer its own rewards regardless of why you start learning it. Most gamers can understand problem-solving and the joys of a challenge. Same thing here, just that you don't have virtual boobs to motivate you along.



File: 88 KB, 1024x415, cow-skull-in-desert_1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827333 No.9827333 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How do we know when certain parts of our bodies will go extinct? And can it go extinct while we are alive?



File: 807 KB, 2250x3185, large (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827313 No.9827313 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Hmm. That didn't age too well, did it?

2 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.9827327

>Standard RAM: +/- 750GB

>> No.9827418
File: 120 KB, 1452x848, 1526500518580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827418

So I'm 28 years old. I've been fascinated by future tech/Singularity stuff since I was a kid in the 90's. But I'm finally getting cynical and jaded about charts like these.

Am I supposed to believe that before I retire (late 2050s), we'll have "programmable matter" and "utility fog" and "nanoclouds" that can feed and care for me?

*IF* all this stuff is around the corner, what the fuck is the point in paying into a 401k/Social Security?!?! Current political-social-systems and the US dollar itself would be completely irrelevant in a world of nanofoglets and God-like artificially conscious matter. Time value of money states that every penny I make is worth more to me if I spend it now, so why plug my cash into these economic systems that could be obsolete in less than two decades. Am I missing something /sci/?

The only other conclusion is that gnawing feeling we all have that futurologists are hopelessly naive. A.I. and immortality seem like pipe dreams...

>> No.9827431

>>9827313
>2018
>virtual currencies

spot on if you ask me

>> No.9827433

>>9827324
flying nano machines

>> No.9827509

>>9827313
The AI column is spot-on though...



File: 40 KB, 851x922, fan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827304 No.9827304 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Hi just looking for a bit of quick electrical engineering advice before I make this little circuit.

I want to combine a small switch with a large heavy duty PNP transistor to make a switch that will control a 1.8 Amp Delta fan that runs at 12V.

So I have a choice of two circuits.
Pretty simple.
Which should I make, or does it not really matter.

>> No.9827311

La corriente es mayor en el emisor, a fin de cuentas no importa mucho.

>> No.9827325

Para corrientes altas Ic=~Ib

>> No.9827380

The current is higher at the emitter, in the end it doesn't matter much.

High current Ic≈Ib.

Hmmm..

Was just playing with the circuit and I destroyed my 500Ω potentiometer, dammit.... will be using the first option so current isn't wasted since they seem to behave pretty much the same.



File: 5 KB, 259x194, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827273 No.9827273 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Simple explanation for the Universe we live in being a simulation

Mathematically, it's most likely that, perhaps there was once a civilisation before us that had sufficiently advanced technology to create a simulation of an entire Universe.

Imagine this is the only civilisation in existence ever. Now, they create the simulation. The simulation gets to this same point, and they create another simulation. Leading to an infinite amount of simulations of Universes (like ours?) or maybe different, with different initial variables. For example, the speed of light seems rather arbitrary, so perhaps the initial conditions like the speed of light are different in these Universes.

How can anyone possibly refute this theory?

>> No.9827289

>>9827273
You would have to conduct experiments to confirm you live in a virtual machine aka a simulation. So find some kind of 'hack' that violates the laws of your virtual machine, perhaps you have proven your thesis.

>> No.9827320

>>9827289
And if you can find a hack, you find a short cut, like a binary operation/bit manipulation or something. Find these things, you live in a simulation.

In my own totally uneducated plebian opinion we likely live in a simulation. It's the only explanation for all the bullshit in the universe that doesn't jive with quantum or relativity.

>> No.9827381
File: 87 KB, 356x438, It'sLysozomeTime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827381

You can't refute what you can't prove.

1. Just because it's likely doesn't mean it's true (I am not, however stating that this is likely at all).
2. How is this based mathematically? How do you calculate this beyond mad approximating?

So how can you prove this hypothesis? The scientific method can't account for unknowns like this; it's beyond the logical horizon until we develop the means for a really, really clever experiment that I can't possibly imagine that can prove it, which is likely to be (Large n) of years away, if at all. it's like asking for the meaning of life. If you want to think about a question that is impossible to answer this board isn't for you.

My prognosis?

>>>/x/

>> No.9827388

>>9827273
Just because we can create video games does not mean we can create simulations of a universe this detailed. Not only would you have to prove that this is possible, but that a civilization would be motivated to create this simulation.

>> No.9827478

>>9827273
This theory is for brainlets; it is circular reasoning.

“How was our universe created”
“By another universe.”
“Okay... how was that one created?”
“Uhh... by another universe...?”

See, the theory does not actually explain anything, it would be like if I said, “who created you mathematics,” and you responded, “My teacher taught me math.” The question becomes, “who taught your teacher mathematics?” And so on and so forth.



File: 14 KB, 370x261, Allen the Bottom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827214 No.9827214 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why aren't you a genius yet, /sci/?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HL3PPNrUhU

>> No.9827224

There's something to this. No one with an IQ of 85 is going to become a genius, but plenty of average people can produce insights if they took the matter seriously. Thinking is hard for most people, so they don't do it.



File: 116 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827201 No.9827201 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Do guys think for the most part, people who are actually intelligent (115+) tend to know they are intelligent? There's maybe 3 people at my job who while they might not come at and say it, you know they value that they are more intelligent then the average bloke. Now part of me thought that perhaps these people had a Dunning-Kruger thing going on. But when I think about it they actually are probably decently intelligent. So guys do you think intelligent people tend to know they are smart from a young age? Or do you think some people just think they're smarter then they are?

31 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.9827472

>>9827201
SOCRATES
ALL I KNOW IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING

>> No.9827473

1) People who are actually intelligent know from experience that nobody wants to feel dumb, so it is not socially advantageous to brandish their intelligence, especially when their actions, vocabulary and reasoning can demonstrate it in abundance. They also know where they stand because they can compare with other people, and don't need to compensate for their insecurity with unnecessary bloviation.

2) Walk the walk, instead of talking the talk. There is no lack of wastrels or C-list celebrities who tout their Mensa IQ etc. without being able to accomplish anything worthwhile with their lives. As Hawkings puts it, "people who boast about their IQ are losers." Meritocracy is about concrete skills and results, not hot air.

3) As Terry Tao puts it, kids who are praised for their intelligence come to associate success with intelligence and, likewise, failure with the lack thereof. They might try something new and fail because they lack experience, but mistakenly believe they don't have the innate talent and give up sooner than they should. It is better to praise them for the work they put in to accomplish the results, than to orient their lives around the myth of the chosen one, which is a harmful fantasy trope.

4) This board might contain a lot of cancerous shitposting about intelligence, but do not for a single moment confuse it with real life. Intelligence, misused or wasted, can easily lead to bitterness, tunnel vision, self-deception, social isolation or a superiority-inferiority complex. So don't for a moment think you automatically have it made just because you notice you have a brighter bulb in your noggin than your fellows.

>> No.9827500
File: 98 KB, 602x498, main-qimg-a0dcda0ecda0c1a159c48151bd9b7c74.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827500

>>9827201

>> No.9827510

>>9827500
>Goering

Just goes to show that you can be exceptionally intelligent and a monster simultaneously.

>> No.9827512

>>9827510
what did göring do wrong tho?
like of all the people on this list goring is what made you mad?



File: 73 KB, 233x283, D2070CA2-3BEA-4A1C-9DF0-D4F8AE04CFFE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827194 No.9827194 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Is it possible to find (algebraically) the sign and magnitude of 2 unknown charges, if given enough information? Specifically, I’m given E at some point in space, and- fwiw, it’s not directly above them, Ex is not 0, making this hard(er). I’m given E, and I’m given the distance from the 2 charges. I don’t know if they are a dipole, I don’t know anything about them. All I know is their distance from a point and the total field at that point.

My gut says yes but I’ve been working on this for 2 hours and I, for the life of me, can’t figure it out. Because, the cosins and sins of the 2 charges w/ respect to the point are not the same, so you can’t factor anything nicely, and at the end of the day I have only one equation for 2 uknowns.....I’m stuck.

Please help.

>> No.9827434

>>9827194
Are you retarded?



File: 889 KB, 956x540, flat earthers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827192 No.9827192 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

brainlet flat earthers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erA3WQE9Zes

>> No.9827196

>>9827192
LOICENZ

>> No.9827199

>>9827192
>he doesn't know about the ice globe
Open your eyes man.



File: 66 KB, 988x704, brainlet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827143 No.9827143 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Random number generator
>Generates numbers from 0.00 - 99.99
How likely is it to roll 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in a row ?

4 replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.9827283

1/10,000^8 = 10^-11
So, 10^-9 %

>> No.9827290

>>9827283
Wait I added, so 10^-24 = 10^-22 %

>> No.9827292

>>9827143
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4352rEUgM60

>> No.9827295

>>9827280
10,000 = 10^3 tho

>> No.9827302

>>9827295
Yes, and (10^-3)^8 = 10^-24
That's basic probability theory to get the ^8, combined with basic exponential algebra.



File: 21 KB, 593x296, constantY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827121 No.9827121 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How does one prove the invariance of the spacetime interval in flat spacetime?

I see many proofs for its invariance in one spacial dimension that rely on some constant value in another spatial dimension (pic related), but what about proving it for three spacial dimensions, where you can no longer use some spatial constant.

Is there a clean geometric proof or something similar? I would prefer if it could be proven without the Lorentz transformations because I feel that would be less intuitive.

>> No.9827134

I don't understand what you want to prove, if you are asking for an explicit computation showing that the the interval is invariany after a lorentz tranaformation, then just plug and chug a general lorentz transformation and compute the interval.

>> No.9827152

>>9827134
That is what I'm meaning to prove.
I'm teaching this to some kids who wanted to learn, but I'm deeply unsatisfied with how I learned about the spacetime interval (in the pic) and "plug and chug" sounds less enlightening.
If I must do it that way then I guess I'm stuck with it.

>> No.9827165

>>9827121
Any reference frame in 3+1 dimensions can be reduced to the 1+1 dimensional case through a spatial rotation.

Essentially, even though the velocity vector is 3 dimensional, it can be made to point along the x-axis by a change of basis.

>> No.9827170

>>9827165
Wow, I'm dumb.

I think I was stuck on the idea the motion could be some curve that required all spacial coordinates to be included, but I realize now that would require acceleration and therefore not be included in special relativity.

>> No.9827186
File: 54 KB, 919x720, Life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9827186

>>9827165
How though can this be generalized to work for something moving at any speed?
This visual thought experiment is reliant on a specific instance of light itself moving, right?



View post   

Not DMCA removals