/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6459006
this?
http://lib.freescienceengineering.org/view.php?id=625815
it's the same authors, different cover, no subtitle

twelve hours ago I didn't see it (OP's desired text) on an author search (Doebelin) on gen.lib.rus.ec and I thought libgen was/is a mirror or subset of the former... either I misunderstand the situation or fucked up the search.

>There is no question that the further away a galaxy the faster it recedes from us (as described in Hubble's law), but why do people explain this observation by saying that space itself stretches or is created between galaxies?
The only way an object can move faster is A) if it is imparted energy or 2) the space on which it exists is expanding outwards. There is no observed or theoretical phenomenon to explain the increase in rate other than dark energy or the cosmological constant being involved in an acceleration of matter apart.

>Especially when space is not some substance independently defined from the distance measurements we make
Yes it is, though it gets modified from Relativistic theories to be more confounded by the relative velocities of travelling objects and the mass/energy they have.
>so saying that space is created between is the same as saying that the distance between the two galaxies increases, it does not explain anything
It explains why things are further apart than they should be given any other known properties of matter-light.

>If galaxies recede from a given point at a rate proportional to their distance away from it, then from any point it will appear that galaxies recede at a rate proportional to their distance as well.
Again, there is no theoretical or observational effect to explain this phenomenon other than space having an existence and it is expanding and dark energy accelerates mass in terms of Special Relativity.

>There is no need to invoke that weird-ass concept of space expanding, stretching or being created, all we have to say is that galaxies keep on going due to inertia with the speed the big bang imparted them (slowing down due to gravity and accelerating due to dark energy).
Then propose a mathematically accurate explanation of the phenomenon which also can accurately describe the orbits of planets, microwave background radiation, quantities of observable mass and energy, the spectrum of lights, etc, and I will gladly follow

That's a great thread.
>>6397959
Yes, please.

>>6343649

you're waifu a shit

>>6342040

no I can't, I said I tried and when I saw that squaring the sum will give me more bullshit I gave up. Do you have any ideas?

>>6342035

I tried that, too nasty, looking for more elegant solution

>>6337405
if i listened only to the same song whenever i was doing mathematical work, do you think my brain would recognize that and use the song to immediately go full-concentration mode?
Just thought of that and might try, could be an easy way to reach full workforce quickly, asuming listening to the song while working doesn't dampen said workforce.
Has someone ever done scientific work on this? would really like some sources cuz i'm interested now.

does listening to the same song straight on repeat all the time have any influence on my intelligence / attention span?

>>6289823
What your friends grandfather name? And why are you claiming this?

>>6289766
Depends on the initial displacement that causes the wave and where that wavelength terminates on the beach itself; not all tsunamis have a roll-back.

Think of it like this, different fault displacements will produce either a sin or cos wave type (like, different starting points; either at, above or below the median wave crest).
Now factor in the shoreline itself. Low gradient shorelines will amplify the rollback effect while steeper gradients will minimise it. This is a factor of how much water the shoreline can hold vertically, and is best explained with simplistic animations from the internet.

tl;dr: That roll-back doesn't always happen, and heaps of shit controls how the wave falls onto land.

Scientific journals were a godsend back in 1666.
Before them discoveries would be made, hidden encrypted and repeatedly lost.

The model is old and decayed it's corrupted by biases, fraud, laziness and elitism. It needs to go the way of the dodo bird. All publicly funded science should be 'published' in a model more like open source software.

>>6184902
Haha, I'm a biology undergrad so they don't make us do any real maths, just loads of stats. Nobody likes it.

>>6133109
seems like a better explanation of the hebrew God rathen than believing in some abstract BS.

What does /sci/ think of the work of Zacarias Sitchin?
What do you think of the revelation that the human race is genetically engineered from local hominids by the anunnaki?

What do you think that ancient myths from the human folklore sounds astoundilly as advance technology?

Do you think the ancient gods were aliens?

>>6116140
I don't see any errors in the order of his operations.

>>6116147
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

[
a=b
a-b=0
]

(a+b)/0 = b(0) & (a+b)/0 = (a/0) + (b/0) by the third axiom of anonathematics
b(0) = a/0 + b/0
0 = a/0 + b/0
-a/0 = b/0

In short:

a = b <=> -a/0 = b/0, a = b & -a/0 = b/0 <=> -a/0 = a/0

So, somehow, dividing by 0 on one side implied multiplying the other side of the equation by -1 as well as dividing by 0, which means that to divide "a" by 0 is to multiply "a" by -1/0, which obviously doesn't make any sense.

>>6116237
What you're doing isn't valid, you'd have to have 5 on both sides (or 7) to apply 0*(x/0)=x

>>6116259
>There's no meaningful axiomatic definition here
Define meaningful axiomatic definition. Axioms are as useful as you make them.

how many H can be split off?

>>6045222
>Why the fuck does moving faster make you move faster forward in time compared to everyone else.
frequent location updates and collision detection means there's less clock cycles availible for updating your internal state.

>>6003541
Which part of it?

the idea of natural transformations (eg isomorphisms) seems to be fairly deep rooted in category theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory
...unfortunately, category theory is something that i know nothing about....

>>5989248
theres been a lot of work on fixing the regulatory functions of dna, including epigenetics, to aid cancer. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_epigenetics

Any serious answers?

You guys really get on my nerve.
Do you want a board with Science & Math, or do you want a board with 80% shit threads and 20% science related question threads, in which the question asker automatically gets bashed?
I then appears as if only frustrated people come here - not people who want to ask/answer questions.
Sometimes I give elaborate answers to simple threads, and then I even get shit for answering simple questions. wft.

>>5909127
>>maths
>implying mathematics is plural
>implying abbreviations of the form bioly make sense

>>5914595
>next year im doing real and complex analysis, PDEs and abstract algebra
Then what did you do this year? Are you in college yet? And don't worry about math options yet, at the very beginning pretty much anything they throw at you is ok. Though, if you can, you gotta learn some differential geometry.