/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3238007
>>3238007
>>3238007
>>3238007
That is COMPLETELY wrong.

It is paradoxical, but light always travels at the same speed, whether the source is receding or moving toward you. Very difficult concept to grasp, I don't know if I'll ever really get a feel for what it means. But it is the truth.

>>3223265
>>3223265
>No I dont
By responding to me in English you assume that I speak English. I could have accidentally typed all of those letters and known nothing about any kind of language.

Are you seriously this much of a dimwit, or are you just trolling now? You've also assumed that I was talking to you, since I could easily have accidentally clicked on the wrong post number. Just because you didn't explicitly say to yourself "I ASSUME THIS IS TRUE" doesn't mean that you implicitly made these assumptions.

What don't you understand? Any decision relies on some kind of explicit or implicit assumption. This is inescapable. It is built into the definition of logic.

>>3223231
>>3223231
>>3223231
Do you know for a fact that there is gravity on the surface of the sun?

Do you know for a fact that metal conducts electricity on the moon?

Do you know for a fact that I'm not an alien?

Do you know for a fact that I'm sitting on a computer messaging you?

No, you don't know any of these things, you have not observed them. You ASSUME that they are true, you GOD DAMN MORON, because you have seen SIMILAR BEHAVIOR ELSEWHERE in the universe, and it is LOGICAL to extend the possibility of this behavior occurring ELSEWHERE.

I swear you people are fucking idiots. Welcome to fucking science, and real life, where EVERYTHING YOU EVER THINK is an ASSUMPTION.

Yes, it appears the trolls got to me tonight.

>>3223203
>>3223203
>>3223200
>>3223200
>>3223172
>>3223172
Ok, this thread just went full blown /x/

There's no more use arguing with tin-hat conspiracy-fags than there is trying to convince a religious idiot to be reasonable. The mechanisms of the two distinct delusions are nearly identical.

>Fuck this thread, I'm outta here

>>3223164
>>3223164
>herp derp I don't understand science or probability

Let me put it in simple terms for you.

1. Assume it is possible to win the lottery
2. If I play the lottery once, I am unlikely to win
3. If I play the lottery a million times, I am very likely to win

Now
1. We assume that the conditions that generated life on earth could possibly exist elsewhere in the universe, because we assume that physics and chemistry apply throughout the universe.
2. If we pick a random planet, it is unlikely that it will support life
3. If we pick a billion billion billion planets, odds are getting much better that there might be conditions similar to those which allowed for life to arise on earth.

Do you still not understand?

>Earth life may have only been a 1 time thing that occurred 3 billion years ago and never again because of an unknown requirement.
Sure, that is a possibility, but there is no evidence to support it. On the contrary, research seems to show that life could have arisen spontaneously, and it is therefore valid to assume that it could have arisen similarly somewhere else in the universe.

This is not difficult to understand.

>>3223162
>>3223162
>There are some reliable sources
Strongly doubt it
>Everyone agrees on the witness testimony, though.
Witness testimony that has supposedly survived intact for 600 years? Nigger, what the fuck are you smoking?

>>3223136
>>3223136
No there aren't. There are religious texts of people claiming to see things in the sky. Some people call them Gods, some people call them aliens. If you examine the motives of the people who created these reports, the fact that they have evolved over time, and understand that people have always had imaginations, it becomes reasonable to assume that they aren't any more real than the monsters children fear in their closets.

>>3223123
>>3223123
Well then you're apparently deaf. Do I really need to explain why one planet is unlikely to have life on it, while a universe full of planets is likely to have a few planets with life on them?

Do you understand probability and large numbers?

>>3223121
>>3223121
1. I would love to see a reliable source
2. Even the supposed news article printed a few weeks after the event can hardly be trusted. You don't suspect they would have sensationalized any event to make money, especially in olden times when people believed in fairy tales more than you idiots believe in aliens?

>>3223106
>>3223106
>>3223106
No, because we have observed planets nearby, and we make the assumption that nucleosynthesis and general physics apply throughout the universe, and therefore planets are likely to exist elsewhere.

On the other hand, we have yet to unambiguously observe evidence alien activity on earth, therefore it is foolish to assume with certainty that aliens exist or have existed.

Do you see the difference? EVIDENCE is the difference. Not speculation, but hard proof.

>>3223097
>>3223097
Alright let me rephrase
>Exist near enough to the planet earth to have made contact with us

Yes, given the size of the universe, I would expect that somewhere there may be alien life, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it is here. More importantly, again given the lack of non-conspiracy fueled evidence, it is unlikely that anything has made contact with us.

>>3223075
>>3223075
I don't think it's a big feat that the Egyptians were aware of pi. Nor do I see it as impossible for them to have precisely built the pyramids, even to six figures, if they had tightly controlled factory like means of fabrication and construction.

>>3223074
>>3223074
>there is more rational reason to believe in ancient aliens than to not believe in them
There absolutely is. We have no concrete evidence of concrete, just speculation. Belief is justified by observation, and thus far we have observed that aliens are unlikely to exist or have existed.

>>3223063
>>3223059

>These two posts contradict each other
Pretty much sums up the factuality of the entire idea.

>>3223055
>>3223055
>>3223055
5/10, almost raged.

>>3223010
>>3223010
>>3223010
> Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid, the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion.

Well by that logic, since the earth has enough land mass for me to be born in three billion times about another million places, I must be some kind of GOD.

>>3222969
>>3222969
>>3222969
>How about the Pyramids of Giza being positioned at aprox. the centre of mass of the earth
Nigger, the center of mass is near the center of the earth. Pay attention in class, summerfag.

>>3222961
>>3222961
Call me crazy, but I have this insane idea to hit rocks with some kind of hard, non-brittle substance. I suspect it may be much more effective in removing material than gradual water erosion. If only I had such a material.

>>3222932
>>3222932
>The fact that no one has an explaination justifies mine though.
Lack of alternative explanation is NEVER justification for a theory. The ability to invent alternate theories is absolutely independent of the veracity of any other.

Let's look at it this way. If I theorized that the flying spaghetti monster was responsible, would your ancient alien theory be any less credible?

>>3222935
>>3222935
That is wrong. You have to take into account the probability of not dying in the first round and making it to the second round.

Correctly it looks like this
1/6 + (5/6)(1/5)

Although I'm not sure if 1/5 is correct in the second term.

>>3222918
>>3222918
>How long would it take you and a couple of hundred other people to cut the top off a mountain
They were working with a lot more than just a couple hundred people.

>>3222917
Lovely.

>>3222908
Right, should have specified. I am proposing a situation in which the chamber is spun again after the first trigger pull.

>>3222889
>>3222889
>>3222889
>>3222889
>I don't think anyone can explain how they could've built huge fucking structures, and smoothed them out without using flying vehicles, cranes or lasers.


Why do so many people see people's inability to explain something as PROOF of crazy conspiracy theories?

The fact that I don't have a better explanation doesn't justify your crazy one.