/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5776806
no it can't.

Also this
>>5761534

>>5761522
That's irrelevant.
Sit or not makes a difference only within a genetic group.

We're talking about interspecies muscle difference.

>>5761376
That's mainly the evolutionary explanation.
I think OP wanted specific, like the chem biology involved in the process.

Well, consider this, there was study on humans, focus was muscle mass, they formed 4 groups.
1 group worked out
2 group didn't work out at all
3 group worked out + got testosterone injections
4 group didn't work out but also got testosterone injections

The results after several weeks was that the group with testosterone injections but 0 workout had bigger gains than the group that worked out without testosterone.

That goes to show the big role chemistry/genetics can have.
Simply gorillas are built this way as a whole.
Another follow up question would be "how do they get their protein then?".
There are tons of answers for this if you use google.
The main cause though is how they process their food (types of enzymes and whatnot).

Are you the friction guy?

>>5753149
>invented electron
Yeah, the universe without electrons was neat.

No, genes are a social construct.

>tfw a nigger wants to be your king
You don't have a rightful claim to the throne.

It belongs to the scientest of the sciences.
Begone spawn of darkness.

>>5741647
These pics are so retarded.
>hurr caputahlizm
>muh muhnay

>>5740316
>>5740239

Deductively it is true.
I can say flowers are meteors, therefore flowers are from out of space.

There lies your flaw.
Everything is logical if you accept the premises as true.

Problem is that unicorns don't really correspond to observation.
Therefore inductively the value of that logical evaluation is False.

>muh semantics

lel i's giant that future newtons will suck my dick ,if that's true.

correlation=/=causation blahbidy blah.

Don't get so hyped and selective about little "findings" that 'prove' whatever you want to get proved.

First, prove that you're sapient.

>>5730640

>>5729012
I hope you're not replying to me.
Because it is pointless and painful to watch.

>>5728940
You're doing this on purpose, right?
Its like you're talking about boats because i said i drink water.
Somewhat related but you're way off.

>>5728894
>Quit the semantic bullshit.
And i think you should know better in what context "meaningless" and "arbitrary" are used here.

OP wants to have a sense.
Doesn't matter if light travels at C or C+1 when it's sunday.
It is meaningless in OP's terms.
He wants the absolute explanation of everything.

I think he needs to understand that it's not the limitation of knowledge or time or the physical limitation or our brains or superhyper quantum mystic physics.

"reason" is a meaningless word, as is 'why', in this context.

Even if in the future you discovered crazy physics that could explain why light is C and not A, B or D, the ultimate reason would still be arbitrary, because you can't have it otherwise it just can't, not because of limitation of any kind..

This is not some kind of philosophy or 'theory', it's a natural consequence.

>>5728860
see
>>5728854
You're welcome.

Reread this:
>>5728829
If you fully grasp this post you have the answer to your question.
So let me rephrase this.
You cannot know the reason behind why there light travels at C.
Because there isn't one.
Even if you find further reasons in the future, the ultimate reasons still be arbitrary and meaningless in the sens they are axioms.

If you can grasp this then you're set.

>>5728840
>being this dense

"because they so say"
Who says so?
The gravity, the light, energy.
What we observe.

>what is reading comprehension
Sagan is rolling in his grave right now.

>autism general
From the actual original post i could understand that he was asking, WHY the laws of physics operate the way they do, he just used an example, maybe the OP himself wasn't aware he was asking that.

You can't even read between the lines, homosexuals.

Welp, you're in luck OP, cause MrDrAttic is here.

Universe is based on arbitrary axioms.
Why gravity works like it works?
Why light travels at C?
Why energy is lel?

Because they say so.
The absolute boundaries are always axiomatic and thus by their nature are arbitrary, you cannot have a meaningful/purposeful axiom otherwise it wouldn't be an axiom.

Cognition doens't work like that.
There is no actual dichotomy on "memory" and "reasoning".

The "coinced term" was coined by a coin.
le :^ feic

>>5698824
You shouldn't have said that.

>>5694309
but not really.

I have changed several tripcodes over the years so you can count me in your comfy nostalgia.

Btw blackman was posting today in /fit/.