/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1380004
yeah

>>1379941
Source? 150 calories per what?

>>1379914
Yeah, most fat people I know live much more healthily than the slim people I know, because their fat body forces them to take an interest in health.

>>1379782
Doesn't change the simple truth that for some people stopping eating is fucking hard to do, because of their genes. Imagine you had to stop breathing to be slim. The fact that you could do it in space doesn't change the fact that you would have a very hard time keeping slim on Earth. Your response to no air is just too strong to resist. It's a bit like that for some fat people.

There's also a lot of people who don't understand exactly what you have to do to lose weight, how to exercise best and so on. (It's not as simple as don't be lazy and don't overeat if you're unlucky enough to have a slow metabolism - there's more to know.) And some people just don't have the time for exercise.

Oh and there's fat build-up through cortisol, which can be caused by stress for example.

>>1379782
D

>hypothesis (geuss)?
Lol'd

>convinced oil doesn't come from fossils.

Is he a creationist? This reeks of creationism.

A lot of dead skin is there. You could sandpaper it down and you'd eventually get to the sensitive living skin. :)

>>1378203
Probably just displays todays date.

>>1376201
Or that.

BTW you can probably prove this by writing it out as an infinite sum then using some kind of expansion.

1/49 is like sum over n for (2^n)*10^-2n at a glance. Use Fourier series? I don't fuckin know.

>>1376174
Strange that the number that does it is so simple to write as a fraction, though.

>>1375884
There's no double standard in deciding which of two statements is more strongly supported by evidence. What are you talking about?

>>1375819
Well, if you were to dismiss my reasons for belief in the big bang by asserting that it is simply unknowable, then THAT would be solipsistic. What I'm talking about, on the other hand, comes down to levels of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang. There is none I know of for using LTs to describe the nature of spacetime.

However, I'm considering that we should consider time a dimension, since the definition of a dimension is, like a LT, just another useful tool for scientists. (Rather than an innate truth about reality.)

>>1375802
I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't find it pertinent to the discussion. My point is not a red herring.

>>1375778
There's more than one postulate of special relativity. The other one is:
>The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
(Physics is the same in all inertial frames)

>>1375748
I'm not being solipsistic. We have reason to believe that the Universe is expanding from a single point. We have no reason I know of to take more from the Lorentz transformations than transformations.

>>1375720

>>1375605
Why not?

>>1375715
Sorry for wasting your time, but see:
>>1375703

>>1375702
You missed my point. You can indeed test their effectiveness for transformations. You can't test their effectiveness as descriptors of the nature of spacetime. Hell, we have no reason to expect the nature of spacetime to be comprehensible in any sense.

>>1375692
Oh, you're right, I'm not out of my depth. I misread the previous post. :)

>>1375622
>>1375634
I'm out of my depth when you start talking about the definition of a rotation. However, I posit that we have no reason to expect maths to be able to perfectly describe the universe. It's just a tool, to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we should not expect these tools to grant us any wisdom that we can't test. We can test the consequences of Lorentz transformations and that is why we accept them for that purpose. We can't test whether their interpretation of space time is correct, so we'd be unreasonable to accept it.

I don't see how his comment resolves the paradox. Okay then. The hotel contains infinite people. Instead of another person arriving, a goat arrives and wants a room. Then we're back at the same paradox, no?

>>1375582
Recognise them as useful tools for performing transformations and nothing more.