/sci/ - Science & Math

Do you people realize how many problems will arise if we disqualify the special theory?

ITT: We list them.

I start: Bye bye Maxwell's equations and electrodynamics.

Don't be so hasty in disqualifying the special theory. To dump that you have to dump Maxwell's eqns. And the rest of the electrodynamics.

>>3820209
Retard.

So lets see.

If I don't sleep for a couple of days and my friend does, I can actually see his personality change?

Op is gay and everyone else agreeing with him is double gay.

>>3820068
:(

Look. I will be honest with you. There are questions you can't ask right now which are INTERPRETATIVE in nature. Because we don't have the theories for them. These discussions come under the category of speculative (and thus shitty) philosophy.

I am not trying to discourage you. The message is that only those questions can be validly answered for which SOME empirical framework (a theory) exists.

An example is talking about the lunch of aliens in a infinite dimensional space where cthulhu lives. There is NO way any of us know anything meaningful about it. Would it be a good idea to talk about it then?

>>3820048
The object is NOT a wave. Its probability amplitude has a wave like form. These are different things (apparently)

>>3820025
....

Let's be accurate. The probability AMPLITUDE is a wave.

>>3819947
?????????????????????????????????????????

Dude.

>>3819897
Yes. Its hard to digest, but as far as we know today, this is the best model to explain the experiments on plank's scale.

On larger scales, this effect is averaged over to produce our usual newtonian determinism.

Its not true.

Viscous drag model has terms that are proportional to velocity. So yes, the force opposing the fall (direction of motion) will be larger in the beginning leading to de-accelaration.

>>3817057
>THOUGHT

Did not check.

>never applied to law school because I thought my gpa was shit
>thought

Retarded philosophers general?

>>3814252
OP's parents paid for a faulty condom in soviet union.

>>3813926
Further that means that trade was going on. Trade itself is a VERY advanced concept.

>>3813918
>Its possible that in the future they will come up such gimmick.

Reading fail?

hmm. In fact there are docks at lothal is not in your argument disappoints me. That means they could build SAIL ships that could cross the seas.

I'd rather think that NASA is doing this to get funds, considering their history of antics:

1) Support the AGW then secretly sabotage when funding is cut

2) Declare that they have found an alien species, when its quite an earthly one and even then do bad research.

Its possible that in the future they will come up such gimmick.

>>3802717
Oh my god.

Its the other way round. Mind is a function of these.
And Psychology is NOT a science of mind. Its the 'science' (note the quotes) of behavior.

The typical difference is finiteness: For finite changes you use delta and for infinitismal you use d.

>>3802621
This being one of the reasons.

>>3792040
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c

Methinks this may turn out to be thy villain OP. But lets see.

>>3780824
SO?

Historically, chemistry emerged from Alchemy. Hence Alchemy is science?

>>3780801
No. But you are.

Science is not a branch of metaphysics. Get it straight. Philosophy of science is a separate, independent topic from metaphysics. Science of course OCCURS in all exploratory discussions.