/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4391417
>its all just maths based from charts and diagrams and measurements from nature man, so just like dont imagine the circle, be the circle.
Hahaha, I love you. Thanks once again!

>>4391409
>Oh i thought you wouldnt.
Ouch.

I get it now -- so, basically, what you're saying is that the whole "base-60" system came from convenience?

>>4391379
I was following along until this step:
>then fuck yourself with a cucumber and do the milking dance of the lesser spotted cuntfacedop

>>4391330
No, I haven't -- why?

>>4391298
>there are also roughly 360 degrees in a circles angle.
Based on what, though? Who decided that there are 360 degrees in a circle?

>>4391261
>>4391270
Don't get mad at him, guys, he mentioned that he was having a bad day.

(I think that this thread may have been derailed a bit...)

>>4391241
I've never heard that word before, and it made me laugh.

I'm glad you enjoyed the thread, anon!

>>4391221
You guys have feelings, too!

>>4391096
That was the point of this thread, anon -- me learning. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.

>my day was shit OP
That's unfortunate. Do you want to talk about it?
>my skills are; fucking excellent at everything I do (linguistics, mathematics, etc.)
What is your major, if you don't mind me asking?

>>4391046
Remember that it's just my interpretation. I might not be correct.

>>4391030
I interpreted it as a visual representation of how nature adheres to certain parameters that work (which is why the two images look similar).

It additionally serves the purpose of uniting us with the universe and with each other.

>>4390992
That sounds interesting -- I'll definitely look into it.

>>4391002
Could you please elaborate on that?

>>4390961
>As I said, these guys had a bit of experience staring at the sky, so it wasn't that hard a calculation
Yeah, they probably did. Thanks!

>>4390971
All right, I get it now. Thanks for your help in this thread!

>>4390951
So was 180 divided by 86400 to determine the angle through which the sun would move through the sky in one second?

I still don't understand. :/

>>4390945
>Also, Lojban is neckbeard tier.
Ouch, that hurts.
>A bit of both really. Had a shit day, had a good idea, had some inspiration.
Good, I'm glad.

>>4390924
>Slimey.
I don't want to ask what that means but I think I should.
>I don't even know anymore. Science, why not.
You're also very articulate.

>>4390928
How did they measure the length of a day? How did they divide it up into 86400 pieces?

>>4390914
>Why wouldn't they all learn an existing language, like English, which incidentally is vastly more nuanced and flexible than any artificial language?
It just seems a little ethnocentric to me.

>>4390917
That's really interesting, thanks!

>>4390898
I was thinking more along the lines of a universal code, but I see your point.

>>4390903
>the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
It blows my mind how things like these can be figured out. The duration of the second existed before this, though, so how did people decide how long a second was going to be in the first place?

>>4390886
>Lojban is too complex for its own good.
Really? I think that it's far more predictable (and, therefore, far more simple) than languages like English.

>Bluh
Good "bluh" or bad "bluh"?

>>4390860
Oh, okay. I understand now, I just have a problem with how the second is connected to the minute and the hour, which both don't make much sense to me.

>>4390862
That's a very good point, and I understand how English could be used for public accessibility; however, wouldn't it be much more efficient to have a universal language (other than maths) for a world of scientists to use in their collaborations?

>>4390824
Thanks for your answers! The picture made me chuckle.

>>4390832
Oh, I understand now. Thanks!

>>4390816
The day has twenty-four hours, though, which is 4/10 of 60.

>>4390751
>My day was not bad, and you?
My day was all right, thanks. I spent most of it reading about Feynman's lectures, haha.

>>4390776
>Because then we'd need all new universal constants, plus its not precisely easy to change the way one measures time, its so important from day to day.
The non-scientific community could use the existing system and there could be a different way of measuring time in science.

>>4390723
That's very cynical of you...

>>4390735
Wow, I feel stupid now. Thanks, though.