/sci/ - Science & Math

arctan(x)+C

its by theorem, there really are no steps unless its asking for a proof

I would say the increased blood pressure from fapping and just the fact that you are doing something somewhat strenuous would exasperate the head ache

>>2122803
I'm saying that in general, in the most ideal systems possible there will always be at least a SoL difference.

It would be much closer to the speed of sound in an actual system.

>mfw i have no writing skills =/ sorry

>>2119813
I hate premeds. They all need to take introductory physics at my school and they whine and bitch to me all semester about marks and scores when they use the wrong units or realize half way through the semester that just memorizing some equation in physics is not at all sufficient as it would be in chemistry or biology.

I don't think I hate them persay, I more hate the focus on memorization as apposed to understanding.

>>2122767
>It is verified by experiment that the force (and thus the information being sent) across a stick during a "poke" has some velocity.

If you know physics, please replace force with deformation and don't make fun of me. I was trying to keep it simple

In most classical mechanics calculations we can approximate sticks, wires etc as massless and perfectly rigid.

That being said, it is an approximation. If I push on end A of stick AB there will be a speed of light difference from the time the information (my push) reaches B. In a perfectly rigid object, which we could accurately assume for any fathomable stick shaped object: jousting, fencing, pole vaulting etc, the information a point A will reach point B instantly, and the actual difference is so slight that it would simply complicate the calculation and add no measurable accuracy.

A proof that an instantaneous data transfer from A to B on stick AB is impossible:

Consider stick AB to be a perfectly rigid object. Moreover assign some length D to the stick such at A and B are D units of length apart.

Comment: It is verified by experiment that the force (and thus the information being sent) across a stick during a "poke" has some velocity. Namely, we can detect a difference in when point A has moved some distance M and point B has moved the same distance. Thus proving information in a stick travels with a velocity.

Consider the rigid body stick AB. By defnition, in a rigid body there will be no time delay between movement of A and movement of B.

Recall that the information is experimentally verified to move with a velocity.

V=distance AB / time

distance=D and time=0 by definition of a rigid body

V=D/0
Velocity is undefined.

Thus it is impossible to have a truely rigid body

>>2122706 continued

>5)Proof of my theory involves taking a closer look at quantum particles' locations and velocities

No, just no. Look up the Uncertainty Principle. If two values are dependent upon one another (eg momentum and location) they cannot be known to arbitrary position simultaneously.

6) You seem to think a quantum particle is a classical particle. A lot of what I think is your logical pretense would work fine for a rigid body, say a grain of sand. However quantum particles are not at all what the naive speaker would call a particle. If I am observing a particle of sand, it is 100% right where it is when observed and in the absence of a force it will not move. A quantum particle is defined by a wavefunction, to keep it simple for you it can be anywhere are any time, it is just EXTREMELY likely that it will be in some range. A familiar notion is the electron orbital; electrons are not rigid bodies orbiting a nucleus in a perfect path as one would think when first introduced to orbitals, it is infact a quantum particle somewhere on the fringe between classical wave and classical particle which has a 90% chance of being located within the orbital.

Sorry if I am confusing more than I am explaining, these concepts are very very very hard to explain outside of an academic setting for me.

>>2122703 continued
>3)The concept of energy as we have it is inaccurate. All mass in existence is formed from a constantly moving mass of elemental force, best described as particles

You're using the same deus ex machina logic you condemn in your post right there.

>4)These particles are always in motion, and as per conservation of energy, when there are coincidental large concentrations of energy, it reflects and absorbs, losing and gaining particles but maintaining its definition unless interrupted by a greater force than it can handle.

I think you might be trying to talk about the need for "virtual particles" what you don't understand is that mainstream science accepts this phenomenon. Also, if there were some force capable of manipulating a ubiquitous energy field, its interaction would be readily observable.

OP, subatomic particles don't "look like" anything.

Your concept of quantum physics is very, very off though it seems like you have some degree of interest and knowledge. I would highly recommend taking a course on it in university (my school even has a course for nonphysics majors). The concepts are not just confusing, they are simply philosophically demanding to understand and accept. That being said, you need to accept certain things you seem to be disregarding in your theory.

1) Subatomic particles don't look like anything as light doesn't bounce off of them.
2) A ton of things we believe in firmly and correctly have never been undeniably observed.

>>2119416
I'm guessing on the back it said something like 1/2" and these two dumbasses thought a 1/2mm would be more efficient.

To be honest I'm not sure how the question came up either.

Also, I do some sciencey demos at a local middle school. I was doing a supersaturation because it's one of the cooler things in my opinion. I was going to make the solutions (one saturated and one supersaturated) while I talked a little about the chemistry so I had a ziplock bag of some white powder (aka sodium acetate).

>mfw the school cop checking me (this school is kinda in the hood) attempts to have me arrested for drug possession.

ITT: your worst/funniest/dumbest/most embarrassing research moments.

I'll start. I was coming up for tenure a few years ago and decided I should make my lab look incredibly tidy-I'm not disorganized but it was a little on the messy side. So I ask one of my grad students to run and grab me a label maker from the Office Depot in town to make my labels nicer than the handwritten and taped ones I had.

About a half an hour later I get a call from the student saying the tech guy at OD wants to know if I he wants "the 1/2 inch of 1/2mm size."

>mfw this is a physics grad student with ivy league undergrad degree

>experienced
>amateur

No you're not. Nitroglycerin is serious shit, I would caution against it.

>>2113287
Incorrect, atheism is a metaphysical belief. The various world religions are also metaphysical beliefs. What separates the two (presence of deities notwithstanding) is a codified set of rules and rituals. One cannot site any of the "Sacraments of Atheism," the lack of a promoted lifestyle (one could argue this to some extent in that atheists promote rationalism and what not, but I am saying there are no Ten Commandments in atheism).

It is my opinion that atheism and religion address the same empirical questions: existence of deities; morality and ethics; purpose etc. I would lump them under the same umbrella term "Metaphysical philosophies" however calling atheism a religion as it deals with metaphysics would be akin to calling earth science a branch of biology as they both deal with science.

mfw did i just get trolled?

A picture on paint showing God-only-knows-what

>>2111291
I actually didn't claim that scientists believe in God in my post.

Nice reading comprehension.

>>2111265
I don't believe that for a second. Their were many, MANY atheists, humanists blah blah blah during both of their time periods.

>>2111247
I still say they don't. And solely because Richard Dawkins says something that is convenient to his arguments (and yes I've read his books on the subject) does NOT make it fact.

I do in fact believe in NOMA, as does the National Academy of Sciences. Which is just a little more serious of a source than the infallible Richard Dawkins.

>>2111203
You're right, I don't have proof, I accept it on faith. It's a personal thing and unlike you I find it below myself to try to force matters of faith down other's throats with ad hominem arguments.

The fact you called me a hypocrite is beyond laughable. Are you not aware that the majority of people you would likely consider the "smartest people to ever live" were devout theists? To avoid drawing this out into dozens of posts I'll give a random example: Euler. Are you ignorant to the fact that Euler is one of the most influential academics in history, or are you ignorant to the fact that Euler believed in Biblical inerrancy? Considering the fact you likely consider Euler to be a brilliant man, one of these must be the case. For you to maintain any shred of adherence to your attempted argument, you must now denounce Euler as a "hypocrite and a fucking liar."

If you don't wanna use Euler we'll look at Newton, hell he was an Antitrinitarian Christian and he thought he could turn things into gold. How's that for hypocritical and a fucking lie. Wanna denounce him as a serious academic too?

>>2111192
See the fact that an overwhelming minority of Christians believe in scriptural inerrancy.

Most, like myself, take a good deal of the Bible as metaphor.

Your point is invalid

>>2111177
>We have scientific evidence that the christian god is bullshit

Source?

>>2111149
It is the overwhelming consensus among my peers that life exists on other planets.

The very fact that life developed here and would not develop elsewhere is abhorrent to common sense.

>>2111102

And you're like the majority of atheists (or however you label yourself) in the sense that you just let people differ on their views.

I'm glad my post got one intelligent reply, my friend.

>>2111114
How am I a hypocrite? My Phd in physics? Researching and understanding the "evidence" that people throw back and forth to validate their views on theology and actually forming a scientific consensus on it? Working in a lab full of equipment you probably have never touched in your lifetime?

I always have and always will believe in a "cause and effect universe." Like a lot of smart people-both secular and religious- I feel their is a some type of first cause. Furthermore I feel a need to name such a first cause, I name it God.

I know no one will believe me but here goes nothing:

I am a Christian; I believe in evolution, the scientifically accepted ages of the earth, universe, fossils etc. I believe in every scientific theory that has been verified using proper reasoning. I am a *true* scientist in the sense that I realize science makes NO COMMENT on the metaphysical, something not many people seem to get. No scientific data supports nor denies the existence of a god or gods. I attend Church regularly and have published multiple papers.

Also, sage for non-science