/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12252547
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

>>11404172
>>11404220
>>11404774
>>11404830
Philosophy graduate here, and I can tell you that the people on the left in the image are saying things that are fucking stupid, while the people on the right are saying things that are good sense.

Philosophy is a fucking waste of time. I learnt that from experience.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct in the image. If you want to discover what nature is like, you need science. Philosophy can't answer those questions, instead it is just pointless intellectual masturbation.

Most of philosophy is just a language game. "Hurr durr what do we call knowledge?" And then a bunch of intellectual masturbators try and come up with a watertight definition of "knowledge". But definitions AREN'T watertight - our language is always evolving and changing over time, and it doesn't have strict definitions. What's the difference between a mound and a hill? A hill is bigger, but where do you draw the line? Is there a set height at which a mound becomes a hill? No. No there isn't.

I'm not saying the people on the left in that image are all useless (they're obviously not, especially in the case of Einstein), and I'm definitely not saying the people on the right in the image are perfect (they're not).

But those particular quotes you've chosen on the left are pointless, intellectually masturbating waffle. Just because an academic is from the olden days doesn't mean they were immune to spouting some real crap. And the quotes you've chosen on the right are good sense. Philosophy IS a fucking waste of time - at least on questions about the nature of our reality. Only science can answer those questions. Mental inquiry, without the measurements that are carried about by science, is pointless.

Also, science has advanced a lot since the people on the left were alive. The demonstrated competence of modern science is what has led so many people (myself included) to realise that science really is the only thing that can explain the nature of our reality.

Are incels literally doing an hero to the environment?

>doesn't get a kid, which is the highest climate change factor you can affect
>low consumption, only stay in their mothers basement fapping to weeb shit
>never travel, since they're afraid of social interaction they rarely go anywhere
>high suicide rate, if you're dead you can't produce climate change gases
>high chance of massacre of random victims, if other people are dead, they can't produce climate change gases. The random selection of targets also gives a 'fair trial' of who lives and who dies

So incels are probably the best, runner ups/honorable mentions: transsexuals (voluntarily sterilize themselves, also high suicide rate) and volcels (some actually choose not having kids because of the environment)

>>10487487
>Mathematically speaking, what makes Spidey's outfit so comfy looking?
You're a man child.

>>10430176
Notice how it's almost always the women "journalists" who ask these sorts of questions.

This is the average poster ITT
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0

god, this thread is shit.

it's not healthy to preach the same shit, "we passed the deadline years ago" and "we're fucked." piss off and moan somewhere else, you're not helping anyone.

no, i don't believe it's too late, as wacky as that may or may not sound. climate predictions as a whole can't be distinguished like black and white, rather a big grayscale. there are models that we can use to predict what we should expect in the coming few years, but that's it. when was the last time a weekly weather forecast was 100% accurate?

i've started to believe that it's not the ignorance of deniers that's endangering us; it's this cynical mindset that everyone seems to share.

fags need to stop pretending to know what's going to happen. NO ONE knows what is going to happen. it may be too late, or we may still be able to turn things around. yes, we're going to be undergoing heavy changes to the climate and experiencing disastrous weather, i expect no less, but i can tell you one thing: it will be much, much worse if we continue to do nothing.

whether you've read this far or skipped everything above this line, let's assume you're now wanting to change your habits, so

>for the love of god, VOTE climate positive/prioritizing candidates
>stop eating beef. going vegan helps, but not eating meat is a huge step by itself
>lessen consumption of everything
>buy local goods
>limit A/C usage
>sign up for clean energy
>support nuclear energy. if you get past its unlucky reputation, it's a hugely productive source of clean energy
>if you can, drive less, ride a bike, walk
>inform others
>don't lose hope

also, remember that this is not something that takes just motivation or adrenaline to fix. it requires discipline. hopefully i changed some anons' outlooks about this gloomy issue.

even if it is the end, it's better to try and do something about it than it is to do nothing.

bfr is the ugliest rocket ever designed.

The onset of penile growth during puberty is signaled to happen through a series of hormones suddenly being synthesized in higher doses. Now, what happens to these hormone levels when a man enters his 20s and is mostly done with puberty? Do they stay elevated until you become older or do they lower after having had their effect on the body?

If they stay elevated, why does the penis not continue to grow? It's not like with bone where your growth plates close and there's a physical restriction that prevents the bone from growing lenght wise. Maybe the body eventually develops a sort of "resistance" to the effects of these androgenic hormones and thus their effect becomes smaller than when the body was suddenly spiked with these hormones.

If the levels of pubertal hormones lower after puberty, then surely the reintroduction of them would result in growth of the penis.

>>9232438
Well of course he didn't do it alone, but he sure as shit contributed more significant ideas than anyone else in physics history, Newton excluded.
>Special Relativity(the Lorentz transformation was offered as a solution for Michelson-Morley, but there was no theoretical justification for it. Einstein saw the deep implications of constant c, and developed the whole electrodynamics of it in the original paper)
>inventing the concept of the photon and explaining the photoelectric effect
>Bose-Einstein statistics and the Bose-Einstein condensate(like 50% of modern statistical mechanics, right there)
>predicted stimulated emission, years before the invention of the laser, and gave an intuitive derivation for the absorption and emission constants, which otherwise require detailed QM to calculate
>using an early version of the Fluctuation-Dissipation theorem to derive the microscopic origins of the diffusion constant
>General Relativity, which is more of a one-man theory than anything else in the 20th century. It wasn't mathematically advanced, but Einstein again derived the field equations purely by intuitive methods("

"Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-
dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein
did the work and not the mathematicians."- Hilbert). Hilbert later gave a more technical derivation by finding the equations of movement for the Einstein-Hilbert action. And again, Einstein provided the Equivalency Principle, showing he had a grip on the deepest implications of the new physics by intuitive rather than technical terms.
No other 20th century physicist even comes close to the breadth and depth of Einstein's contributions to physics. Dirac and Landau are probably the runners-up, but graded on a log scale, a great physicist would be a 1, both of them would be a 3, and Einstein is the world's only 5.

I wonder if a super genius of unimaginable proportion exists or has ever existed in history, someone with a godlike mind?

Even if it's 1 in 10 billion chance, there's gotta be someone with a mind that's much more intelligent than anyone else, right?

I was wondering about this and then I thought, what if that super genius runs the world from within the shadows?

When will planetary """"""""""scientists"""""""""" finally drop their ego and admit that their predictions as to the prevalence of life in the universe are vast overestimates?

There's what, 200 billion stars in our galaxy? 1 in 200 billion seems fairly reasonable for the probability of life not only being started in the first place but evolving to the point where it becomes intelligent.

Face it, faggots, we are alone in this galaxy.

With respect, I think many of you are assuming consciousness is exclusive to primates/mammals.

>>8524388
This is just an elementary statics problem.

assumptions:
>frictionless pulleys
>static equilibrium (implied by the OP)

setting moment about fulcrum equal to zero
m = [(4cosθ)(15g)]/[(8cosθ)(g)]
m = 7.5 kg

theta is irrelevant

Is there such a thing as a partial photographic memory? I can remember things in almost perfect detail, but what can't be recalled is blurry in the memory.

Am I just being an autist? Is this how most people work?

>>8352699
My theory is that people have different perceptions of discomfort/ability to perform despite discomfort.

People that are hard working are only so because they feel the pain of hard work less. "Lazy" people feel it more intense. Studying 4 hours may feel like studying just 30 minutes to a "lazy" person.

>>8265611

What is the last thing people will use petrol for before it's all gone? Plastics? Fuel obviously has semi-viable replacements.

A black hole by definition is a spherical region of spacetime within whose boundary gravity is so high that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, meaning nothing that is inside this region can escape to the outside.

Isnt this the property of our entire universe as well? Nothing can escape our universe. The "boundaries" of our universe prevent anything, even light, from escaping it.

At the same time, there is no proof that our universe is a closed system.

Similarly, a black hole is also not a closed system because new material is constantly falling into it from the outside.

Our universe's expansion rate is increasing more and more due to dark energy being the most dominant factor in things that make up our universe (I believe it is around 70%, while dark matter is about 26%, leaving 4% for all visible matter like stars and gas and planets)

Is Chemistry the most important science, /sci/?
It's not called the central science for nothing.
>Links Physics and Biology together.
>Teaches us more about the world at its smallest, basic level.
>explains what literally everything around us is made up of.
>can be incorporated into Physics and Biology; flexible.

Is it normal to experience bodily arousal when you think? I know this is a weird question but I need an answer.