/sci/ - Science & Math

A lot of rich peoples' libraries are basically 'fake'......

there are decorating companies that buy up old unwanted leather-bound books and sort them by size, color and condition.

when a rich person buys a mansion (or has a new library put in) they don't want to look at a bunch of empty shelves.... so the interior decorator calls the book place up and orders books by the linear foot. they buy enough books to fill the shelves.

if you browsed the titles you might think that the rich person had very eclectic tastes--but most of the time, they haven't even opened any of the 'decorator' books at all

Seems like the pressure releived is equal to the volum the moving cyclinder creates when it is fully erected. Also depending on how much mass you are trying to project you may be having to much pressure.leftover after the launch which.could be risky for health if pressure isnt.released.properly.

There is a 3% probability that if Sword B is chosen, you will inflict damage greater than the maximum damage of sword A.

How do i go about proving a closed interval is the intersection of infinitely many open intervals?

I understand the theory behind both, or at least i thought i did, but linking the two together just eludes me.

hey /sci/ you are on a mountain at point A. You see Point B and C and the distance between is 100 miles. The angulardegree ABC is 30, the angulardegree ACB is 40. What's the height of the mountain?

Hi /sci/

My advisor got pissed at me yesterday because he discovered I published a journal paper without adding him to the author list. However, he didn't contribute at all to the published research and doesn't even know what it's about.

He tried to convince me that it's a "rule" to always add one's advisor to every publication, but I suspect he just wants to artificially increase his own research output.

What are the thoughts of /sci/ regarding this issue?

Could you please explain how somebody could genuinely dismiss the idea of God when there are such strong proof's?

Please tell me how all these events could be affecting this single individual without some sort of supernatural force (Hypothetically it could be a fundamental force just like electro-magnetism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKuKbC2VsI

I am an agnostic curious as to why you people immediately dismiss the notion of God even when provided with strong proof.

>Do you think scientists should be restricted or discouraged to make researches regarding races and race superiority issues, because it can create hatred, injustice and serious social problems?

No, but I am not completely sure. Lets say it was found that a race on average were shown to have inherent lower intelligence compared to other races. Most people are still too stupid to be able to handle this rationally and they would assume it meant all people of certain races were inherently inferior. Also, if this were shown to be true it does not really advance civilization/science in ANY way.

My answer is no because I believe in freedom of expression whole heartedly, however in the type of world we live in with the type of idiots that occupy it, maybe it would be necessary. Coming from a high IQ black guy.

Even if this is true, you have to go on a case by case basis. For example, hypothetically lets say people of German decent were shown to have lower IQ's on average(Lets also hypothetically say IQ was accurate). It's still profoundly retarded to make judgements about a German man before you've met them and since people of certain races are not somehow magically connected its completely futile to argue about.

Could a human and a different species of ape breed?

I'm not saying it should happen, just curious.

>>5329258

Well from personal experience I know that if I consume more than 1 milk drink every 2-3 days my skin flares up with increased acne.

So I guess some people are more susceptible than others

>>5033048

>And yet you imply to know what it is by dismissing the best operational definition we have right now. Fucking hypocrite.

That is not what I'm doing. I am dismissing erroneous measurements for the sake of discussion and science in general. Part of science is discarding what is not true, and IQ is not considered by any psychologist or neuroscience to be an adequate measure of "intelligence," beyond determining whether or not someone is mentally retarded.

>Trusting philosophers is always better. They often tend to be more knowledgable than scientists.

In this particular area, they very well may be.

>That makes IQ a perfectly valid measure of intelligence. What more do you want?

People who smoke are more likely to become impotent. People who do not smoke are less likely to become impotent. We do not measure actual likelihood of becoming impotent solely by observing smoking habits.

>So what? Other cognitive abilites have other names.

And they contribute to "intelligence," and until we can define intelligence, and then define all of those cognitive processes, and ten measure all of them objectively, we will have no accurate measure of intelligence.

Also, I was just curious as to what your educational focus was. As I said, we don't understand intelligence, so really I don't think that someone in another major would have a better or worse idea. Your reasoning just happens to mirror that of many physics students that I have talked to. Am I right in thinking you are studying physics?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120829-sugar-space-planets-science-life/?source=hp_d
l2_news_space_sugar20120831

Well, /sci/, it looks like they've found sugar in space. They also say there's a possibility of life near the places where the sugar was found.
What do you think, /sci/?

Help me, /sci/.

I love physics and chemistry but neither field is particularly in demand these days. I've been considering engineering (inb4 gay), but I would prefer an actual science rather than an applied science.

Any help would be appreciated.

Any theories on what the great attractor actually is?

Should I pursue a career in mathematics or theoretical physics?

The charts with "God Tier", "Low Tier", etc. would be appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_attractor

>The Great Attractor is a gravity anomaly in intergalactic space within the range of the Centaurus Supercluster that reveals the existence of a localized concentration of mass equivalent to tens of thousands of Milky Ways, observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their associated clusters over a region hundreds of millions of light years across.
These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow, indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other, but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor.

So, is it just a massive black hole? Do we even know what it is?

Should I study astrophysics or theoretical physics, /sci/?

Which would be more intellectually stimulating?

Now that the Higgs Boson has been discovered, what are some major remaining problems in physics?

So let me get this straight. We spent $100,000,000,000 just to find a particle that gives matter mass? How exactly is this supposed to help us do anything?

>University allows students to take any final exam full credit in the course.
>3 math courses "left" to take
>Roommate's been teaching me Calc on the side.

Think taking the test is worth it?

I've been doing (Okay... watching) some OCW from MIT. It's been making sense, but I can't see how most of the methods I've ran into so far can apply to programming. I really wanna do graphics programming, but game physics engines shouldn't require that much higher math, should they?

We humans sure aren't all that well equipped to survive on planet Earth. Let's consider the evidence.

Our muscle connection to our skeletal frame is virtually retarded compared to apes or previous hominids. In our limbs - our interactive force against gravity - the muscles are connected in inefficient positions, resulting in weakness. Our skeletal structure itself is weaker, being at least 30% less bone developed than other apes or hominids. Our bone thickness and density prove deficient.

Our resistance to common bacteria and viruses is far below average compared to that of any ape, and the phenomenon of multiple allergies is primarily a human disorder.

We fail at outrunning both our predators and prey, most plantlife is inedible or poisonous to us and we are continually bound by our dependence on fresh water. Much of the Earth's environments are inhospitibal to us. All of these, while having been largely conquered with our intellect now, would have proven crippling to our early ancestors.

Can we really explain the success of the human gene as being purely down to our intelligence? All logic would suggest that our species would have been laughing wiped off the planet in the blink of an eye and yet, here we are.

There will never be a perfect, utopian society. Getting rid of men, religion, republicans and the like might get rid of one problem, but humans will always find a new problem. It's human nature. And guess what? It makes life INTERESTING.

>>4152873

>Everyone

>In America

Pick three