/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4707453
>7/7/11 fag.
EK, you're the only one who actually uses this term. You're not clever by going anonymous because no one would ever support you. So as soon as you say anything in defense of yourself, it's obvious that it's you posting.

/quotemining

here's the context:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible

Hi, newfag idiot here.

I was wondering if you guys could explain to me, in the simplest terms possible, time dilation in near-light speed or theoretical super-light speed movement.

I understand that light waves compact upon each other at such high speeds, and all that jazz. I just don't get why time dilates.

I'll warn you now, I'm a pretty big idiot, so speak slowly and loudly.

Pic related. I'm posting it now so nobody has to post it later.

>>4685815
I don't think you understand what related means.

>>4614585
>12 year olds

>>4508969

>>4430207
"Miles ahead of the competition"
>perfectly fine
"...light years ahead."
>OH MAI FUKCING GAWD APPEL YOU FAGGOTS THINKING LIGHTYEARS IS A MEAUREMENT OF TIEM! APPLE IZ WURST COPMENY EVAR!

confirmed for retard.

>>4353149
You really are terrible.

>>4337226
I'm not gonna even give you the luxury of a list of links proving you wrong. I'm just going to laugh at your severe ignorance.

>>4251442
>physics is memorizing + math

>>4230010
>anecdotal evidence

Wow, you must be extra retarded. You constantly misuse and misunderstand terms. Please go fuck yourself with a rake. Fuck you.

>>4069429
>this country

Wow...just....wow....

ARe you Zaden btw? Cause you sound and act as retarded as he did.

>>3952439

Just in case having said it a million times didn't get into everybody's head, this nigga is WRONG!

BOTH emission AND absorption spectra have BRIGHT LINES AND DARK LINES. The only difference is that for emission spectra the BRIGHT LINES are the frequencies that are EMITTED, and for absorption spectra the BRIGHT LINES are the frequencies that are ABSORBED!

Jesus fucking christ, this is not rocket science...

>>3943711

Noo... I never said that

100/99.0975 = that long string of shit and because OP said:
> Express your answer as a positive or negative value based on the direction of the percentage change.

the answer is -1.0091071924115139130654153737480763894144655516032190519437...%

>>3933470
you do realise that very few atheists are like that, most are agnostic atheists meaning that they agree you can't technically disprove god but that they personally don't beleive in one, mfw this is even 'militant atheist' richard dawkins view

>>3928044
>misidentifies the problem with america
>doesn't understand what the OP is asking
>watches faux news

This is a typical example of the dumbing down of the typical american. They have been told so much nonsense already, they they don't even understand what there actual problems are.

They are then given "scapegoats" and "talking points" by Faux news, and just repeat that nonsense at nauseum.

>>3886536
ITT: kids not understanding Schodingers cat
ITT: kids drawing shitty and wrong conclusions

>>3876909
Nope.

The "creator" can be a process, it doesnt need to be human or a diety.

The chemical process of _____ creates ____.
The biological process of _____ creates ____.
The weak and strong interaction created a quarks and antiquark from an electron and positron.

0/10

>>3868805
Are you in 5th grade OP?

>>3844935
Diff eq is calc 4.

It is pretty much the same shit as calculus, it uses the same basic ideas, same theory. There is esentailly very little fundemental differences between CAL 1-4, compared to other more advanced branchs of mathematics.

If you knew more math you would understand why it is commonplace to refer to diff eq as calc 4.

>>3840373
>Implying you can't travel to Proxima Centuari in 3.6 years in a rocket going less the light speed

http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

Read up kid

>>3833338
>>3833338
And where in "Classical Theory of Fields" do they say the range of v can include values greater then c?

O'WAIT! THEY FUCKING DON'T. THEY ALWAYS SAY THE EQUATIONS ARE ONLY DEFINED FOR Less the FTL values of v.

It is your shitty assummption that v can be FTL, even though we have no experimental evidence to support such a range of v.

Trollin or stupid?

>>3808795
>>3808804
It won't work that way. It will actually take much much much longer.

Do you know anyone who was able to learn calculus, before they knew how to count?

Why do we still teach kids how to count then?

>>3780546