/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16044108
>I feel like Starship is even more likely to do this than Blue Moon, just because of how much of the weight would be concentrated at the top
With its half-empty fuel tanks that concentrate the weight at the bottom?

>>15281656
I hereby present to you empirical evidence that your design would not work. Pic related.

>>14842642
>abort
There has to be a count for there to be an abort. Please tell us what the T-minus time was when this abort happened.

>>12733535
>There is literally nothing more /reddit/ onions than getting excited about space exploration

>GR is in R4

>>12419453
>Musk is a fraud and a hack. He will be locked up after the lawsuits come piling in

>>12357165
>no your dreams aren't a source

>>12357168
literally no one cares, faggot

>>12315196
Where is the tech?
Yeah, I though so...

Help me /sci/, I'm a goddamn retard. Why don't photons bounce off all this fucking oxygen and co2 and other gasses that are all around me? Shouldn't I be fucking blinded by all the gasses around me? Why does it all look empty? Is oxygen dark matter!

Is it possible for any individual human to understand every scientific article on Wikipedia?

Each article regarding anything researched in academia, uses field specific terminology. These terms, at a glance, would be lost on someone who didn't spend their career in that field.

I want to learn so much, but understanding just one article about anything cosmological requires me to reference a dozen other articles, which could send me down the same recursive rabbit hole.
Why is our science rife with obfuscation on this level? Surely, there is a better way to convey these terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

I find this article to be far too verbose.

Who is solving the issue of obfuscated information? Show me where to throw my wallet.

>>11379767
>Gravity is alleged to be gluons
>gluons

That's a strange way to spell graviton.

>>10959653
\delta_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } i=j,\\
0, & \text{if } i\neq j.
\end{cases}

Hi sci, currently at my first year of mathematics at University. The biggest problem I found so far is the logic behind mathematics and physics theories. While studying I often find myself asking "yeah, this step makes totally sense, but how do I 'reach' this idea by myself?". That's why I'm having many troubles studying, because I actively understand what I'm studying but can't seem to understand the ideas behind it, so that I can be able to recall the steps, for example in a demonstration, by myself. Any suggestions on how to overcome this difficulty? I think just memorizing this stuff is useless in order to be able to develop ideas in the future, but I find myself stuck at the moment

Any big brains want to help a brainlet out? I have a 15 question quiz I am not feeling to confident on, covers inference for numerical and statistical data and intro linear regression. Would have to be done in real time. Willing to gift steam games in exchange.

>>10672915
>sells consumerism
>rockets are consumerism

Should I major in statistics with an eventual career in data science or go into pure math /g/? I want to make history.

>>10537983
>what is volume
imagine being this retard stuck in the 2nd dimension.

>>10495442
so it does loop?

>>10477676
pruty

>>10401417
>>10401421

>>10366930
>How about yoh elaborate to me how it is that children can do it in other countries for thousands of year without issue
>hurr durr why do literal fucking sand niggers get to marry and fuck children but i dont wahh wahh
go back to the middle east then pedophile. moreover, what's even your argument here? "thousands of years ago" you could do something but you cant now? that makes it better?

>And why is it that we can reproduce at an age that they supposedly are not ready, or do not know better
>because children are capable of having children i should be allowed to rape them
pic related

That's normal, dude. I struggle to do some simple divisions in the head sometimes, especially when I can't get an integer out of it.
Yesterday my gf asked me what was 46/5, then I crashed for a millisecond and thought "ok, let's do it step by step" then I proceed to divide 20/5, 20/5, 5/5 and 1/5, and then sum up the results. Took me a couple seconds after the brainfart, I'm really glad I didn't mess this up. I'm under the impression that she's always trying to jump me with random computations.

>she says 0.999... ≠ 1
>I prove it
>"And? You can prove anything in math. I could prove that 1 = 0. That doesn't mean it's true."
She went on to say that 0.999... is "infinitely close" to 1, which no doubt made Archimedes roll in his grave to some non-infinitesimal extent.

>let