/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6736663
science related gifs you say?

>>6686320
The tentative explanation, like the video in >>6686271 says, is that the pushes off the quantum vacuum that as we know is not empty but filled with particles that pop in and out of existance. An analogy would be a submarine pushing off the ocean around it to move instead of using water as a propellant.

This remains a hypothesis for the moment but I am cautiously optimistic that something will come out of this.

>>6594261
no fuk u

What is the big deal that NDT decided to have a more public career instead of continuing his research? He has scientific publications and has a PhD in Astrophysics.

Does a physicist or a chemist that decides to work in industry stop being a scientist?

I need help choosing /sci/entists

Should I only do a Professional Physics degree and go into kickass research or get a Physics/Engineering duel degree and have an increased chance of getting a great job with good pay?

A club at my uni is going to be playing with liquid oxygen tomorrow. Are there any cool objects I should bring to burn?

>>6221672
>absolutely no evidence
I have enough evidence to justify a hypothesis.

>pulling random numbers out of my ass
as stated earlier, that's all it has to be. as being a slut is entirely subjective.

and I, subjectively, say she is a slut.

>>6068732
B-b-but that's first year's physics.

What advances scientific research faster, capitalism or socialism?
Under capitalism and private research, would the groundbreaking discoveries become public anyway or could they stay secret?
Do you think it will be possible to sustain "communism" once we reach a sufficient level of technology?

>>5722713
the sad thing? In America, it is not immediately obvious that this was satire.

Economics for example does make non-exact predictions, but one could argue that this is due to not having enough variables under consideration.
On the other hand in physics we can't always make exact predictions. uncertainty principle for example so larger systems can behave in unpredictable ways making the whole thing not-exact.
>>5684524
I don't know...that's exactly what I'm asking.
I'm unable to think of a line of sorts that would diferenciate, if precision is a factor than in the future with enough processing power maybe we can have all sciences pass the "exact" threshold.
>>5684525
This applies to humanities too, economists learn to spot naturally occurring patterns and can make predictions using the scientific method, I don't feel like this is an adequate definition.
This can also be applied to almost everything as long as you rationally analyze something, but psychology isn't really "exact" even though it does comply with this rule.

Does evolution happen on a tiny scale inside organisms? I imagine different cells of one tissue which usually have exactly the same DNA randomly mutating, and those with the favourable mutations spreading along the tissue, while the weak once get diminished? Does such a thing occur?

Even most of the regular TED talks have retarded topics like "A new from of consciouness emerging from the global neuron-network" or "Does art impeach quantum physics?".

And TEDx is basically a soapbox for college dropouts.

I understand perpetual motion is impossible because there needs to be an originating force to power things no matter how efficient the motion of a mechanism.

But why can't gravity be used to create power? I'm not very creative so I'm envisioning a giant rock pressing down on something and that immense, constant downward force being converted into electrical power through mechanical/chemical/compression means.

obviously though there must be a reason it's not done so can you explain it to me?

Is there a way to train your body to not need as much food? I keep thinking how much money is getting flushed down the toilet.

>But if they say it's scientifically proven, it must be right!

Christians - 1
Atheists - 0

But on a serious note, do you think these things should be punishable by law? I feel like you can throw "proven by science" to anything that has been DISPROVED by science to work and have no slap on the fingers.

>deriving the quadratic formula for the first time

Remember that? Good times.