/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4702668
>basic manners

Are you new to /sci/?

>>4243542
>How can something emerge from nothing if there is no space for it to occupy?

Ok... So this can go on forever. You can ask some more kiddy questions, and we can answer. It is not addressing the problem though.

THE PROBLEM IS YOU. You have this "everyman", "common", approach to science. You come at it with all these shit humdrum, very very very very very very very very limitied, physical experiences. This is expected.....

You then proceed to get confused when you find something that doesn't obey YOUR SHITTY PRE-CONCIEVED NOTION OF HOW SHIT WORKS. THE PROBLEM IS YOUR PRE-CONCIEVED NOTIONS, MOST OF WHICH ARE SHIT!

So, before you start asking questions. Ask yourself, WHICH SHITTY ASSUMPTION YOU MADE? Then be willing to accept that maybe your notion was wrong on some fundemental level. Then learn to stop making shit assumptions!

In this case, you ask "How can something emerge from nothing if there is no space for it to occupy?". So obviously, you have some shitty pre-concieved notion of space and occupancy THAT IS FUCKING WRONG.....DURRRR.

Make sense?
It is neat that you want to learn. We need more people like you. Just remember to "review" your assumptions, that is all I am telling you. Review and change (when needed) of assumptions is very crucial to critical thinking, it is how any real learning or discovery is done. By using this technique you will be able to understand a great deal of shit. You will actually be able to figure out alot of shit out for yourself if you review you assumptions first.

>>4218902
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards

>Self-selection: Cause of one's own demise.

>Killing a friend with a hand grenade would not be eligible, but killing oneself while manufacturing a homemade chimney-cleaning device from a grenade would be eligible. To earn a Darwin Award, the candidate must have killed him- or herself, rather than a third party.

I think you just may win OP! You should write your acceptance speech in rectal blood! (b4 you die that is)

>>4207037
Science is about the truth, about the cold harshness of reality. Scientists are the most critical motherfuckers on the planet.

If you want to convince them of something YOU BETTER HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR SHIT.

If you don't have evidence to back up your shit, maybe you should try and make it into a religion (no evidence needed).

This may be a /k/ question is essence, but those guys are generally not smart enough to answer anything beyond their direct physical experience. So here goes.

The idea struck me that one might be able to construct a weapon that uses a liquid propellant rather than the solid propellants of current ammunition.

Gasoline is of course on of the first liquids that might spring to mind. It is high in energy. But I wonder if there are other, even more powerful liquids or liquid compounds that one might use. Preferably it should expand quickly, be energetically "dense" and hopefully be low on residuals (as more residuals = more cleaning and more prone to malfunction).

What does /sci/ suggest?

>>2283515
A very simple way to understand it:

A scalar - it is just a number, no degrees of freedom - 0 rank tensor

A vector - one degree of freedom - it can be a row vector, or a colum vector - 1 rank tensor

A matrix - "a 2d object" - 2 degrees of freedom - rank 2 tensor

A "cube of numbers" - 3 degrees of freedom - rank 3 tensor

Anything else I can Help you with?

So, according to the Project Legacy christmas event, it is now Assassin's Creed canon that Charles Darwin was an assassin?

What does /sci/ think of this? Personally I just like the mental image of him assassinating a giant turtle with a fork.

According to the Project Legacy Christmas Event, it is now Assassin's Creed canon that Charles Darwin was an assassin.

I know that's /v/ rather than /sci/, but I thought you guys might find it amusing.

According to the Project Legacy Christmas Event, it is now official Assassin's Creed canon that Charles Darwin was an assassin.

I know this is /v/ rather than /sci/, but I thought you guys might find it amusing.

>>2235864
OP was trying to show how to use basic logic and neuroscience to dispove some of the ideas people have about souls. I doubt OP actually believes in souls.

>>2094101
>why we can't find a transitional fossil record

But we have found it

>Neanderthals went extinct despite being physically superior to us

Neandterthals actually intermingled with early humans. Most people are actually have some Neanderthal blood. They didnt go extinct, they just fucked there pure blood away.

How about your read a fucking biology book instead of just making up bullshit?

If <span class="math">F(x) = f(x+1)-f(x)[/spoiler]
then what is f(x) in terms of only F?