/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12484336
>https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/news/7
Again, you're not even looking before you make your conclusions. The Breakthrough Initiative is largely a volunteer & academic project, and you can even request the raw data straight from the horse's mouth through the SETI@home project. The data takes a long time to look at because they're receiving petabytes of raw data, and the algorithms being used aren't sufficient to keep up with the data input, at least not with their current basis of computing power.

>>12475107
>Units: m^1.5 * kg^0.5 * s^-1
It's nonsense, but since c and G are both constants, all these equations are really saying is that a consciousness value "Q" rises in direct proportion to the amount of energy or mass in the system. The left & right equations aren't really distinct; you take the right side, plug in MC^2 for E, move the variables around, and you get the left side.

The entire basis for the paper is right there on the second page:
>Given that the quantity of virtual charge [Q = sqrt(-G) * M] is considered to be the "pan-psychist consciousness quantity," the conclusion is that the cause of gravity or the attractive force lies in the pan-psychist consciousness that a body possesses.

He's just defining an algebraic manipulation of M and G to be the value "Q," which he calls a consciousness quantity. He doesn't mention any basis for why he does this, instead just going on to explain how one might use this quantity in the calculation of more useful non-virtual values.

tl;dr: he moved some numbers around and then called the result "consciousness," a name that he pulled completely out of his butthole

>>12317328
Milwaukee has even less data points than the Detroit data provided, and the Detroit one's less fucked up. It's almost like statistical patterns are better followed by larger sets.

>>11458225
For someone with little background, I'd teach it like this:

Take a transparent symmetrical container that's partially filled with a liquid, like a water bottle, then tilt it. The surface of the water will tilt around some axis line on the surface, and that axis happens to run through the center of the container. You can see that by holding your thumb and a finger against either end of the surface line and rotating the bottle while holding it in place with your finger and thumb.

Now, it intuitively couldn't be any other way. The surface of the water certainly isn't rotating about any other axis. It'd be odd to imagine the water's surface rotating around a point on the edge of the bottle, or the cup, or what have you.

>>10229768
>>10229776
Same poster, by the way. I would still like to see a "truther" rebuttal to this. It seems like it totally disproves the freefall theory without even doing any math.