/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12517076
It is, as with all things, a political conundrum. Everyone is too convinced by the Simpson-tier depiction of nuclear energy, especially fission, as this super dangerous Cold War era technology. As such, fusion suffers from being related, because the term "nuclear fusion" scares everyone just as much. Pretty sad really.

>>12059273
My friendly simpleton, I performed the "textbook" definition of deception:
>Deception is an act or statement which misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true. It is often done for personal gain or advantage.[1][2]
How? I got you to believe that I was your adversary, when I wasn't, and the reason I did so was because I wanted you to do work on my behalf, to save me the effort. I achieved both of those goals. Id est, you got played, like a chump. Classique.

[1]:
>"Definition of 'deception' - English Dictionary". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press.
[2]:
>"Definition of 'deceive'". Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins.

>>12058270
>thinks space travel will be violent and it does not carry a sublime unifying quality
We go out into the cosmos to better be with God desu...

What is Kamala's space policy gonna be Bros? Is she gonna urgently push for humanity to get off earth as fast as possible to save humanity/America?

>>12019534
It's not unethical to attempt to ressurect life. However it will be impossible to form a complete ressurection until after the judgement. Furthering this science is a Christian endeavor, as we have a moral obligation to remove the hindernace of death, multiply, and steward to cosmos. Anyone disagreeing with such advances is an agent of the Anti Christ.

>>11981902
In Christian theology, death is the natural consequence of sin. Fedorov believed that because of this, the mitigation and elimination of death is a moral aim which the whole of humanity could rally behind. His ideas revolved around controlling global climates (as a part of our role as stewards), and space exploration (in the deathless age "go forth and multiply" has a whole new context). He wasn't a theologian, so he didn't fully understand how salvation would come in addition to advancement (which is the whole reason the Word became flesh as Christ), but I still believe his is the best synthesis of the future with faith. I add on the foundation style asimov philosophy that if civilization is always in fluctuation, then the mitigation of time without it is a moral aim (the goal of civilization is to prevent dark ages). This allows for a more imperfect but reasonable jump into a cosmist future. They also played a big role in that sweet soviet era constructivist art. I'd be happy to go further on the theology-cosmism relationship if you're interested.

Guys, I just had a thought.

If Martian ISRU uncovers thorium/uranium, SpaceX can make all the nuclear engines they want on Mars without ANYONE being able to tell them what to do

Holy shit

>>8378264
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_cryptography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi

https://www.coursera.org/learn/crypto

There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:

1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused

The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who argues for the eternal existence of God?

Hello sci,
I have a quick question; there is this patient with COPD in the hospital and I did their ABG with the following information:
pH=7.40
pCO2=60mmHg
HCO3-: 37
Na+: 140
Cl-: 98

What do you think is the acid base disturbance? I have a guess in mind but am not sure.

Anyone here take them?

If so post your stacks and results.

Currently I am only taking high doses of fish oil, choline bitartrate and 30mg pharmaceutical grade Noopept that I bought in bulk when I visit my fiancée's family in Moscow last week.

At university I took piracetam + aniracetam + choline which helped me tremendously whilst writing my dissertation.

Been on current noopept stack for around a week and a half and since I went back to work I have definitely noticed increased mental clarity (20mg noopept in the morning with caffeine, 10mg noopept on my lunch).

There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:

1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused

The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who argues for the eternal existence of God?

>>5497054
nope, he referred to a prime mover