/sci/ - Science & Math

>What does it all mean?

>>10636715
That's a picture of vyvanse, not adderall. 30mg vyvanse in fact.
OP IS A FAGGOT

>>9907519
no it was not, you pistachio.
it was a bunch of fresh new ideas that polarized the lay public but weren't really accepted by anyone besides eugenicists.

>But a cataclysm destroyed martian atmosphere making it thin
Mars's proportionally smaller core quenched out long ago, and without circulating liquid iron, its magnetic field is much weaker, allowing the solar wind to strip away much of its atmosphere. there was no "geomagnetic storm", you brainlet. shit doesn't work like that.
>and then when there was no friction,
what the fug do you mean here?
>sufficient heat was not generated to maintain a stable temperature
it's about retention of internal heat, not heat generated at the surface through friction
>and resulting that the water could not continue in liquid state.
it's nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with low pressure that stops liquid water from existing at the surface long-term.

I dunno about the first poster, but this is how I know you're not actually a NASA astrobiologist.

>>9205830
>>9205861
dude, quit harassing the bicurious manlet. if you want to look at traps, there's plenty on >>>/gif/, you enormous bundle of sticks. (remember, this is a blue board.)

>>9205827
OP, the loudness of urination is probably more informative of the width of the stream (and therefore the width of the penis) than of any measures of length. I'm no fluid dynamics expert, but I'm making an educated guess here.
I do strongly advise against asking your boss for a taste unless you have some specific reason to believe he's queer; propositioning a coworker (let alone one you report to) is tricky enough without bringing in the gay aspect of it. your best bet is honestly to go to >>>/lgbt/ and ask them about how to safely and responsibly indulge your cockmongler fantasies with people who don't have power over your employment.

pic related to both of you.

hello again, Creationist dick-holster. I see that as usual, you've run away from your last thread (>>9023246) once several people called you on your bullshit, since you can't actually defend any of your imbecilic claims.


>Guadaloupe Woman: Miocene
not actually from the Miocene; was found buried in loosely consolidated beach sediment and was later claimed, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sedimentology, to be from the Miocene.

>Calaveras Man: Pliocene
an obvious hoax that was definitively debunked within three years of its "discovery". a miner admitted to planting it, and chemical analysis determined it to be modern.

>Kanapoi Elbow: 4.15 mya (Pliocene)
that part of the elbow is nearly indistinguishable between chimps and humans. KP 271 cannot be definitively identified as modern human, and more recent studies have tentatively identified it as A. anamensis

>Paluxy Man: Mesozoic (most likely Jurassic)
theropod footprints that have been smushed by sagging mud. the imprints of the three big toes are there if you look.

>Tiwanaku: 12,000 BC (Late Pleistocene)
no older than ~1500 BCE. the 12,000 BCE claim is based on ONE GUY fucking up the math. there is no geological evidence to support his erroneous claim.

>Klerksdorp Spheres: 3 bya (Precambrian)
fucking MINERAL CONCRETIONS. you're as bad as those faggots who pick up an iron concretion and think it's a dinosaur egg.

It's all been said, done, and definitely debunked before. Scurry away! Go start another thread so you can pretend none of this ever happened! Only this time, do it on >>>/x/!
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

>light goes slower than c when traveling through matter
>therefore c isn't constant!
listen here you little shit, the tendency of light to slow down when it's not in a vacuum is well known. optics literally wouldn't work without it.
>>>/x/

mods ban the shitposting creationist when?

>>8759954
>Not really apples to oranges unless you assume significant change in upward radiation from the surface of the Earth.
by assuming that changes in downwelling longwave radiation correspond directly to changes in the Earth's energy budget, you completely ignore significant effects such as warming of the oceans at depth, variability in atmospheric contributions to albedo (clouds and volcanic particulates), and solar variability.

your whole argument is that MEASUREMENTS of how much heat is being trapped in the troposphere are unreliable because ESTIMATES of the Earth's TOA energy budget, itemizing all the different contributions individually, have high uncertainty. however, these only directly correspond if change in the optical thickness of the troposphere is the ONLY thing altering the overall energy budget...which is prima facie not the case.

and you have the nerve to accuse ME of engaging in bad science by pointing this out...

>Humans are the only species on Earth that wait years after puberty till they have sex; all the other species start right at puberty.
NOT ACTUALLY TRUE
Young male gorillas (blackbacks) will typically stay with their father's group (meaning no breeding options unless it's such a large group that there's more pussy than dad can handle) for a few years even after they're mature. similarly, plenty of birds as young adults often help their parents raise more young instead of trying to lay their own eggs.
part of it's kin selection (help keep your siblings alive to increase indirect fitness) and part of it is training up and learning the skills needed to be a successful rearer of young.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/24/gaydar_works_and_conservatives_have_more_of_it_says_u_of_t_researcher.html
>Facial “gaydar” is 65-per-cent accurate on average, according to Rule and his co-researchers at U of T’s Social Perception & Cognition Laboratory. These judgments can be reliably made based on the eyes alone, though facial shape and texture are also big factors.

How accurate is /sci/'s gaydar? Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror and thought, "holyfuck I'm gay"?

also,
>Rule’s aim is to examine how these judgments can unconsciously affect our decisions. For example, the research shows gay men are disadvantaged in applying for a stereotypically masculine job, such as an engineer.
>gay men are disadvantaged in applying for a stereotypically masculine job, such as an engineer

>>6607230