/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12128812
i dropped out of uni and became a drug addict, no regrets

>>12100543
i know he sounds wrong and it sounds crazy because of the way he explains it and the way he is trying to connect the dots, but what he is mapping is something very amazing and simple once you understand it. it's not traditional math. it's mapping space in a way that actually works. once you see what he's actually doing you can't unsee it. trust me, what he figured out here is the exact reason voldswagon's logo looks the way it does, as well as toyota, google, synergy fuel tech, and many more. the way he explains it is a little hokey but it is definitely real. and has been discovered over and over in many ways throughout even ancient history. in fact.... he's trying to map why so many plants and natural phenomena have a vortex shape. have you ever tried to map it? people in greece used to get murdered for simply inquiring about this type of geometry. it's no wonder it seems so radically different and strange to your trained minds. and I mean trained in a negative way.

>>11216961
It is a question of science in terms of logic. We can also agree on some undeniable facts.

Statement 1: There is at least one universe. (From all matter even what is beyond the observable universe, or conservatively, solely a single consciousness)
Statement 2: If there exist more than one universe, then in those universes in which life is incapable, there will never be a something able to ponder why there is a something, without a consciousness to perceive or interact with it, it is nothing.
Statement 3: No matter the improbability of life, the something (that which to us is tangible and observable) is there due to our perception of it.

Possibilities
Scenario I
There is one universe that is infinite and unchanging, under static rates of change and is going to eventually drift apart to nothing. There is something because it hasn't spread far out enough yet.

Scenario II
There is one universe that is unstable and iterative, which continually collapses in on itself and then rushes back out, forming a new universe under new conditions. There is something because the last time the universe collapsed in on itself, the following inversion (the Big Bang) led to a metastable universe with appropriate gravitational settings, electromagnetic properties, and material composition to allow for Genesis and the proliferation of life.

Scenario III
There is no universe, consciousness and the ability to perceive something is a reflection of nothing tangible/real, it is a condition. There is a something due to a imposed condition or from the background noise of lost/non-material particles from a boundless void.

Scenario IV
There are many many universes, it is by pure chance that the universe is capable of supporting life. There is something due to the inevitability of a universe supporting complex life.

Scenario V
There is one universe that is infinite and unchanging, created by God for the purpose of doing God's will on Earth. There is something because He wills It.

Physiology is kinda weird, I mean, a bunch of smelly flesh, bones, blood, tissues, greasy hairs, nasty gases, pus, semen, ions, water and poop....what's the point?

Based schizo poster, keep em coming

>>10901145
You can pass lots of shitty useless classes, choose a preferable field in physics and study for it.

Personally I'm doing research in Plasma physics, and if someone want to learn what I did I can advise him to learn (in order of complexity) just 3 subjects in maths :
>Basic Algebra
>Complex numbers
>Integrals and volume/surfaces calculations
and 5 in Physics :
>Subatomic physics for high school
>Electromagnetism 1
>Thermodynamics
>Electromagnetism 2
>Electromagnetism in materials
>Plasma physics 1
>Plasma physics 2

>>10854330
You're like a baby, watch this :

Many minds interpretation

I'm about to start MSc in plasma physics, am I on a good path for a decent job?

>>10363532
Did you get why? I am aware my answer lacks in explanations.

hey if i'm looking for the characteristic vectors of a matrix, and the ones I come up with are orthogonal, does that mean I did it correctly?

or could that happen by accident?

thx