/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8244968

>>8121465
>Most of it remains hypothetical / speculative

>>7113748
didnt say they are following it. just because they dont use it all the time for every belief they hold doesnt mean they reject it.

>>7085920
>he thinks that really happened

most mainstream historians agree that jews were never slaves in egypt

>>6996731
>- Don't participate in IQ denialism. IQ is very heritable (environment plays an important role, but it's mostly genetic) and is highly correlated with career success.
>- Psychology isn't science, it's more like philosophy. Neuroscience is cool though.

IQ is psychology buddy

>>6987220
>Just because we can't currently verify string theory doesn't mean it's wrong.
we can never verify it. who will construct a particle accelerator the size of a solar system? don't you think we should spend our money, time and energy on theories that we can actually test and won't have to wait 1000s of years to test to see whether they work or not?!

ST is philosophy. it's as simple as that.

So, today I came across a 3-body problem and it seems that physicists still haven't solved it after 250 years of trying!

Really? Yes, really.

Here's the problem:

>In its traditional sense, the three-body problem is the problem of taking an initial set of data that specifies the positions, masses and velocities of three bodies for some particular point in time and then determining the motions of the three bodies, in accordance with the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's laws of motion and of universal gravitation).

And then they say this about it:

>The unsolvableness of the 3-body problem, rather than being an embarrassing hole in physics; an obvious but unsolved problem, is actually the norm. In physics, the number of not-baby-simple, exactly solvable problems can be counted on the fingers of one hand (that’s missing some fingers), and that includes the 2-body problem.

Read that above again... they seem to ravel in it instead of trying to solve it. It's the "norm".

This is truly embarrassing. Explain yourselves, physicists!

>>6392104

>C/C++ is full of shit

What language would you write a high-performance CPU heavy software in?

Are you saying John Carmack should have written the id Tech engines in anything else than C/C++?