/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2159382
>I don't want to use the bible or any other historical documents.

This is NOT historical documents !

>>2161339
Shut up, Aether ! you're not welcome on /sci/.

Op, if a god exists, with all the paradoxes it implies, then we can't scientifically its existence unless it shows itself. That's why religious fags are keeping their "Hurr prove me wrong, durr !". Anyway, this has no importance. No one ever saw any god, except schizophrenic, power needing, junky fags some thousand year ago who just though they saw it, or pretended it, just to get some attention from their contemporary retards.

pic unrelated

Murphy's Quantum Corollary:
IF you aren't observing it, everything that can go wrong does.

>>2105694
Otherwise, assuming we can neglect all the other states the cat could be in and restrict the degrees of freedom to only one of two possible outcomes, going to box A or box B, it has a 50-50 chance.

Incidentally, I'm looking for a collaborator for an independent research project I'm working on. The goal is to rebuild special and general relativity, Gödel's proof, Turing's Thesis, Hutter's model of universal artificial intelligence, and the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics in terms of quantum computation and complexity theory using a unique paraconsistent logic.

<span class="math">nh\omega \approx mc^2 = m\frac{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{B}} = pd\omega = mcd\omega[/spoiler] Where <span class="math">\frac{\mathbb{E}}{\mathbb{B}} = 1 = c[/spoiler].
<span class="math">m = \frac{nh\omega}{c^2}[/spoiler]
Constants:
h is planck action
c is the speed of light over empty space
Variables:
<span class="math">\mathbb{B}[/spoiler] is the magnetic field
d is a distance
<span class="math">\mathbb{E}[/spoiler] is the electric field
n is the number of bits
m is the rest mass <span class="math">m\neq 0[/spoiler]
p is the momentum
<span class="math">\omega[/spoiler] is the frequency

What can I do to isolate m in dimensionless terms and define them as a relationship to the number of n-bits?

>>2025449
Well fuck your kool-aid, I ain't drinking and not because it's grape flavored.
Marylin Vos Savant wrote the solution to the Monty hall problem was to always change your choice to the alternative door when given the chance because the odds of getting the car is 2/3s. 97% of all respondents to her article said she was wrong. Almost all of the respondents were professors, mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and the likes.

If your definition and control is based on the subjective fantasy worlds of unreliable reasoning entities like human beings, it will fail every time. Worse, it will change something great to something completely shitty, a complete mocking parody of former self.

Once again, define your terms. Propose your hypothesis. State your predictions. Elaborate on the falsification conditions for the hypothesis. Describe tests that attempt to falsify the hypothesis. Else, GTFO with your pseudo-science and PC bullshit.