/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15945232
>never forgive never forget
back when EFG was popular I had a spinoff character of my own, epic philosophy guy, also shortened to EFG, it was just EFG in a toga.
epic philosophy guy never caught on like the original did. the goy who did the original still puts on his act on the sharty now and again

>>15745645

>>15745645
epic fail

>>15757004

HAY GUISE, I'M GONNA SAVE THE WORLD!!!
I'M GONNA CHANGE SOCIETY FOR THE BETTER!!
JUST LIKE IN THE MOOOOOOOVIES!!
SCIENCE IS SOOOO POWERFUL!!!

>>15231408
>Why not just dock them along a central axis? It's retarded.
Even 2001: A Space Odyssey and Babylon 5 got that much right.

PREVIOUS THREAD:
>>15215294

I used to think a speaker cone moves like the waveform of the voltage being applied to the coil, ie high positive or negative voltage = speaker cone position is inwards or outwards.

I realised this is wrong... the voltage applied to the coil is proportional to the force being applied to the speaker cone, not the cone's position. The cone moves like the derivative function of the voltage waveform applied to the coil, ie high positive or negative voltage = high positive or negative movement of speaker cone.

Then I realised this is wrong too. The voltage applied to the coil is proportional to the force being applied to the speaker cone, which is proportional to the acceleration of the speaker cone by F=ma. The cone moves in the double derivative function of the voltage waveform applied to the coil, ie high positive or negative voltage = high positive or negative acceleration of speaker cone.

Then I realised this won't happen... the effect of air resistance on a speaker cone will be significant, probably more significant than the inertia of the cone.

People who deny the existence of (anthropogenic) climate change like to point out that CO2 emissions made by man are less than 1% of CO2 released by volcanoes and if that were true, it would more or less be the final nail in the coffin of man-made climate change. The fact of the matter is that the logic these people are employing is fine, it's just that their claim about volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans is simply incorrect! In other words their theory is fine but their data is way, way off.
What are some other examples of people misusing science that isn't pseudoscience, but rather dramatically misinterpreted or simply incorrect data?

I don't know the first thing about game theory. Does anyone here know? I understand many concepts about game theory, and I know about certain archetypical games, so I guess I do know some things about it, but I was referring to the mathematical models of game theory that proves these things. Is it interesting? Is it worth getting into? Does learning the equations that support game theory provide a better understanding of the concepts or is it just used as proof and specificity?

>>4301914
ok, maybe not.

>>4179172
did someone call?

are there any IQ tests that are actually credible, scientific, free and can be performed online?

>>3040938
Ask a bunch of people.
ask if they're 99% sure or not.
discard if they're not sure, keep if they are.
Done.

Guyse? I need your help

/sci/
This is not a religion v. atheism thread.
This is not a troll thread.

I simply want to know what, if any, evidence any religion has behind it.

Also, singles get.

Hey guys. What's going on in this thread?

>>1333333

>>1265797
so how do fucking magnets work?

>>1222288
No.

No just, No!!!