/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12457657

Maybe a dog is able to understand the universe. This is the universe that there is for him. We cannot start thinking about the things that we cannot comprehend (The Orla, Maupassant). Of course this does not mean those things do not exist. Bu the dog in OP is not able to think there is more to our melodic barfing than there seems to. I just observe that the dog may be an arrogant newtonian in his fancy fur, thinking he knows all... and for what is worth, he does pehonomenologically. Fuck you doge with your computational models you think you can describe it all. Talk me about function. Less mechanicism (when I do science I longue for structuralism versus functionalism though) Ramblingramblingram I go

>>11043815

>>10777287
....of what?

>>9594948
Evolutionary psychology is entirely speculative and posits conclusions retroactively, but there could be any number of reasons depression may come into play. Could be a colony collapse overpopulation prevention mechanism, energy conversation, or the like. In the end, much like birds, we just don't know.

It does, however, seem to happen primarily among social mammals with hierarchical instincts. Depression maybe a form of submission, which is a critical mechanism for a social mammals to function as a group. In this case, it's a counter-productive response, but well, so is running off a cliff or eating until you're too fat to move - evolution isn't perfect, and we've altered our natural environment far more quickly than it can hope to compensate for.

>>9594982
>>9594989
And, of course, modern society, while it provides all manner of escapisms, doesn't provide a whole lot of reasons not to escape. We've arranged things in such a way that it is much simpler to run away from life than it is to live it, all built on religions that suggest that this life is a meaningless pitstop on the way to eternity anyways. Blend all that together, and it's kind of amazing that there aren't a whole lot more NEETS than there already are.

>>9005593
Level 0.5: I believe there is [the strong possibility] of life somewhere out there in the universe

Maybe 0.75 - I'll give a strong possibility for life within the galaxy - maybe not intelligent or complex life, but life.

I'll even give a slim possibility for some primitive life within the solar system.

There's nucleotides on asteroids and shit, and life isn't made up of anything unusual, element wise... So some RNA churning in some mud somewhere - it could certainly happen elsewhere, so long as the odds are better than 1 in 10^24. Sadly, we don't know what those odds are though. The abiogenesis attempts we've made show some possibilities, but even if they came to full fruition, we can't be certain how often those conditions occur in the universe, so unless and until we find something... We just don't know.

On the other hand, we also now know that most stars have planets, and that this isn't the most likely sort of star to have rocky planets like ours, and the type that is most likely to, is about a hundred times more common, and lasts about a hundred times as long. And we keep find more and more extremophiles changing what we believed to be the conditions required for life - even if we can't always be sure if they could have came to be without more favorable conditions to evolve from.

Intelligent life is a whole other ball game, as there's a lot more factors involved, and, probably, a lot more routes to take - and then there's the question as whether we would *recognize* it as intelligent life.

>>7724612
>always got near perfect grades on normal assignments
>could do all the math and knew the formulas almost by heart
>test day comes
>pic related
>get like a c or d on the test
>look at the test when I get it back the next day
>it all is easy shit I know/knew how to do
>mfw

I'm starting to think these pseudo-philosophical chucklefuck threads are created by the same person everytime
it's always some rambling about conciousness/ego/mind/culture with a random topic of science attached as "proof" for these convuluted walls of text
when read as whole they always sound like the ramblings of a schizophrenic deep inside a delirium
and 100% of the time the OP responds to posts with "you just dont get it" and "prove that I'm wrong!" to defend his badly written, baseless and nonsensical claim

I don't know if I'm being trolled anymore, that alone makes this atleast a 7/10

Okay guys I'm new to /sci/ but I need help with some chemistry. I don't know if you guys can help or not.

What the hell is k' ? (k^prime)
And what the hell is k?

I know that they're the pseudo-kinetic rate constant, but how do I get both k and k'?

It's an alcohol oxidation reaction and I have the kinetic rate constant from the one reactant for zero, first, and second reaction order, but I don't know if that is the pseudo-kinetic or not.

To put things simply, how do I get k and k' from a slope and how do I get the "true" rate? If I came to the wrong place sorry but if not thank you.

>>7026401
>Shouldn't the liquid stream push them down?
>Wouldn't they be slowed down significantly by the "dust"?
>all these questions

>>6967064
>driving stoned is safer than driving sober in my opinion
you can't be serious