/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15556465
Interesting thread and interesting topic, but prepared for one of three things (1) basically no replies, (2) a bunch of schizos and/or false flagging SJWs posting about flat earth and how viruses are fake, or (3) a three day ban for "off-topic discussion".

I have listed these outcomes in their most likely ordering, with (1) being the most plausible outcome and (3) the least plausible. A year or two ago, the first option would have been something like (1*) a bunch of woke leftists calling you a schizo and telling you to go back to pol, but a lot of that has died down out this point. These threads used to get literally hundreds of replies from seething leftists about muh racism, muh pol, muh russia, muh disinformation etc., etc., but as more and more evidence has accumulated over the last three years, it has basically become impossible for the pro-censorship neolibs to defend their baseless claim the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a "far-right conspiracy theory". Instead of admitting they were wrong or even just moving the goalposts and coming up with another bullshit argument to dismiss their opponents, they've decided to just retreat, and are no longer engage with the topic at all.

Why does "science" need to be protected from inspection? Is it a fragile house of cards built on lies? Truth does not fear investigation, its proudly welcomes the attention, only shameful secrets hide from the light

I really am glad that I work in one of the harder sciences. Aerospace is goofy sometimes, and our models are patently absurd, but at least we rely on serious analysis and have hard, easily validated performance parameters.

I get into this debate with my dad sometimes (microbiology), where I argue that there is no plausible justification for compromising the credibility of the scientific establishment. He disagrees, and I have yet to understand why. Perhaps I should let him make his case, rather than trying to make mine.

The thing is, objective truth (such as it is) is already hard to defend. It is immoral, tenuously supported by evidence, and generally counter-intuitive. Hell, in aerodynamics, the prevailing models are patently absurd! Whenever you have to debate scientific theory against charlatans, you're fighting at an immense disadvantage, because they have the luxury of being able to present a coherent framework.

To throw away the century of credibility that american academia has developed, is to concede every future argument against the ill-informed and mal-intentioned. I was already skeptical of medicine, due to their lax standards of proof and primitive models. Now I have a hard time trusting any medicine more modern than ibuprofen.

>>15556531
>Interesting thread and interesting topic
Not really. Opinion is divided because there are different schools of thought.
>(1) If it's probably not true you should assume it's false.
>(2) If it's possible then you should assume it's true.
People who think (2) are paranoid dipshits who should fuck off back to /pol/

>>15556600
This is an interesting perspective and after thinking about it a little I definitely agree with you. It's very difficult to argue against charlatans because they're willing and able to falsify their beliefs to make them pass the smell test, whereas truthful people have to say "I don't know" in response to a lot of questions, because that's the honest answer.

At the risk of derailing the topic though, what do you mean by absurdity in aerodynamic models? Are you talking about something like mathematical approximations being used in fluid dynamics simulations to make them computationally less difficult, or something more fundamentally wrong with the underlying theories?

>>15556644
Well most of the potential flow models are incongruous with reality. They are, of course, an approximation, but even so, a bunch of spinning vorticies are physically equivalent to a streamlined body?

Then there's the starting vortex model (sometimes referred to as the horseshoe vortex), where due to conservation of vorticity, the lifting force of an aircraft depends on the spinning static vortex at the beginning of the runway where it took off, potentially thousands of kilometers away.

All of these models are true, and there are even images showing the physicality and relative stability of the starting vortex. That doesn't make them any less ridiculous.

>>15556637
You left off the part of #1 where after you assume without proof that it's false you ruthlessly censor and defame everyone who thinks you're wrong because in your mind the potential damage to your reputation is more important than finding out who's actually right.

>>15556667
>Then there's the starting vortex model (sometimes referred to as the horseshoe vortex), where due to conservation of vorticity, the lifting force of an aircraft depends on the spinning static vortex at the beginning of the runway where it took off, potentially thousands of kilometers away.
I can see how this might be useful to model lifting force, but surely it has to be trivial to disprove using airflow sensors on the wing of a real aircraft.

>>15556465
>I don't have any evidence that all police are thieves and rapists, but I think we should talk about it openly even though talking about it on the news, that before this did not usually entertain such innuendo might give it credibility that the evidence does not support, and discourage people from calling the police when they need to.


That about sum up your argument?

Funny how you still have zero evidence of your accusation.

>>15556690
Are there actually still people clinging to the bat soup thing in current year?

>>15556695
I don't think they really believe in it. It's just a bot or troll.

>>15556465
Did these GOP faggots bother asking Kristian Andersen what changed between his "may have been engineered" emails and "wasn't engineered" paper, or are they too busy doing their usual performative nothings and finding low-IQ porn rather than real smoking guns?

>>15556674
>ruthlessly censor and defame
if you mean the paranoid dipshits screeching about their persecution on FOX from day one, I think they'll live

>>15556706
Just because you have a goldfish memory doesn't mean everyone does.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11826297/Jeff-Zucker-told-CNN-staff-not-cover-COVID-lab-leak-theory.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/business/media/coronavirus-tom-cotton-china.html
https://nypost.com/2023/02/28/new-york-times-msnbc-cnn-slammed-over-debunked-lab-leak-theory/
etc. etc.

>>15556531
I personally didn't think the lab leak theory was likely. This was largely based on two things: 1) many viruses have had sudden capability gains before humans had the ability to modify viruses. 2) there are plenty of conspiracy theories, and the bayesian prior is to see a conspiracy theory and assume it is false.

But yes, i agree and accept that there was an attempt to suppress the lab leak hypothesis in order to maintain the peace; instead of escalating a conflict between the west and china.

You are correct about this.
However you are incorrect about why leftists have become less vocal.
I've been here for more than 10 years.
/sci/ used to be generally leftists/centrists. In 2015/2016 /pol/ got a lot of traffic.
This bled over into /sci/.
We got a lot of gorilla posting (literally OPs using the "handsome gorilla" image) asking about "race realism". For example:
>these alleles are more frequent in blacks
>these genes are expressed in the brain
>blacks have lower IQ on average
And they'd get told to go back to /pol/.
(ironically, nowadays we have the average poster on /sci/ saying IQ is meaningless, even though 6-7 years ago a lot of /pol/ posters were arguing that blacks had lower IQ and that IQ was meaningful)

Then in early 2020 we had the pandemic. This led to a huge spike in activity on /sci/. The quality of /sci/ dropped massively, similar to that saying:
“Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.”
As the quality of /sci/ got worse over the last 3 years, posters who were above average left, and poster who were below average came in.

Now there are a handful of outcomes to my post:
1) no one replies
2) seething anons who cant admit /sci/ has gone down in quality will try to insult me
3) anons will say something like "why are you coming here, why not go to reddit or somewhere else", because they can't handle free speech

>>15556725
>yes /pol/ was right but here's a giant wall of seethe about them anyway

>>15556725
It's weird that after the vaccine was released (which we all took, right?) leftist commentary suddenly dropped off a cliff. What happened, Bidensisters?

>>15556740
worthless reply

>>15556743
did it drop off a cliff? I thought they seethed about people who didn't take the vaccine?
Or do you mean on /sci/?

>>15556743
>It's weird that after the vaccine was released (which we all took, right?) leftist commentary suddenly dropped off a cliff. What happened, Bidensisters?
Why did you delete this, anon?

>>15556465
>How many generations will it be before science regains the stature it pissed away?
Also, in reply to your question. It won't take long at all really.
The people who are anti-science were generally anti-science before the pandemic.
The people who are pro-science were generally pro-science before the pandemic.
consequently, I don't think anything really changes

>>15556763
A lot of normies who were ambivalent or loosely pro-science have turned against it fully. Childhood vaccination rates have cratered in most countries as a result of the medical establishment lying to everyone.

>>15556763
>The people who are anti-science were generally anti-science before the pandemic.

Historically trust in science has been consistent and non-partisan, but in 2018+ there was a massive spike in trust among leftists with no historical precedent or similar movement among independents or conservatives, and then in 2022 there was a complete collapse across the board. Science lost a big chunk of independents relative to pre-pandemic levels and *half* of conservatives, while leftists are down bigly too but still above pre-2018 levels.

https://apnews.com/article/trust-science-medicine-social-survey-725ab3401f27900be6cc957eec52e45e
https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends?category=Politics&measure=consci

>>15556792
...meanwhile the overtly anti-science portion of the survey spiked across the board, doubling or more for every political affiliation over pre-pandemic levels.

>>15556792
>>15556801
These are interesting,
I'm surprised there was a point in time when republicans had more faith in science.
What do you think the cause of this was?
I'd speculate the cold war, and the associated science arms race; versus a minority of "ban the bomb" anti-nuclear leftists.

>>15556740
back to >>>/trash/ furfag

>>15556894

>>15556903
is that meaningless statistical noise?
republicans were above democrats in trust until the 2000s. That's 21 datapoints. If it were just 50-50 random chance each time, then its 1 in 2.5million; right?
Also, they had been saying the world was going to end before 2015. With the US joining the montreal protocol (to ban CFC pollution depleting the ozone) in 1988 (between Reagen and H. Bush). It seems disingenuous to imply that atmospheric pollution is a recent topic of concern.
But if you're a typical zoomer on this board, then 2015 is when you first became aware of politics and climate change

>>15556928
The late 90s/early 2000s decline coincides with Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

>>15556928
The early 2000s are when the lies about global warming really started ramping up.

>>15556929
What is fraudulent about Mann's chart?
That he had to use two different datasets to produce a long timescale time-CO2 chart?

>>15556929
>The late 90s/early 2000s decline coincides with Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
why did you delete this?

>>15556940
>The early 2000s are when the lies about global warming really started ramping up.
What do you mean specifically?

>>15556946
Before the 2000s the IPCC generally reported that past temperatures were higher than present ones, for example w/r/t the Medieval Warm Period. After the 2000s it was revealed that massive data tampering had been done to cool the past and warm the present for political gain.

>>15556928
>With the US joining the montreal protocol (to ban CFC pollution depleting the ozone) in 1988 (between Reagen and H. Bush). It seems disingenuous to imply that atmospheric pollution is a recent topic of concern.
Unlike with climate change, most people don't know that the CFC panic was based on a scientific mistake. The fact that few people know or care that it was completely bogus means it didn't shake people as much as the climate change deception does now. This is likely because the costs weren't as pervasive, as other refrigerants worked almost just as well for most people.

>>15556949
>Before the 2000s the IPCC generally reported that past temperatures were higher than present ones, for example w/r/t the Medieval Warm Period.
I just went on their website and looked at the 1990 report. Ctrl+F "temperature".
> Global - mean surface air temperature has increased by 0 3°C to 0 6°C over the last 100 years, with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980s Over the same period global sea level has increased by 10-20cm These increases have not been smooth with time, nor uniform over the globe
> under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors
>>15556949
>After the 2000s it was revealed that massive data tampering had been done to cool the past and warm the present for political gain.

I guess the situation is fucked then. Climate change supporters are going to claim that the IPCC has always said temperature has been rising. And that any claims of data tampering are lies.
And climate change deniers are going to say the IPCC are lying and tampering with data.
If I can't trust sources either way, then I'd just have to look into measure CO2 ppm myself, or decide to not care about climate change either way

>>15556958
>Unlike with climate change, most people don't know that the CFC panic was based on a scientific mistake.
that's an exceptional claim. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? or is it just going to be a "X said CFCs are bad", "Y said CFCs arent bad" story?

>>15556960
>Climate change supporters are going to claim that the IPCC has always said temperature has been rising. And that any claims of data tampering are lies.
And you can prove that they're lying quite easily, so you therefore must side with climate change skeptics.

>>15556962
>Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
Yes actually. If you look at a timelapse of year-round satellite measurements of the ozone hole you can see that it's a seasonal formation that occurs due to high-altitude wind patterns around the south pole preventing fresh ozone from reaching the area. This phenomenon wasn't known when the ozone hole was first discovered (because it couldn't be measured accurately before satellite coverage was widespread) so a panic erupted. It's discussed in atmospheric physics circles but there's a natural resistance to widespread public admission since governments don't like admitting fault in an area where they would be liable for damages to the successors of the corporations they closed down.

>>15556964
>And you can prove that they're lying quite easily, so you therefore must side with climate change skeptics.
I don't side with anyone.
Buying into an identity is a surefire way to lose yourself, in my opinion.
Looking at this image, the impression i get is the author trying to say >we did an analysis, and the analysis "for some reason" indicates that there has been deception about climate change by scientists.
But it doesnt give me enough information to actually form a reasonable opinion.
I'd only buy into what they're saying if I was ready to jump on a climate-change-denial bandwagon.
For example, why does an R^2 of 0.97 indicate the data is being altered. There are plenty of reasons that R^2 could be 0.97, including that their model is accurate, or that they are falsifying data.
The only reasonable position based on this image is to say >the correlation reported is very strong.

>>15556967
I havent seen these satellite measurements. And you haven't linked me to any discussion in atmospheric physics circles.
I'm not integrated into these circles, so it's not obvious to me how to find this information. And why would I trust the satellite images? If other data can be faked, why can't these images have problems as well?

If I google climate change opinions, i find that about 99% of americans have an opinion on climate change.
But I don't think even 10% of people are capable of performing the statistical analysis necessary (but not sufficient) to form an opinion.
It seems to me that people just decide based on a trust/distrust of establishment and a personal cost analysis on whether climate change policies will hurt or help their socioeconomic status, and then find a logically coherent interpretation for their opinion.
It's a lot like religious beliefs; every person thinks their religious belief is correct, and they have rationalizations for beliefs, but they cant all be correct
anyway, this was a waste of time, i'm just gonna go to sleep

>>15556568
>Why does "science" need to be protected from inspection?
Because its a fragile house of cards built on lies

>>15556989
>And why would I trust the satellite images? If other data can be faked, why can't these images have problems as well?
You're being very conspiratorial and I don't understand it. This sounds less like justified skepticism and more like heels-digging from someone who's trying to concern-troll about a topic that was entered with good faith.

>>15556989
>For example, why does an R^2 of 0.97 indicate the data is being altered.
That isn't what indicates the data is being altered, it's the correlation between the alterations in the data and the increase in measured CO2, suggesting that alterations are done ad hoc to fit a model of CO2 trends. The fact that alterations are done to the data is not in any way in doubt.

>>15556568
>Truth does not fear investigation
Antisemitism...

>>15556903
Your timeline is wrong, they've been saying that republicans are causing global warming for more than 20 years, that's not a new thing that started in the 2010s.

>>15556465
>science
Oh yeah, since, this monolithic, homogeneous block did that. Jesus fucking Christ, how far from a university campus is the closest you've been to education? Do you think "science" is an organisation and Fauci/Greta/the next scapegoat Alex Jones tells you to hate speak for all of "science"?

>>15557065
If you read the Luntz memo, it's clear this the Dubya junta already knew that they were making things worse. You're right, conservatives only want to conserve very selective things. The environment or the climate are not among those things.

>>15557155
That's an urban legend.

>>15557155
Read my comment again, retard.

>>15556675
>but surely it has to be trivial to disprove using airflow sensors on the wing of a real aircraft
See, you misunderstand. The starting vortex isn't on the aircraft, it's on the runway where the aircraft took off. And furthermore, it's a real, documented, physical phenomenon (pic related). What's bullshit is that it doesn't persist for the duration of flight. It dissipates into turbulent noise of the atmosphere, but this is obviously not modeled.

>>15557155
you belong on >>>/pol/

>>15556725
>IQ denier

>>15556712
You're not suggesting that there should have been an open and reasoned discussion amongst experts, are you? You're talking about people who think that convincing the largest number of credulous morons that they're right is the same as *being* right. You were surprised that a fraction of the media deplatformed some of the dipshits temporarily. It's unusual because the media doesn't tend to do this. Under normal circumstances, their business model is to provide a platform to enable credulous moron farming. See: advertising; politics. What happened during covid was that people began to care a bit more because it affected them. They became less tolerant of the bullshit so it was temporarily removed from the media they consume to avoid pissing them off. Even so, the dipshits were well catered-for by other outlets.

You complain about censorship. The thing is, pushing for mistrust of expertise and false equivalence between opinions is just pushing for another form of censorship. Most of the time, and moreso now than ever, the media is aligned with you in this regard.

>>15556792
>>15556801
>>15556903
good data

>>15556568
Anon, this is extremely problematic and a grave threat to our greatest ally. I demand you remove your post immediately.

>>15556700
https://summit.news/2023/07/12/video-gop-rep-asks-scientists-why-they-did-a-180-on-covid-lab-leak-after-fauci-emailed-them/

>>15556725
>bayesian prior
You are in a cult and you're nowhere near as smart as you think

>>15556465
three or four at least, enjoy ur modern dark ages

>>15556465
It will take until science once again becomes an exclusively Christian practice, like it used to be. The scientific method was developed by Christians and for Christians, others are not capable of executing the method effectively

>>15556690
>I don't have any evidence that all police are thieves and rapists, but I think we should talk about it openly even though talking about it on the news, that before this did not usually entertain such innuendo might give it credibility that the evidence does not support, and discourage people from calling the police when they need to.

Strawmanninf, lies, slander, appeals to authority... it's all your side has left

>>15556725

You forgot 4) no one gives af what you have to say. Your authoritative tone is unwarranted. You have none.

>TOAD KILLER ($TOAD) is a cryptocurrency that has been created by a mysterious team of well-known figures in the crypto industry who have a history of the space. The team behind TOAD is unique and they have managed and funded some of the principles of the memetokens space.

>The goal of $TOAD is to demonstrate to the world that there is only one original project, and as their slogan says: "We already killed a dog" - so frogs and new memecoins are about to end when the king reappears. There's many hints on their launch and website that hint everyone who may be back of this mysterious project, specially when talking about killing dogs.

>The project has been launched with a stealth approach, much like the successful Shib project, and the team is relying on organic growth, with people discovering it and trying to unravel its mistery. They believe that $TOAD is the determination to create something that stops this new fever and demonstrate all the new meme-devs who is the leader on this area.

>>15556899
Buck = broken

>>15556725
>/sci/ used to be generally leftists/centrists
A claim backed by my ass.

>>15557289
>See, you misunderstand. The starting vortex isn't on the aircraft, it's on the runway where the aircraft took off. And furthermore, it's a real, documented, physical phenomenon (pic related). What's bullshit is that it doesn't persist for the duration of flight. It dissipates into turbulent noise of the atmosphere, but this is obviously not modeled.

Air is just very thin water. Move fast enough and you glide through it like you would through water. Jesus fking christ this isn't complex

>>15561358
>The scientific method was developed by Christians and for Christians

Wrong. But Christians sure did fck science up during the dark ages. Ancient Greeks had geared machines. Christians had witch burnings.

>>15561522
Ok, and how exactly do you glide through water?

Show your math please.

>>15561524
>The scientific method was developed by Christians and for Christians
This, Francis Bacon hated atheists

>>15556928
Democrats until recently were very suspicious about large institutions. They also had the 1960s/70s hippy granola, anti-nuclear hangover that was in opposition with science. But now all it takes is slapping a rainbow flag on something and leftists will love it, no matter how big and powerful it is.

>>15557155
>Dubya
>junta
Do you want no one to take you seriously?

>>15557155
Frank Luntz has gay buttsex with Kevin McCarthy, they were living together in D.C. up until a couple years ago when the word got out. Fox News ppl are all gay, Paul Ryan is gay too, he was a congressional intern in D.C when Dennis Hastert started his rise to power. Thats how Ryan got to be part of the GOP House power structure, by sucking dicks

>>15562693
It's amazing how easily they were led by the nose to abandoning all their principles. Makes you wonder if someone duped them into being anti-establishment in the 60s too.

>>15563679
>someone duped them into being anti-establishment
How do you dupe tens of millions of people into believing anything if you're not the establishment?

>>15563679
There's no question that the Soviet Union was behind much of the anti-nuclear protests in the West. It wasn't just about nuclear weapons but also about any use of nuclear technology. The Soviets knew that any civilian use of nuclear tech would have crossover value into the military world, so even that was targeted by "grassroots" groups peppered with Soviet infiltrators and sympathizers. The Soviet Union died but the remnants of their propaganda efforts live on.

>>15556465
when science is political, it's no longer science; it's part of the BUSINESS of politics. and communism sucks.

https://www.brighteon.com/8c770254-e4d5-4d0c-a7af-44278da17fa0

>>15556465
>>15556531
the controlled opposition faggots in congress will continue to vote for gigabux soience funding regardless their play act grandstanding

>>15564609
the ussr and the usa were just two sides of the same rothschild coin

0
Nobody cares about the opinion of schizos

>>>/pol/

>>15567277
you seem upset

>>15556941
>What is fraudulent about Mann's chart?
The Y axis

>>15556465
didn't have any stature to begin with, everyone hates nerds

>>15570230
This, science was never something to aspire to until the (((media))) started shilling it 15 or so years ago

>>15556667
It’s a case of models taking precedence over physicality. This happens a lot in physics and it’s understandable - you don’t want to just answer every question about lift with “Newton’s Third Law”, even if it is the best first principles answer as to why lift physically works, but the problem is you get talking about models and suddenly everyone is arguing about whether lift occurs because of Bernoulli’s Principle or the Kutta Condition or circulation effects, or flow potentials, etc.

>>15571787
>suddenly everyone is arguing about whether lift occurs because of Bernoulli’s Principle or the Kutta Condition or circulation effects, or flow potentials, etc.
those are all people who are too cowardly to ever fly a plane themselves. if you want to know how a plane flies, go fly one and then you'll have a much better understanding of how it all works.
but if you're too cowardly to do that then you can spout whatever garbage you saw on wikipedia and try and act like you know what you're talking about as a means of evading admitting that you are too cowardly to investigate the process firsthand

>>15556894
>What do you think the cause of this was?
Republicans in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were generally all for big government spending on science and technology since those were basically the only government-run endeavors that had a net return on their investment.

The change occurred when Reagan decided to make courting evangelicals (who had previously this way or that, depending on the candidate) a foundational part of the new Republican platform, and suddenly you were making a group of people inherently distrusting of science and technology (except whenever it overtly benefits them) into the party and then went further and made them the fucking center of it. It’s a trend that’s reinforced itself over the last 40 years.

>>15571798
the scientific method was developed by christians and for christians, non-christians are not capable of executing the scientific method because they lack the necessary personal and philosophical intellectual underpinnings that christians have.

>>15572689
This, there have never been any significant scientists who lacked those "personal and philosophical intellectual underpinnings" and scientific progress had ground to a halt due to the ostracism of Christian scholars in favor of dishonest atheists.

>>15572689
The scientific method does not include "peer review" or anything like it, it relies on the honesty required of faithful Christians. Peer review replies on collusion amongst dishonest, atheistic co-conspirators.
Peer review can make 2+2=5
The Christian scientific method will always say 4 is the answer

>>15556568
Built on lies and propaganda. The scientists were trying to hide their public official and use slack/personal gmail accounts to hide from FOIAA requests for transparency

LMAO

>>15572689
Scientific method was developed by Muslim scientists and for Muslims, non-Muslims are not capable of executing the scientific method because they lack the necessary personal and philosophical intellectual underpinnings that Muslims have.

>>15557614
When billions of people are forced to take vaccines, which weren't tested, whose effectiveness is unknown. the side effects are censored by government, media, and tech companies alike, how does that foster any sort of trust in "the science"?

Everything the CDC has said about Covid turned out to be a fucking lie.

>Masks stop virus
They don't.
>Vaccines stop virus
They don't
>Vaccines are helpful
No double blind test to prove this was the case.
>Virus was wet animal market
Absolutely not, it was engineered using the same fucking research that Fauci's colleagues were working on. We even have the direct fucking evidence of the research funding request paper from Fauci's friends.
>Lab Leak theory is racist, but wet animal market is not
WHAT THE FUCK?

>>15574870
Furthermore, since the Virus was manmade and funded by Fauci to bypass the Obama era ban on gains of function research by passing off the research to his colleagues in China, which gets funded by Fauci, the cause for damage done by the vaccine lies solely at the hands of Faucci.

Millions were killed because of him.

>>15574855
triggered

>>15557614
It gets so much worse

>>15576950
How will physishits ever recover?

>>15556465
Rand Paul is trying get Fauci arrested for lying to congress

>>15556792
You can blame science journalism and science public speakers like Bill nye and Tyson dor this drop. You can also blame Fauci and public health communicators. And every scientist on Twitter.

>>15571787
>It’s a case of models taking precedence over physicality.
Yes, obviously. That's my point. In fluid mechanics its fairly obvious that the models are not physical. In many other fields, however, a lot of people take the model as physical, when that may or may not be appropriate.

To be fair, in the extreme micro scale, it's not really feasible to interact directly with the physical object, so you have to rely on models to describe the second or third order interactions that you *can* observe. I think it's a fair question to ask how close quantum chromodynamics really is to the underlying physical reality, for example.

>>15556740
hello 0r0

>>15561696
>Ok, and how exactly do you glide through water?

I already did enough of your homework for you, Anon. You do the math.

Water and air are comprised of stacked layer. Move fast enough and you can glide on top of one of those layers. The layer essentially becomes a solid relative to your vehicle. Jesus you people are fcking idiots. No wonder Elon was able to economically conquer and checkmate your kind. You people think from first principles, like, at all? Are you even capable of it? I'm not even in the industry and I directed 5 seconds of thought to the problem your industry has spent decades trying to solve. Solved it in 5 seconds. IMPROVE YOIR MENTAL MODEL, IDIOT. Now go do the math about me fcking your mother.

>>15556725
>I personally didn't think the lab leak theory was likely
thats because you're an idiot. either you knew the capabilities of GoF and that it was commonplace or you didnt. there is nothing exotic about it. lol its not even the first time its happened. you're just fatally stupid.they talked about it all the time lol.

>>15556725
>instead of escalating a conflict between the west and china
more stupidity. who do you think supported chinas progam. still you dont get it. please get sterilized.

>>15577718
>No wonder Elon was able to economically conquer and checkmate your kind.
lmao that one guy was able to outwit and outperform a massive organization with a bottomless budget like nasa

>>15577437
Not once, but lying multiple times.

Rand Paul's office got fire bombed because of his calls for arrest of Dr Faucii "I am Science", the Pope of Science.

>>15578482
>Rand Paul's office got fire bombed because of his calls for arrest of Dr Faucii "I am Science", the Pope of Science.
Probably fake
Rand Paul is a controlled opposition figure.
They have to make him suffer a little so his controlled opposition routine is more believable
On Jan 6, 2021 Rand Paul had the power to completely prevent the confirmation of results of the transparently fraudulent 2020 presidential election and he chose to side with his deepstate masters instead.

>>15561522
>>15577718
I'm going to explain it so that someone even of your caliber can understand.

You are correct, that moving through air is equivalent to moving through water in most respects. You are comically wrong in insinuating that that makes any of the math or engineering any easier whatsoever.

Also this schitzo rambling about a "stacked layer" means literally nothing. You don't "glide" on any "layers," you generate a pressure distribution that results in a net force in the direction you want, either through hydrostatic or fluid dynamic methods. That last part? That's the whole problem : how do you reliably predict and engineer the pressure field around a streamlined body at various angles of attack and various reynolds numbers.

Regarding spaceX : Elon Musk hired a bunch of very competent people and used early types of agile systems engineering to make his stupid fucking rocket a reality. God only knows what would have happened if he had given money and resources to a competent vehicle designer instead. "First principles" is the opposite of what he did.

>>15556465
Reminder that scientists are liars as a rule.

>>15579561
>You are correct

You could have stopped there

>>15579561
>You are comically wrong in insinuating that that makes any of the math or engineering any easier whatsoever.

It's absurdly easy. Fluid sims already exist. Copy and paste your jet model into the sim like a good little boy

>>15579561
>how do you reliably predict and engineer the pressure field around a streamlined body at various angles of attack and various reynolds numbers.

Using a massively simultaneous differential equation. I make them in my fcking free time. I don't even get paid to do it like you fcking idiots do. I am literally better for free than you are paid.

>>15579561
>Regarding spaceX : Elon Musk hired a bunch of very competent people and used early types of agile systems engineering to make his stupid fucking rocket a reality. God only knows what would have happened if he had given money and resources to a competent vehicle designer instead. "First principles" is the opposite of what he did.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, the guy who docked with the ISS, was first to land a rocket and fired a car into space is an incompetent rocket engine. He's lead engineer of SpaceX fyi.

Tell us again about how you're an unmotivated, NPC, wagie government worker who only exists to optimize inefficiency.

>>15579751
>Fluid sims already exist. Copy and paste your jet model into the sim like a good little boy
No one who actually earns money using CFD thinks like that. A good mesh that took you hours to refine can maybe get you a 90% accurate RANS simulation. A mesh that will give you 99% accurate results will take weeks of tweaking, and you're a fool if you don't validate it with hard data.

>>15579757
Elon Musk didn't do shit. He gave a bunch of money to engineers while his assistant tard wrangled him and distracted him with twitter.

>>15579753
>Using a massively simultaneous differential equation
What the fuck does that even mean? PDE's? Using a PDE solver? Rather than actual math? Or are you trying to mischaracterize finite element methods?

>>15556763
Anyone using the hack term "anti-science" is a midwit who should clean the fucking floors for their living. Honest to God. If you can't exercise discernment in reading scientific ideas/works, then you are not a scientist at all. They say 70% of published papers are likely fraudulent. But we would never be able to tell with assholes like you who believe everything they are told by the TV. You probably can't even read science articles with the capability to figure out if they are lying to you or not. Damn you made me use that word science too much. Fuckers like you have ruined even that.

Fuck you.

>>15556600
Your dad sounds like a has-been, not gonna lie.

t. a microbiologist.

>>15579848
Well he's about to retire, so, kinda by definition.

>>15579824
>Musk triggers me emotionally
nice to know

>>15556465
>stature
>science
4 eyed nerds in low paying jobs don't have stature

>>15556465
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED, CHUD

>>15581260
>4 eyed nerds in low paying jobs don't have stature
But they presume they do anyway, as a coping mechanism

>>15581260
This.