/sci/ - Science & Math

The implications of and concepts behind some astrological research/discoveries/whatever blow my mind.
This is why I'm a rock guy.

hmmm

I'll devide if I should stop posting in troll threads by flipping two coins. If I know one of them is going to be heads, so what are the odds I'll feed the trolls?

I think it's pretty awesome that those niggers are picking cotton in the field behind my house.

Define troll then maybe we can start to work on a final solution.

hey I thought /sci/ was already taking good care of trolls

anyways, about topic OP brought up... quantum physics is a good topic for tea-time (ehh?)

>>2025429
you don't have to define troll. we would decided by majority action. act towards trolls in such a way and if enough people agree with you (and act accordingly) then there will be less trolls as defined by what we want.

medical biologists work to make people healthier, that's pretty cool

>>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.

astronomy and astrophysics makes me so confused. The perception of the universe does not compute in my head.

That is AWESOME

ps OP's idea is fact

>>2025485
>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.

implying science is itself not subject to these very same problems.

>>2025505
forgot this:
aerospace engineers are awesome for designing airplanes and such. flying is awesome

>>2025505
>implying that scientist do not make an attempt to provide objective controls that are not dependent on individual behavior.

I like that classical physicists are trained to work with the most basic of functions and work their way up to a working function or series of functions from the ground-up. Though it takes longer and is often unpractical, I envy their understanding of often unconventional implications.