/sci/ - Science & Math

There were even better pages from this book, I think.

Not sure where to find them now.

all my fucking rage...

Well, I certainly hope this is a nightmare from the past.

post moar plz. this is greaaaat stuff.

Niggas ain't heard of lightening

I see nothing wrong with their arguments against those theories.

>>3230048
>We don't have to search for the answer. We know it already: God did it.

Religion in a nutshell.

Just curious, is this standard science textbook fare for you guys, or is it just homeschoolers who use it?

>>3230099

I'm going to guess it's for elementary level.

>implying no one has ever felt electricity
>implying I didn't bump into a 120v circuit just yesterday

Stay classy who ever wrote this.

>>3230037
>mfw hill sphere
>thanks universe sandbox

this shit deserves an ED article
and it can also be used for some epic trolling(like 9000 penises) if you're creative

A bunch of homework threads on the front page and you decide to put a public ban on this one.

oh shit, nigga, this is so epic

>YFW when in 600 years, scientific theories would be so different from ours than this will be considered of equal accuracy

what's the name of the book? sure want this on my kindle

This genuinely annoys me more than anything I see from creationists. I can stand illogical arguments, but you absolutely cannot justify indoctrinating children.

Requesting the chapter on electricity.
Just to make Franklin turn around in his grave.

I get bannef globally for a week for posting an appology for making a mathmatical mistake, and this guy only gets a warning? Where is justice?

is the book "Science Student Text Grade 4" by any chance?

>>3230815
you mean like how liberals indoctrinate children into believing lies like everyone is equal or gays are cool?

>>3230831
Nope.

>>3230831
>Implying gays aren't cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQTCUU4N7DU

>>3230817
Pics or it didn't happen.

>>3230817

That'll teach you to fuck up your proofs! Now drop and give me 20!

Unless the "Warning" consisted of "WARNING! YOU WILL NOW BE BANNED FOREVER!", then this is some kind of bullshit.

I got b& once for "posting inane trolling garbage".
Still don't know what is meant by this.
Is there any way to contact the mods????

Sageing this post for not getting b& again.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3230852
Cant pic the thread. Reason given was board raiding and posting inane garbage

>>3229963

sounds legit

>>3230846
Sir, yes sir!

>>3230888
and what? whine about your ban?
no1 cares lol.

>>3230943
That's not the point.
I just would like to discuss with a mod.

>>3230954
lol discuss what?
"hurr durr, y u ban me tho? i are butthurt"

Best shit I've seen in days. Someone screencap this.

Capticha related: smilli VoIP

>>3230954
Ive never seen a mod discuss a ban. But you could try the 4chan irc channel.

Personally just once i would like a responsr to my appeal "if you could please specify the posts so i can moderate my behavior in the futurr"

oh jesus christ...

http://www.bjupress.com/about/look-inside-science-4.php

LOL

>>3230821
>is the book "Science Student Text Grade 4" by any chance?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591664233?ie=UTF8&tag=probefhos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1
789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1591664233

Yes, yes it is.

I don't like ma mods.

Like some serious version of Look Around You.

>>3230888
>>3229963
Wow, people were having fun lol'ing at these and you ban the posters?

:|

>>3231137

People get banned every day. Nothing special. Context is of no importance.

If you're gonna troll, troll smart or don't troll at all.

>>3231137
Op didnt get banned, just warned

>>3231126
>what is electricity? We just don't know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiSJthqk4S4

>>3231111
i rather like that we're finally getting moderation.

i don't think >>3230888 should have been banned but i LOVE that op got a warning.

captcha: laselle western
western? no, captcha, only in the us. ...i hope.

>>3231159
Moderation is good. I just think mods priorities are off.

>>3231167
what do you mean 'priorities'
theres is a set of rules, the rules are followed, and if not then bans are handed out. the rules are pretty clear.
the mods just follow them, they can't hand out bans just based on personal opinion. (or shouln't at least)

nigger tits

>>3231175
Then why haven't you been banned for posting in all those homework threads?

>>3231175
Ahh, but they are handing them out,on personal opinion, otherwise why are there so many butthurt ban victims on today?

>>3231186
(oh snap)

>>3231175
>can't ban based on personal opinion
>users get banned for posting "Irrelevant garbage."

:|

>>3231186
because they will ban the OP's if they want, not just people replying.

>>3231190
probably banned for global rule 3. (you can be banned just for trolling)

>>3230048
>But also that he made them out of nothing.

Wtf?

It wants kids to question science (IN the typical relgious way, by attempting to understand complicated science with no scientific background,. Moon and earth have different desities herp imma geologist now.). Then throws them a line like this with absolutely no questioning of it whatsoever?

If I was the editor I'd have put one of their little "Do you think thats reasonable?" lines in there after that sentence.

By the way whats the actual reason the composition of Earth and moon is different? I can think of a few posible reasons but can't tell if they're right or not

Tak kończą frajerzy, właśnie tak!

OP has fucking nuts
Also mods are fags

>>3230109I'm going to guess it's for elementary level.

>implying there are any creationists that understand anything past elementary level

>>3231208
I think the popular idea now is a mix of the other theories.

That the rock which came towards Earth (which had a different composition) didn't come in just right to get captured, instead grazed the Earth sidelong, taking a decent chunk out of both. Each settling shortly after, with a nice chunk of mass now orbiting the planet.

here is more funny stuff

http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609/article_02.htm - god deserves the credit for technology because he made animals

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_03.htm - words from a real scientist, oh my!

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20070815/article_02.htm - learn about your designer

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm - why people believe evolution

>>3231384
Its probably due to centrifugal forces creating a density gradient across the spinning earth from inside out leaving the less dense material at the edges.

Fuck off mods, this is thoroughly enjoyable satire and brings to light hte practices of scientific education in some christian communities.

strawmen

strawmen everywhere ...

what's the name of this, anyway? and again, there should be an ED article about it

I'm not suggesting some überprank this time; please don't delete my post

>>3231660

>>3231660

>>3229968

im just a little bit curious, what is the title of this book? was it meant to be a troll book or a serious thing?

>>3231797
No. Centrifugal forces would put heavier matter on the periphery. The dominant forces are still gravitational.

Most likely initially when Earth was formed byt molten matter had sufficiently low viscosity to form a mass density gradient where the most dense materials were in the inner part and lighter matter mostly on the outer shell. After impact of some asteroid to the Earth it was the outer shell that received the highest amount of kinetic energy. So even if the Earth was smacked into pieces the heavy core was more or less intact so only small part of it was released into outer space hence the reason why Earthhas higher fraction of heavier periodic elements then Moon.

Just to clarify even today most of the Earth's volume is still liquid so if there was another impact similar effects might be observed.

>>3234843
Correction not kinetic energy but velocity. In terms of energy it was perhaps the inner core that received most of the energy. But due to high mass it's velocity was much lower.

Anyway you got the idea behind it.

>>3230803
If people find out we were wrong, we would still be less wrong than them, methinks.

>>3230803
Nope.

Newton's physics is still a very good approximation and is still working. Just today we have better approximations. In science as you go more advanced you just get more precise (modern science). So even in 6000 years people will take our equations as correct - for the boundaries that we claim. In the same way as Newton didn't pretend his equations were valid for binary stars so we don't pretend our equations are perfect and valid in some extreme cases.

It is always good to know that there is always a transitional state for new scientific predictions. For those theories in transition you can't say they are correct or wrong until all of their boundaries are experimentally proven. When boundaries are proven you can say for sure the theory is 100% true (within it's error limit - one of boundaries) or false. Or redefine boundaries for your equations such that it is always valid - within it's boundaries.
So you can say that Carson's Rule for determining the bandwidth of a FM signal is near never true but as we clarify that error is 2% or less for power then it becomes always true.

>>3229963
When was this textbook written?

>>3235424
>When was this textbook written?

1990

>>3235514
Really? This seems like something out of the 1950s.
That's downright horrifying

>>3235638
Not surprising. You don't even have to look for it to see this level of ignorance in everyday life.