/sci/ - Science & Math

>Have physics major friend ask what I am taking next semester
>Tell him I am taking geometry
>Lol, you're a math major but you are taking a geometry class

ITT: freshmen

>>4867265
lel

>be mathematician
>know bio grad student
>cannot compute dx^2/dx
>wants to be MD
:/

>>4867279
lel

>be biochemist
>know physics grad student
>cannot tell me how much a sandwich costs if it costs $1 + half its original price
>wants to be PhD
:/

>>4867284
$1.50

>>4867284
x=.5x+1
-.5x=1
x=-2

The sandwich costs negative 2 dollars.
NOBEL PRIZE PLEASE!

>>4867297
x - .5x =/= -.5x

x minus half an x is half an x, not negative half an x.

.5x=1
x=2

>>4867297

>>4867280

This is why instead of 'algebra' you say something like 'homological group theory'

Just don't sound gay when you say it.

>>4867313
$1 + $.5 = $1.50

>>4867324
no one in math would ever talk that way because that's not what it's called, faggot. pic related

>My dad is an aeronautical engineer
>I used to think that meant he knew stuff
>Other day he is talking about minting coins
>To sound impressive I guess, he claims that in quarters the metals are "Bonded at the Nuclear level"
>spittake
>FUCKING WHAT?

This guy knows that's plain bullshit. What the fuck would make him say that?

>anybody talks about lightning

Lightning gun, electrical powers, Lightning strikes, harnessing the power of lightning, Anything electrical with any non physicist/engineer/electrician

Jesus Christ, Kill Me.

I sometimes hear people talking about daily chemical stuff...powerplants, yeast, reactions... then keep making false claims they think are true instead of asking me..the chem major with applied biotechnology how it really is... feels batman :(

>>4867394
He's probably already posting a greenstory on /r9k/ about about it.
>tfw beta-dad ;_;

>>4867417
My girlfriend's a biotech graduate. She keeps having to correct her friends' facebook posts like pic related and other shit they know nothing about. Layman's understandings of "chemicals" even makes me cringe. I can only imagine how it is for you.

>>4867324
I like not sounding like a dickhead, I just say 'it's different sorts of algebra and geometry than what we did in highschool'

>if the eart was 2cm closar 2 the sun wed all burn, like dis if u happy it not.
>"But that's wrong."
>BLARH BLARH BLARH U DON'T KNOW JACK SHIT FUCK U OMG WHY COMMENT ARE YOU DUMB?

>>4867452

Sounds like Youtube.

>>4867454
Facebook.

>>4867455

Yes, I can see that from the context. My point still stands, that seems like something you would find on Youtube. I never used facebook, so I can't comment on it.

>>4867457
It's just as bad... But instead of 12 year olds throwing their opinions about it's your friends and family.
It's just as bad.

>Be in high school
>Be great student, but seriously and vocally doubt both relativity and evolution.
>Be 22 now.
>Be incredibly ashamed of my past

How the fuck are American high schools so bad at teaching science? I mean, I was in a damn good school system, too. What the everloving fuck?

>>4867464
silly child, how dare you doubt Einstein's work.

>>4867464
>doubt relativity
People do this? I understand that evolution might contradict people's religious beliefs but special relativity doesn't really do that

Where you just suspicious of science in general?

People who don't know Calculus: "Haha, it's not like I'd ever use Calculus in real life"

YOU WOULD IF YOU FUCKING KNEW IT YOU STUPID CUNT

>>4867460

I began to suspect that many people stop evolving mentally after they reach that age, so it doesn't surprise me.

>>4867472
People always fucking do this

>mfw people in yr 8 said 'you never use elementary algebra after this'
>mfw people in yr 9 and yr 10 said 'its not like solving quadratic equations or trigonometry is ever actually necessary'
>mfw people say the same thing about calc in yr 11 and 12

>>4867471
I don't believe in relativity and I'm the leader of one of the largest sectors of the anti-relativity movement. It's bullshit Jew physics

>>4867471

Not him, but there's some elements in relativity that I don't want to believe, but I don't doubt either. The most dominant would be the lightspeed limit.

>>4867471

It's not that, it's just that it was never explained to me why. Like

"The speed of light is the fastest anything can go. Also time slows down as you get closer to it"
>cliche question about going speed of light and then throwing something
"no, that just isn't how it is. Also, Black holes are (additional random facts that sound like bullshit if there's no reasoning behind it)"

Evolution isn't something I objected to on religious basis either. They just never answered any of the common "counterarguments" and at one point they ACTUALLY TOLD US we evolved from monkeys. The sheer idiocy. It was, of course, no wonder to me that people were unwilling to accept evolutionary theory. As it was explained to me it actually had no basis.

Fortunately, I went to college.

My sister thought that a dog could have "two dads". Genetically, some how. Who the fuck told her that, I wonder.

>TA on a mathematical tools for physicists course
>lecturer a professor in theoretical physics
>doesn't remember how to multiply matrices together
>asks me for help
>mfw

>>4867324
>homo group
>not gay
you sure are funny, man.

>>4867747
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_reproduction

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221223035AA9mpQJ

She probably heard somewhere that a litter of dogs can have multiple fathers and misinterpreted it.

>>4867471
Relativity stands opposed to many people's faith as well. The basic principle is that there is no God's eye view of the universe, no absolute reference frame.

Anyway I was born and raised an atheist, I was even kind of smug about it when I was an idiot kid, but none the less I too couldn't get my head around relativity when I was in high school, despite having read about it in middle school and thinking it was awesome, once I started taking physics and thinking critically I began to doubt it. Then it finally clicked.

>Grandma in hospital.
>Mom posts on FB asking for prayers.
>50+ people respond.
>All of them believe in God.

Seriously, how stupid can they be?

>>4867784
Well look on the bright side, no one who didn't believe in the main christian god offered prayers.

>>4867754
To be fair, if you haven't done matrix stuff by hand for a while, it is easy to forget that stuff.

In an mxn matrix, I always seem to forget which is the number of rows and which is the number of columns.

Kinda /sci/ related:
I knew a Girl who was dead serious about this question.
>If they landed on the moon, why don't they have a sun landing?

Also, after an earthquake one of my relatives was in the area talking to an old woman.
>Him: Did you feel the earthquake?
>Her: Oh Yes! It's the government's fault for not putting in the foundations properly

>>4867280
This. Fucking this.

>my mother asking me what 20% of 160,000 is.
>mfw

>the earth is a giant magnet
>birds aren't magnetic, that's why they are able to fly
-my little cousin

>>4867821
>"Then let's see if you can fly!" and throw him out the window.

>>4867821
Ah, but they are thought.
They are very, very, very little magnetic.
very.

>tell people I'm a math major
>"quick! what's 269 * 594?"

faggots

>>4867394
probably intentional hyperbole to say that its highly compact. i wouldnt worry about it, faggot. respect your father even if hes not intelligent.

>>4867829
159786

>>4867479
Well, to be fair, most people are never going to use that stuff again, outside of a school-setting.

>be pure math major
>engineers expect me to be super good at all engineering math and be amazing at solving pdes (why the fuck would I be in a separate major if that major had the exact same curriculum as your major?)
>plebs expect me to be rain man and count cards like some autistic fuck. They also expect me to know EVERY SINGLE METHOD off the top of my head, even though math is a huge field and there's no way I can constantly practice from these broad fields

I've actually been studying on some of the stuff that I don't need to study because I became curious about what 'methods' they were talking about. Turns out none of it is very hard and requires advanced knowledge (some takes advanced knowledge to derive it though)... anyone could memorize it.

>>4867255
>be badass mechanical genius, build shit with my eyes closed
>get kickass job (r&d)
>basically offered Meng job title and salary
>I have no degree, didnt go to college
>naww i think I'll pass, sure does sound like a lot of work and mark never seems very happy

>>4867853
I seriously disagree. Tons of real-life questions are algebraic word-problems. Tons of real life conceptual problems are solved using algebra and calculus concepts or problem-solving skills. These kinds of math are basic to the way we approach truth statements, rates, objects, etc.

The only reason they think they wouldn't use it is that they don't know it. I run into lots of problems every day that I solve with algebra and calculus thinking and I look back and say "I couldn't have solved that if I didn't have algebra or calculus. I just would have assumed there was no answer and ignored it" That's exactly what these people do, and it affects them negatively, even though they can't realize it.

>>4867471
Not who you're quoting, but some results from the theory of relativity have always puzzled me. Like the following thought experiment

Get in a rocket.
Blast off and travel at close to light speed.
Come back to earth.
Everybody has aged way more than you.

It breaks my sense of symmetry. Why did the people in the rocket age less than the people on earth? How isn't it that, from the point of view of the rocket, the earth travelled at close to relativistic speed and as a consequence everybody on earth aged less?

Or let's simplify and just have two rockets fly off in opposite directions and come back to the same spot, both travelling the same distance with the same acceleration. Will they both have clocked the same round-trip time? If yes, why do things change when only one rocket accelerates and the other doesn't?

>>4868061
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

>>4868061
because of the acceleration, relativity posits the equivalence of INERTIAL reference frames. When the rocket turns around it is no longer in an inertial reference frame and you need a less special version of relativity.

>>4868061
Guy who was being quoted here. Relativity makes a lot more sense when you're presented with the equations and the tests that substantiate it. In a classroom setting, you also get a lot more examples to retrain your intuition on the subject. Special relativity is simple enough to learn in about a week, as long as someone presents it in a sensible way. And that just won't happen unless you take a Physics for physicists class. For some reason.

>>4868063
>>4868067
>>4868074
Obviously I get that the math works out and it has been verified. It just doesn't make intuitive sense.

Btw, to see if I got this (somewhat):

Say we set two clocks to t=0, put one on a rocket and send it on a 4light-year journey to some distant planet at a relativistic speed.
We'll call the time displayed on the clock here t1 and the one on the clock "there" t2

Then we observe through a telescope the faraway clock and let's say it's showing t2 = (t1-4yrs.) * a, where a is a constant.

If we then bring back the clock with the same rocket, same acceleration and speed, will it be showing t2 = t1 * a^2 ?

>Math major
>use to drink gatorade to get rid of hangovers because of the 'electrolytes'
>one day my bio major friends called me out
>"hurr durr you drink it cause of the salt?"
mfw

>Tell people I do Physics
>"Oh, so you look at stars and stuff then!? I love that too"

ITT: People who don't recognize my genius must be ridiculed.

>>4868087

No. For this, it's very important how close to the speed of light the ship goes. As an object gets faster time and space actually shrink down from its perspective. If an object is going .99999c, for example, four light years might look to it like .02 light years, and so it becomes reasonable that the journey only takes about a week, from that perspective. Meanwhile, to an observer watching from earth, the object is moving at just under the speed of light and going 4 light years, so the journey takes a little more than 4 years.

In other words, depending on how fast your reference frame is moving, you'll actually disagree with others about how far apart things are, and what order events take place. Try doing a couple problems with the special relativity equations, I promise that will really help your intuition.

>>4868112

>Have a hobby in astronomy
>Tell people about it when they ask
>They want their fucking horoscope

I love America.

>>4868061
This theory is just about light isn't it?
Let's say you have a twin.
You're moving away from Earth (at a constant speed, close to the speed of light).
After a long time you want to know what's happening on earth, so you look at the Earth with a telescope. Obviously light has to "fly" from Earth to you in order to transport the information you want.
So you would see your twin, looking younger than you (and moving a bit in slow motion).
Your twin LOOKS younger than you, because the light in your spaceship that hits you and gets reflected and then reflected again by the mirror on the wall of your spaceship, which then hits you in the eye, takes such an incredibly short time, you think it takes no time at all.
The light travelling from the earth to you, on the other hand, needs years to hit you.
After all your imaginary spaceship is nearly as fast as light and you are already in space for a couple years.
The theory of Relativity describes what we see in RELATION to our viewpoint, or perspective.
Now I have to explain Time Dilation:
Light rays are pretty much everywhere, moving in every direction. Lets assume that it is too dark to see the earth from your viewpoint, but your twin has a spotlight brighter than the sun, which by the way doesn't make much sense. He also has an atomic clock and he turns his spotlight on for a second. Then he turns it off.
10 s later he turns it on again, but again just for 1 second.
Since light has a constant speed the 2nd light ray is always 10 seconds behind the other one.
Now after a couple years the first ray hits the spaceship's telescope and the eye of the astronaut.
10 seconds later the other ray hits ...
the place where the first ray hit the spaceship 10 seconds ago. But the spaceship is travelling at nearly the speed of light that means the 2nd ray hits the spaceship 10 seconds + x later than the first one. (x>0)

>>4868028

This.

At least problem-solving, and some basic logic. That should be considered important. Life would be so much better if everyone tried and used logic once in a while.

>>4868160
nope.

I was hanging out with friends at the place of somebody they knew. I thought it was going to be a party, but it ended up just being a handful of people drinking around a small fire pit (which was nice). A couple of the people there follow the recent hippy-ish movement, for lack of a better term, that supports local farmers and vegetarianism/veganism. Most were nice, "we all have our own beliefs and that's cool," kind of people. One guy was not. After telling the story of how he met a girl at an Occupy rally (not on Wall Street, but in a city near us that's known for cultivating local artists and farmer markets) and took her out camping to get in her - I assume hemp - pants, he threw some powder onto the fire.

The flames jumped and turned a vibrant green, staying that color for a while. I must admit, it was pretty cool. A girl asked him what that was, and he said something along the lines of, "I bought it for camping trips, it's just some chemical."

Then, as though he'd sad a terrible thing, he quickly followed up with, "Well, not really a chemical. It's all natural things."

It irks me how people nowadays treat "chemical" like a dirty word, but this took the cake. He refused to use the word chemical to describe something I found online listed as a fireworks chemical. Something perfect for use in a chemistry class demonstration.

>>4868175
dude, all "chemical" means is something used in or relating to chemistry. He's not a chemist so its not really a chemical. There's really no true set of things which are in and of themselves "chemicals".

>>4868172
My explanation doesn't include everything about that theory and i forgot to explain what happens on the way back, but I don't see where I went wrong. Could someone explain?

>>4868175

A chemical is just any product an evil corporation dumps into a lake for a profit. So your friend was correct, the green flame was not due to a "chemical."

>>4868182
everywhere, honestly i'm tired right now and ain't gonna write more but you need to actually study the basics of what relativity is.

>>4868182
you don't actually account for gamma

>>4868182
You're assuming that light will take longer to get to you because your velocity is close to the speed of light, but that's not true; the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. The light reaches you at the same rate irrespective of your velocity.
Or something like that. I don't really know; I just graduated high school... From what I've read, though, I think this is why your explanation's faulty.

>>4868160
read
>>4868125

>be chiling with friend and his gf
>she asks if rabbits have brains
>mfw

>What sort of classes are you taking next semester?
>I'm taking algebra, photonics.
>Photonics, that has something to do with photography?

That guy actually was a physics major for a year. He is cool though.

>talking to people
>telling them what you're doing
>2012

>ITT: high school children circle jerking over their newly acquired AP physics knowledge.

Fucking children.

>be math major
>have lengthy discussion about relativity, logic and causality with physics friend
>at some point say there are no universal truths lolol
>friends gf goes "isnt god the only universal truth?"
>i couldnt walk away fast enough

>someone says stupid statement like 2+2 = 5
>after a while someone else says, "Maybe it's true and everyone else is actually stupid!"
>as the only math major nearby try not to say anything

Not sure which is worse: People who think that some things are always true in math, or people who think that everything is true "if we want it to be."

>retarded friend says 0.999... equals 1
>I ask him for a proof
>he comes up with a failed attempt full of errors
>I debunk his shit and show him proof that they aren't equal
>his answer: "that's just you're opinion"

>>4867279
He sounds like a standard med student.

>>4868239
Quit projecting.

>>4868356

That hurt to read

>>4868411
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

>>4868439
So you edited the wikipedia to put errors in there? You shouldn't do this.

>>4868356
What was your physics friend's reaction?

>>4868406
this, also
>people quoting Einstein with "Imagination is more important than knowledge" and saying random stupid shit

>>4868454
His initial reaction was "she didn't really mean that, shes not religious", shit like that, but the denial eventually faded (thank god she was so stupid to begin with). He's also a militant atheist so it made it even funnier, like when he gets drunk he'll aggressively argue with complete strangers about the non-existence of god and make an ass out of himself.

>be bio major
>arguing with someone that life is basically just complex chemical reactions
>he thinks there is a mysterious life force holding it all together
>start citing various papers about the minimal genome, how all basic cellular life processes are understood (DNA replication, protein creation, cell division, etc), even though a few related genes and molecules aren't entirely understood
>argument rages on, other person getting in cheap shots about 'how little we know'
>cite papers on people intending to create 'artificial life' by writing up a tiny genome and inserting it into an empty plasma membrane (this was before craig venter did exactly this).
>other person loudly proclaims this impossible, tells me that if we could create life, everyone would be doing it
>be confused. it's just a few really expensive cells
>he informs me that if we could create life like I say, people would be using it to come back from the dead

>from this enormously stupid statement, realize that he hadn't understood anything I'd been saying about cells, DNA replication, etc for the past hour
>can't convince him that life is molecular processes, because he probably doesn't know what a molecular process is

>>4867464
You broke through and came out the other side. Be thankful to Science for that, at least.

>>4868484
>how little we know
You need to call them out on their argument from ignorance fallacy else they will be able to get away with anything.

>>4868484
Wouldn't it be amazing if we are all retarded and all the "stupid people" are just playing jokes on us?

>>4868420

>implying what I said is not 100% true

Kids these days...

>>4867464
It was more likely the result of social pressure. It's hard not to believe in things when everyone around you dose. That is what the skeptical mindset is for.

>go to /sci/
>even people who are presumably working in a scientific field use words like "proof" in a non-colloquial context
>the same people seem to think "science" is a stamp of approval (only credited to their favourite fields of study) instead of a method that can be applied to pretty much anything

>learning about the model of the atom in chemistry class
>"So, the tiny things called electrons orbit around a small, massive nucleus"
>"In comparison, if the nucleus was a basketball, the electrons would be grains of sand orbitting a kilometer or more away"
>"So ultimately, most of the atom is empty space"
>Guy says to me after class "I don't get it, whats in the empty space, I'm guessing it's air, or whatever is around right?"

>>4868545
empty space? there is no such thing as empty space, only regions of low probability density.

People insist 16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1=5 and call everyone else morons.

>>4868559

16/2[8-3(4-2)]+1
8[8-3(4-2)]+1
64-3(4-2)]+1
61(4-2)]+1
264-2)]+1
262)]+1
263

The answer is 263.

>>4868560

Lolollolollol!!!!!1111one

>>4868411
Uhh. No. Your friend was right. You are completely wrong.

>>4868566
Hey faggot, I disproved his proof and showed him a real proof.
1/10 for making me reply.

>>4868566

trolledsoftly.png

>>4868533
>people seem to think "science" is a stamp of approval (only credited to their favourite fields of study)

>go to /sci/
>/sci/ rightfully hate when laymen speak about their field, saying stuff like "can you even do anything with all that math you're learning" or "evolution is just a theory"
>they do the same thing to the fields in which they are laymen, like met/climatology, psychology and economics
maybe it's because the people actually in charge of economic policy are uneducated politicians and there are lots of bullshit people in psychology who still think freud is relevant, but still, I'd expect people on this board to know the difference

>"I'm a computer science major"
>"omg so you can liek, hack?"
Every time.

>>4868578
What else do you think evolution is, if you don't consider it a scientific theory?

>>4868411
serious question. how come .999...= 1 but ∞ * 0 is undefined?
>>4868579
>being a comp sci major
>not being able to hack
shiggy diggy

>>4868591
They are not equal and it is not undefined.

>family is together
>akward silence
>ask if they know how far the sun is from earth
>ons says it's some billion lightyears
>mfw
>i say it's about 150 million km
>silence
>another says the sun is good today
>all agree

>>4868595
>fucking deal with it

Is that what you consider a proof? Pathetic.

>>4868569
Hey Faggot. No you didn't. Because you can't show a correct proof of something that isn't true. 0.99999...=1 fucking deal with it.

>>4868592
they are and it is though.

>>4868582
maybe read that again, pay extra attention to the words "laymen" and "just"

>>4868594
faggot

>>4868604
The word "just" is redundant and the word "laymen" is irrelevant when what they say is correct.

>>4868600
Nope. Learn some math.

>>4868596
this thread isn't for proofs. You wanna argue it, go somewhere else.

>>4868610
not even him, but you are seriously retarded.
>>4868611
yep, finish highschool

>>4868617
Why am I retarded for knowing how to read? You make no sense.

>>4868626
clearly you don't. he wasn't saying evolution is just a theory, he was saying /sci/ hates it when a layman says that and was addressing their hypocrisy in similar fields. you sir, are an idiot.

>>4868637
He said /sci/ "rightfully" hates it. That means he hates it. He hates it when someone correctly states that evolution is a scientific theory. Are you by any chance a creationist?

>>4868411
What a stupid faggot. Observe math, babby:

9\bigsigma_{n=0 to \inf} 10^{-n}=.999999

|9/10|<1 so convergent geo series

therefore 9/10/(1-1/10)=1
QED
Here's my face palm story:

>be on /sci/, look through facepalm thread
>biofag unfairly ridicules good natured intelligent friend for correct idea
>lels facepalms in his story
>correct biogfag with math
>facepalm

Not really ignorance, per se, but it seems like my mom just learned the word "relatively" a few days ago, as she's been using it constantly ever since.
>You hungry?
relatively
>That was a great movie
Yeah, it was relatively funny
>Her shocks are broken, but the car is driving smoothly.
See, the road is relatively smooth here so you can't feel the shocks.
>Really hot day. "Phew it's hot"
relatively--I mean, compared to yesterday yeah.

It's non stop

>>4868652
You are taking the limit. That only means in infinity we would get infinitely close. But 1 is never reached by the series. Try again.

>>4868652
C'mon man... It was an obvious troll.

>>4868646
are you trolling me or are you really this stupid? if it's the first then 1/10 because being a retard =/= trolling. he said /sci/ rightfully hates it when the average person says "just a theory" because the connotation of "theory" is different in laymen than with scientist. the key is "just". the average person does not understand the difference between a scientific theory and some random theory you come up with. jesus fucking christ.

>>4868656
>freshman math thinks understands limits
Lrn2calculus and I should, too. Summation index should start at 1

>>4868667
>the difference between a scientific theory and some random theory you come up with
There is not much of a difference.

>jesus fucking christ.
So you are in fact religious? I knew it. How else could you deny the validity of evolution?

>>4868672
There is no natural number n for which the series will equal 1. Where the limit goes in infinity only tells us that we can come infinitely close, not that they are equal.

>>4868677
>There is not much of a difference.
a scientific theory is a heavily tested hypothesis that models something better than any other competing hypothesis. the everyday connatative meaning of the word is "a guess".
>So you are in fact religious? I knew it. How else could you deny the validity of evolution?
you were doing it so subtly until then. good job but like i said, being a retard =/= trolling. i'm done.

>neighbour aks me what my major is
>I tell him it's physics
>He replies "Oh that's about forests and stuff, right?"
>I politely smile and nod

If you don't speak dutch, the above conversation might seem a bit insane, so I'll elaborate. The dutch word for physics contains the word "natuur", which translates to nature in English. /elaboration

>>4868680
all right, my jimmies are rustled. 8/10 for fagget trolling. The sum is arbitrarily close you twating idiot. lrn2arbitrary. Seriously, take a class in analysis before you think your faggot C in calc I makes you an expert, biofag. If you don't understand epsilon/delta proofs, the definition of the limit of a sequence, etc. leave

>>4868690
Way to give up. Well it was a bad idea of you to troll against science. You were so easy to defeat.

>>4868695
Hey, you retard. That's what I told you multiple times. The sum gets arbitrarily close, but it never reaches the limit. Have YOU never taken analysis? And btw this only needs an epsilon and no delta. Do you even math?

>>4868706
you seriously think that the sum of a geometric series is not a true equality? I can't tell if you're trolling or what, or simply don't understand what it means for the sequence of partial sums to converge in a series, or what. As for "only needs an epsilon" you gotta try harder than that faghole, clearly I was refering to general techniques. Even still, if I had to involve both a delta and an epsilon just to show what a mouth breathing biofag you are, that could be easily done by invoking the sequence definition of continuity. Suck my dick.

>>4868706
show me how you could topologically distinguish the point "one" on the real line from the sum of this series. Come one, math in front of us if you're so bad ass.

inb4totallyimpossible

I know that, faggot.

>>4868723
The convergence of a series has nothing to do with continuity. I see you haven't taken an analysis class yet. I'd recommend you do it before spouting unmathy gibberish. Once again: A limit only means where you would hypothetically get in infinity. No member of the sequence actually reaches the limit.

>>4867821

>little cousin

What age? Don't blame him/her man, we all said retarded things when we were young.

>>4868729
you're just totally trolling me. this is all my fault. Munkres Toplogy page 130 you debased animal bioscum.

>>4868727
That's not the point. We are talking about his misunderstanding of limits.

>>4868737
I do not possess this book, but for sure you are just too stupid to understand it. Please tell me for which natural number n the partial sum equals 1.

watch me, i'm about to do math

1/9=.111...
.999...=.111....*9
1/9*9=1
QED .999...=1

>>4868741
0/10

>>4868729
continuity
>>4868723
use SEQUENCE of partial sums you bath salt eating pleb to involve both epsilon and delta. lrn2evenmildlyread

>>4868743
0/10=x
10x=0
x=0

that one wasn't even hard though, you should probably leave if you didn't know that one.

>>4868745
I geuss you're still in highschool, saw an analysis text that you didn't fully comprehend, and now you think of yourself as a great mathematician. Seriously, learn your shit. You got it entirely wrong. Well for amusement I'd like you to show me where you think you need continuity in finding the limit of a sequence.

>>4868740
I wrote you the fucking proof you mindless animal. I can't do this anymore, you win. You're like a Christian fundamentalist or something. I wrote the fucking proof-publically, in front of all-and you're attacking this on the grounds that you do not understand how to sum a geometric series. I hate you.

>>4868764
Where did you write a proof? You just regurgitated what the limit of a geometric series is. Like a biologist you learned it by heart without understanding what it means to take a limit. Please, please take an analysis course.

>>4868752
Munkres page 130 and your reading comphrension is so bad you cannot understand I was rebuffing his point that "only an epsilon is needed to show the sum of a geometric series is arbitrarily close to 1," not saying that one needs continuity to find the limit of a sequence. I know I'm being trolled, I know it, but you're all just pissing me off to epic proportions for even being stupid enough to troll this way. His mistake was saying that continuity and the convergence of a sequence have nothing to do with each other. Munkres shows on 130 they are indeed equivalent in a metrizable space, which R most certainly is.

>>4868773
Now a calculation cannot furnish a proof of a numerical fact. Fuck me, I'm trapped in hell.

ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

>>4868779
You still don't need a delta to prove the limit of a sequence. An epsilon is enough. And continuity is irrelevant here.

>>4868789
>numerical fact
So we're just mindlessly repeating assertions now? What's next? An argument from authority?

>>4867464
>I actually believed in paranormal shit in highschool

>>4868807
If you read the rest of the thread, you'd know that he didn't.

>>4868801
.9999=1 is a fucking fact?!!! how else would you describe that, Shakespeare? It's not mindless to say something that is true. FURTHER FUCKING MORE it IS true that only ONE greek letter or any other symbol one wishes to represent an arbitrarily small quanity is needed to write a standard proof showing the convergence of a sequence. HOWEVER HE QUESTIONED mention of a general technique and just to shove it up his ass I explained I could still get away using TWO greek letters! Holy mother of fucking God. Jimmies completely rustled. 10/10 you reprobate biofags.

>>4868815
I was saying I did, to show that he wasn't the only one who had stupid beliefs when they were younger.

>>4868816
You could use as many redundant greek letters as you want, but that's not how it's commonly done. If you ever read and understood at least an introductory text to analysis, you'd know that the standard is to use only an epsilon. Also your first sentence is wrong. It is not a fact and it has been proven ITT that it's incorrect.

I just think of .99999...=1 based on the density of |R...

Like, I think there's an axiom or something saying that if a,b are numbers, and there is no c such that a<c<b, then a=b. Let a=.99999... and b=1, there's no c such that a<c<b..

So a=b

I'm not claiming to be an expert, just an econ undergrad here. But is there something fundamentally wrong with my thinking?

>>4868834
That's not even what I'm saying there. I know you know that, but I'm still raging. Masterful troll. 10/10

>>4868849

Another way of saying the same thing...

let a=.999... and b=1

b-a=0.000000000000000.......

So would people argue that 0.0000000000 != 0 as well?

I know it's not very formal. But chyea.

>>4868849
You rephrased the problem. It's totally not like this has been done before. /sarcasm

>>4868861

Oh you guys are arguing about wether tho geo series proof is rigorous enough, not just wether .999...=1 or not?

I see I see.

I'm not huge on the geo series proof either actually, since it is a limit. Even though I have seen it in a few textbooks.

>>4868849
You're just quoting the fact that the real are complete, but that's not really the issue. The trolls are trying to pretend that there is a meaningful difference between the limit of the sequence s_m=9\bigsum_{n=1 to m} as m --> \infinity and the number 1. Of course they are topologically indentical because the limit of that sequence is arbitrarily close to 1, so that is the sense in which they are indentical. But the troll point is that no element in the sequence is itself labelled as 1, so therefore the the limit (i.e. the sum of the series) cannot itself actually be one. This is naturally absurd since that would imply the geo series has no sum and this formula goes back to Newton, but I guess feigning ignorance is the art of a troll.

>>4868849
>But is there something fundamentally wrong with my thinking?
yes, you simply proved that a and b are directly next to each other. to make the mistake clearer, narrow your set to the natural numbers. there is no number c that is 1<c<2. does this make them equal?

>>4868875
That's not what I said at all. The limit exists and is 1, but that's irrelevant because the limit isn't reached by any member of the sequence.

>>4868873
ITT: Freshmen discover limits "aren't good enough" for mathematics and proofs. I wonder if anyone outside of 4chan wouldn't just kill you guys with fire for your bullshit.

I remember when I used to constantly refute and refused to believe that .999...=1 on message boards when I was in high school. Then I became a math major and actually understood infinity better. Now that I've taken a year-long graduate sequence in analysis, I look back on those days and realize how naive I was.

>>4868875
what is the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0? now what is the actual value of 1/0.

>>4868877

Density bro, density. DENSE.

If they're right next to each other, they're the same. On |R.

Alright so hmmm... I think I see what you're saying.

if .999...=1, then that means that .9999<span class="math">\in |N[/spoiler]

But that seems like something that would need to be proved. Intadesting.

>>4868061

>It breaks my sense of symmetry. Why did the people in the rocket age less than the people on earth? How isn't it that, from the point of view of the rocket, the earth travelled at close to relativistic speed and as a consequence everybody on earth aged less?

The earth didn't accelerate, the rocket did. Accelerating complicates things. Special relativity (what you have an extremely shallow laymans understanding of) only describes inertial reference frames which are those travelling at a constant velocity (with respect to each other). Once the rocket accelerates to turn around and come back to earth, during the acceleration it is a non-inertial reference frame, and you need General Relativity (alot more complicated) to figure out what happens. Turns out yes, they do age less than the people on Earth when you do the General Relativity analysis.

>Or let's simplify and just have two rockets fly off in opposite directions and come back to the same spot, both travelling the same distance with the same acceleration. Will they both have clocked the same round-trip time?

Yes

>If yes, why do things change when only one rocket accelerates and the other doesn't?

The one that doesn't stays in an inertial reference frame for the duration of the experiment, the other doesn't.

When people say bullshit like this and 'question' accepted theories. It's always because they don't understand the theory properly. I've never heard someone 'refuting' evolution that had an actual understanding of it, they always make some basic error. If you actually knew what special relativity was you'd see it specifically states it is only applicable to inertial reference frames. That's how it's derived. You can't apply it to a rocket that turns around and comes home it's not that simple.

>>4868883
apparently nothing now since /sci/ has just refuted the work of Newton and thousands of mathematicians since his time. But if you're some autist math sperg then you might answer \infinity or the point at infinity in RP^1 (i.e. the north pole of a circle).
>>4868884
>conceptual difficulty with limits
it does not matter that no member of the list-ie sequence-is one. The convergent value of the sequence is 1 which is by definition the sum of the series. holy shit I'm still mad at this.

>>4868884
>what is the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0?
doesn't exist
>now what is the actual value of 1/0
doesn't exist

next?

(by the way, when we say that the limit of something is "infinity", that doesn't mean the limit exists. The limit DOES NOT exist, but we give a special name to distinguish from other types of nonexistent limits, such as alternating ones.)

>>4868886

I have not taken set theory, and I do not know if this is covered in set theory...

But....

Is there a way to prove that .9999... is a member of |N?

That shouuuulddd shut everyone up forever. No?

>>4868914
if limits are so equal to their limit how come nothing is ever equal to the speed of light? it is the limit, and you can get super close but you never reach it. god.
>>4868916
all trolling aside, you are a fucking moron.

You don't even need a rigorous proof to see 0.999... = 1.

You can form recurring decimals by dividing by 9.

1/9 = 0.111...
2/9 = 0.222...
3/9 = 1/3 = 0.333...

12/99 = 0.121212...
425/999 = 0.425 425 425...

Go ahead and grab a calculator and check for yourselves.

Now, what if I want 0.999...?

9/9 = 0.999...
But wait, simple fractions, x/x = 1 (or put it in your calculator if you failed HS algebra) says
9/9 = 1
=> 9/9 = 0.999... = 1

>>4868919

Alright so everything in the universe is either a natural number or NOT a natural number. (including my left testicle, which is not a natural number)

so .999...... is either a natural number or not.

Which is it?

>>4868933
you are assuming 9/9 = .99999

>>4868933
the only rigorous proof that .999 repeating is equal to 1 is from the construction of the real number line. Most /sci/tards cannot into real analysis.

>>4868945
its not an assumption, its called addition
.111111111...
+.88888888...
=.99999999....

>>4868933

Thanks man i've never seen that before. R u pHD?

Thsi man is genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, a big misunderstanding with the .999... = 1 problem is that people are INTUITIVELY interpreting the symbol ".999...." Yes, in some sense, that means a decimal followed by "infinitely many 9s", but the fact is that the symbol is really just another way of writing the well known geometric series, and this series happens to converge to (equal) 1. This is just like any other series, when we write that the sum of a series equals a number.

I don't know why someone is arguing about the fact that some limit is never actually hitting 1, that it's just a limit. The limit is BUILT IN to the symbol .999.... When you write that symbol, the limit is already in there, and the limit of the series is 1.

>>4868951
>>4868945

>You don't even need a rigorous proof to see 0.999... = 1.

I even put that qualifier in there, it's not a rigorous proof.

Whatever idiot is still arguing obviously isn't listening to the mathematical proofs so I just threw this intuitive thought in there.

>>4868929
do you think the limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 exists?

>>4868962
>intuitive thought

>>>/lit/
>>>/x/

>>4868960
multipliation =/= inverse of division. try it with 0 and you can get a similar error. .999.... is an ambiguous never ending process., not really a number. 0 * ∞ is undefined for the same reason.

>>4868958

I think it's the idea that we cannot genuinely comprehend what infinity is. (finite brains => impossible to comprehend infinite things)

Like "it never actually gets there" is not necessarily true.

Infinity is so humungous big. Too big to even describe. I mean, I could say there are G# 9's and that's a FUCKING IMPOSSIBLY HUGE amount of 9's. But it's still an unmeasurably small number when compared to infinity, as are all finite numbers.

Yeah.... Iuno.

>>4868978
so by your (*cough* insane *cough*) definition, then pi isn't a number, the square root of two isn't a number, etc. Because they're really a "never-ending process".

>>4868965
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim+1%2Fx+as+x-%3E0

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lim+1%2Fx+as+x-%3Einfinity

>implying you are smarter than professor wolfram
just get out
>>4868943
sigh..im done with /mu/ today. i thought you idiots would know basic math.

>>4868978
Except, multiplication IS the inverse of division for the group of units in R, which is every number other than 0. Come back when you know even the basics of mathematics.

>>4869005
sorry, meant with /sci/. but you guys are just are retarded.

>>4868960

No. You are not qualified to use that until you've already proven that .9999..=1, is what they're getting at. And I completely agree.

Go ahead and show that to 6th graders, but we're trying to discuss limits and shit.

>>4868972

Fight fire with fire.

The problem with skeptical laymen is that they try to understand science or maths intuitively with their limited layman's popsci understanding.

Like the guy who thought he knew better than Einstein because "symmetry", when actually if he read even a first year undergraduate textbook, he'd know why he was wrong/.

>>4869005
What is meant by a limit existing is that it is a FINITE, real number. The limit of 1/x as x->0 DOES NOT EXIST. We call it "infinity" based on its behavior. The limit of 1/x as x->infinity does exist, it's 0.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function#Definitions

>>4869005

2/10 if trolling, kill yourself if not.

People in my family talking about the sun and moon. My Grandma says "Aren't the sun and the moon one in the same?"

>>4869178
Can you prove they are not?

some daring individual needs to make .9999... worth of money into a troll science comic for the faggots here that don't seem to understand .9999... is a label for the convergent sequence of partial sums of the geo series given above.

>>4869224
I used to have an image that proved it 4 different ways, but I can't seem to find it.

>>4869182
>burden of proof + proving a negative

And thus another fun /sci/ thread is derailed by trolls pretending not to believe 0.999999... is 1.

You guys should really be used to this by now. Just don't respond to these.

>>4869182
Look up at the sky, and see the moon and the sun both out at the same time in different positions.

>>4869272
>implying seeing is proof
i can see myself in the mirror, does that mean there are 2 of me?

You guys are so funny. If I have .9999 of a pie, I don't have a whole pie. Swap for fractions as you will, you won't have all the pie. Sometimes it takes real world applications to discover that your little "loophole" in reasoning will not stand up.

these threads had me sighing like never before

>>>/x/10483249
>>>/x/10484148

>>4869279

>>4869286
>thinking you can actually prove something mathematical through physical world

Bahahaha

>>4869297

>mfw those threads

The problem the fucking retards who say .999 repeating doesn't equal 1 is that they try to treat infinity as an actual variable. its not an arbitrarily small number, its INFINITELY SMALL. Holy shit, I really hope they're trolling.

>>4869322
lel, you can't into hyperreals.

>>4869286
Tell me then. Exactly what portion of the pie DON'T you have? Oh. There's no number to describe it? And if the difference between 1 and 0.99999.... doesn't exist? Then they're the same

>>4869279
When you see yourself in a mirror it only does any movement that you do, and only looks exactly like you. Unlike seeing a sun and a moon, one closer than the other, in two positions that don't mimic each other's movements and with looks that don't look like, and properties (such as being blinded by looking up at it) that aren't the same as, each other at all.

>Read facebook comment of creationist christian who thinks evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it hasn't been proven because it's a "theory".

What the fuck do you think creationism is anyway? Fact?

>>4869349
all that proves is that you can tell it is not the same if you are the one in the mirror. an outside observer would have no idea which one was which. the sun looks exactly like the moon, except that is is brighter. it could be possible that one image is simply being distorted at one time or the other by fog or such. it is rare to see them together too, you could just think it is the same object turning on and off.

>>4867448
just for the sake of knowing? what's the problem with the picture? I usually don't get my sources of information from pictures with a bunch of text without any sources but I just want to know.

No one is ever less intelligent than someone who trolls.

Trolling is low and stupid. Don't ever do it.
Never let them assume they are clever for trolling.

>>4869414
0/10

>>4869369
Right, the same object turning off and on and then traveling to the opposite side of the sky and then back again, all so fast you can't see it. It's actually not that rare for them to be out at the same time. I've seen them both out over and over again many times. And we're not talking about outside observers, in all of my "proofs" it's about the person's personal experience being repeated by others to make sure it's consistent. An elementary form of logical reasoning. Yes, there are other possibilities, no shit. But I provided much more proof and logical reasoning than someone who assumes the moon is one and the same, JUST based off of personal experiences that multiple people have shared.

>>4869427
>Right, the same object turning off and on and then traveling to the opposite side of the sky and then back again, all so fast you can't see it.
i didn't say that. there could be some sort of reflection system that makes them appear as two different objects at once. the reflection of is object is allowed to be dimmer than the object itself.
> But I provided much more proof and logical reasoning than someone who assumes the moon is one and the same
the moon is one and the same..i assume you meant the sun and the moon. it's not about convincing one person to believe the you, the OP asked you to prove it. even without any reasoning, if someone sees an object in two different places they assume they are different. You were asked to prove it, not say "we'll its the most likely option".

For the idiots insisting that 0.999... =/= 1

>>4869453
Wrong picture?

>>4869446
You can't ever prove something with 100% certainty, meaning, "well, it's the most likely option because reasons X, Y, and Z" is the definition of prove. To demontrate the truth of something to the best of your ability via "most likelies".

Again, if it were a relection system the two objects would still be symetrical, following the same kind of movements, which they don't. Sometimes the moon is right next to the sun, sometimes the moon is mixed with the sun, sometimes the moon is completely away from it. Even if it were a changing relection system, it would evetually follow a certain pattern, such as when the sun is in this general direction, the moon should be in this general direction. This doesn't happen.

>good thread
>ruined by people falling for trolls

I swear half of the people here are on the internet for the first time. Ignore them.

Trying to bring back the original thread:
>Be a math major
>Tell someone that Analysis is a branch of mathematics
>"Uhh 'analysis' can be done in any subject like literary analysis, etc."
>Thank them for correcting me

>>4869532
>You can't ever prove something with 100% certainty
of course not, i think that was the point of the original post. he obviously wasn't skeptical that the moon and sun are not the same object, he just wanted to annoy you by asking you to prove a negative. you tried anyway.
> if it were a relection system the two objects would still be symetrical, following the same kind of movements
say the reflection system was some serious of giant mirrors. if they reflected the sun at an angle, the sun could stand perfectly still but the moon could continue if you changed kept changing the angle of reflection. if the sun was moving, the moon could remain in the same place as long as the reflection system moved along with the sun.

>>4869532
>You can't ever prove something with 100% certainty
of course not, i think that was the point of the original post. he obviously wasn't skeptical that the moon and sun are not the same object, he just wanted to annoy you by asking you to prove a negative. you tried anyway.
> if it were a relection system the two objects would still be symetrical, following the same kind of movements
say the reflection system was some series of giant mirrors. if they reflected the sun at an angle, the sun could stand perfectly still but the moon could continue if you changed kept changing the angle of reflection. if the sun was moving, the moon could remain in the same place as long as the reflection system moved along with the sun.

>>4869601
Again, though. I wasn't asked to definitevly prove 100%. If I was, then I wouldn't have tried. I did, however, prove it regarding the evidence I had, from the point of view of an average human being with no access to higher level tech. Me not being able to 100% prove something wrong wasn't the point of his post, or if it was it was a nonsensical point, because my post had nothing to do with 100% certainty. I really don't see how you can find any justification in defending anything that person said without forsaking logic, but ok.

See how many Ad hocs you had to do? Goes to show you that you're just trying to make a theory make sense, even though the facts don't fit with it. You can do it with anything that's proved, it's just the more it's proved, the more you have to ad hoc.

Point being, I proved it with what little evidence my view point had, since that is what I was asked to do. I'm in the logically superior position.

>>4869697
>Again, though. I wasn't asked to definitevly prove 100%. If I was, then I wouldn't have tried. I did
why do you assume your actions have any effect on the intentions of others? you were asked to prove it, not make it look possible. it's already possible, you have to prove it to an imaginary skeptic.
>Me not being able to 100% prove something wrong wasn't the point of his post, or if it was it was a nonsensical point
the point of it was to annoy you, i feel, by asking you to do something extremely difficult. I don't doubt it was "100%" thing, considering it was a troll..
>See how many Ad hocs you had to do?
ad hoc implies i had a specific theory i needed to fit. all i did was offer counterexamples to why the "proof" you gave doesn't necessarily imply what you said it did.
>I proved it with what little evidence my view point had
how did you prove it? i offer alternative explanations for everything you said.
> I'm in the logically superior position
we'll of course you are. one side is that the sun and the moon are different, the other is that they are they same. you are hardly being asked to prove p=np. i was criticizing your arguing methods, not your position.

I had a high school math teacher who claimed 1=0. He divided by zero to reach that conclusion...

>>4869804
I think that's just a joke high school math teachers like to do. Those jokes aren't very funny.

>>4867471
I've had two professors tell me that they doubted relativity up until gradschool- not that they couldn't use it, but that they thought it couldn't be *really* real in the same way aristotle's physics obviously couldn't be. I've also had a math professor tell me about how long it took him to believe that essentially all mathematics was describable in terms of sets/set operations. Smart people are no less likely to be off put by these ideas that fly directly in the face of our intuitions.

>>4868406
>math major
>thinks you can't make anything true if you want it to be.

Someone hasn't started axiomized proof systems yet

>>4869966
>I just got back from my set theory class and now I can do anything! xD

Come back when you can create a field of 6 elements using the standard field axioms.

>hint: Some things just aren't possible.

>dat feel when people don't ask me shit
It's okay, because I don't know the answer.

>Mfw I'm a math major and people always ask me questions like "what's 56 cents plus $74.20?"

>Mfw I absent-mindedly told my mom that 11/8 was five dollars a few days ago and I got laughed at for a full 30 seconds.

>>4870005
11/8 = 1.375

That's nowhere close to $5. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, perhaps the laughing was justified?

>>4869987
Ignoring the pissing contest over qualifications- the point is that you can freely choose any set of consistent axioms. Obviously some aren't useful, it was a joke.

>>4869822

Think of what it would be like to teach pre-algebra all day to a bunch of extremely uninterested 14-year-olds.

Any bit of humor helps those poor souls get through their days, even if it's Carrot Top tier.

>>4870016

Yeah I wasn't thinking when I said it. I laughed too.

>>4867255
I'm a bio major and i took linear algebra because basically this

>explain zeno's paradox about achilles and tortoise to mother
>ask her how she thinks it can be resolved
>"well i guess he can't outrun the tortoise then"
>all of my wat

>>4870070
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wow. That's great. You could, in principle, convince her of ANYTHING.

>>4869791
I never said my actions affect the intention of others. He literally DIDN'T ask me to 100% prove it. It's his fault for the miscommunication, not mine. You gave counter examples for why it doesn't 100% imply what I said, but you still had to posit alternative explainations. But the more evidence I gave, the more complex your explaination became. That's an ad hoc.

"How did you prove it, blah blah blah blah ridiculously complex ad hocs somehow disproved it"

Again, prove here is not 100% proven. It's coming to the best explanation given the experiments that you CAN do.

Everything I said, implies either they are two different objects, or it's a complex reflection based on space mirrors, that only reflect the one object and never refelect any other objects, and somehow goes over the entire world and changes randomly with during the day and night. Or whatever other batshit crazy ad hoc you can think up. From our perspective only, without any advanced tech, the logically superior position and the one that has the simpliest proof that doesn't ADD shit to it is: they aren't one in the same.

>>4870293
cont.

So when someone says "Hurr big bang is just a theory" you can say "Oh okay. Hubble's Law then."

>>4869356
That pisses me off. A theory in science is not "oh I have a theory"

Law = the observation (shit falls down)
Theory = the explanation (general relativity)

> You can't have something of length pi. If it had length pi it would be infinitely growing.

> I imagine infinity as a continuously growing number

> have girlfriend who's a biology major
> top of her class
> doesn't believe in evolution
> unironically calls me "infested by the Prince of Darkness" when I point out it's established fact
We'd dated for two years before this came up. No, not even American.

>>4870317
That... does not sound legit.

>>4870317
feel bad for you, anon. gotta dump her, you won't like where this is going once she gets really crazy. Nothing of value will be lost though, bio major

>>4870317
A bio major who lives in that much delusion is really, really bad news. At least most people have the excuse that they don't know the evidence.

Sorry anon.

>>4870427
You don't learn "evidence for evolution" in a normal biology curriculum, it is not useful.

>>4870441
>You don't learn "evidence for evolution" in a normal biology curriculum, it is not useful.

Yes, but at some point any biological field ends up with huge amounts of intrinsic evidence that can't be ignored.

For instance, I have not taken much beyond the basic classes on evolutionary biology. But I have studied microbiology and genomics.

In studying genomics, you run across analysis procedures for finding interesting traits by looking for a "selective sweep", a phenomena predicted by evolutionary theory that will allow you to do such weird things as find genes relating to hypoxia tolerance in Tibetans. The procedure wouldn't work if evolution wasn't true, but it works.

There are many branches of biology, but you can't understand ecology without accepting evolution. You can't understand microbiology (/parasitology/virology etc) without understanding evolution. You can't understand genomics or even molecular biology... etc.

I do grant that she's just a bio 'major', though. Maybe she just hasn't gotten enough perspective for it all to click, yet.

CDC SECRET #3: WE INVENT UNPROVABLE, UNTESTABLE STORIES ABOUT HOW MATTER CAME FROM THE PERIOD, WHICH CAME FROM NOTHING, MEANING MATTER CAME FROM NOTHING, WHICH WE DENY BECAUSE THEN WE'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE PERIOD, WHICH WAS NOTHING, SO WE JUST SAY THE PERIOD POPPED INTO EXISTENCE, AND WE DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THAT. GET IT? OH, AND WE ALSO CALL THE PERIOD A "SINGULARITY" BECAUSE THAT MAKES US SOUND SMART.

CDC SECRET #4: WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT STARTED SPINNING. IT JUST DID. THEREFORE WE HAVE INVENTED STORIES TO EXPLAIN IT.

CDC SECRET #9: THE ONLY THING REALLY EVOLVING IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ITSELF.

CDC SECRET #11: WE KNOW FOSSILS COULD NOT HAVE FORMED GRADUALLY, BUT WE'LL NEVER ADMIT IT.

etc etc.

lel

mfw this thred