[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 137 KB, 400x400, 1290551471425.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3761399 [Reply] [Original]

Lurkers of /sci/, talk to me. Tell me anything, lets chat.

>> No.3761406
File: 29 KB, 384x288, 1305006034599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

inb4 ban

>> No.3761403

Hi

>> No.3761419

Is it okay to post inane trolling garbage ITT?

>> No.3761470

I also train MMA. No joke. Many of the people at the gym study engineering or math.

>> No.3761499

>>3761470

I'm a 25 year old powerlifter

>> No.3761511

>biology
>a science

>> No.3761512

>>3761470
>mma
Why?

>> No.3761515

I love the idea of math but I'm terible at it and have no interest in following a career in engineering/physics
Is there any reason to continue taking math classes if I'll never need to apply the information I'll learn?

>> No.3761536

what makes people enjoy math?

>> No.3761540

>>3761536

Rational problem solving, defined absolutes, asburgers

>> No.3761542

>>3761536
Because it allows you to feel superior to idiots.

>> No.3761553

>>3761542
HOLY SHIT YOU JUST MADE ME LIKE MATH
>>3761536
im this guy

>> No.3761555

>>3761553
Can't tell if irony or honest remark.

>> No.3761556

I'd like to know if anyone here knows British Sign Language.

>> No.3761595

should we have morals that get in the way of science? Stem cell research is largely demonized and we could get better testing on how the brain works if we experimented on inmates sentenced for death row. Would you vote for such nihilistic practices and why?

>> No.3761644

>>3761595
>stem cell research
People don't understand what it actually is.
They think we're dissecting babies and grafting them or some shit.
There's a good documentary on what actually happens in stem cell research. It was on Netflix.
Can't remember the name. Terra something?

>> No.3761684

>Recall that, in relativity theory, material bodies cannot travel faster than light in the sense that their world-lines must always lie within the light cones (of. Fig. 5. 29). (In general relativity, particularly, we need to state things in this local way. The light cones are not arranged uniformly, so it would not be very meaningful to say whether the velocity of a very distant particle exceeds the speed of light here. ) The world-lines of photons lie along the light cones, but for no particle is it permitted that the world-line lie outside the cones. In fact, a more general statement must hold, namely that no signal is permitted to travel outside the light cone.

>> No.3761691

I'm so used to dumbing myself down because it's easier that I worry I won't ever be able to access my full intellect again.

>> No.3761697

>To appreciate why this should be so, consider our picture of Minkowski space (Fig. 5. 31). Let us suppose that some device has been constructed which can send a signal at a speed a little greater than that of light. Using this device, the observer W sends a signal from an event A on his world-line to a distant event B, which lies just beneath A's light cone. In Fig. 5. 3 la this is drawn from Was point of view, but in Fig. 5. 31b, this is redrawn from the point of view of a second observer U who moves rapidly away from W (from a point between A and B, say), and for whom the event B appears to have occurred earlier than A! (This 'redrawing' is a Poincare motion, as described above, p. 258.) From Was viewpoint, the simultaneous spaces of U seem to be 'ripped up', which is why the event B can seem to U to be earlier than A. Thus, to U, the signal transmitted by W would seem to be travelling backwards in time! This is not yet quite a contradiction. But by symmetry from U's point of view (by the special relativity principle), a third observer V, moving away from U in the opposite direction from W, armed with the identical device to that of W, could also send a signal just faster than light, from his (i. e. V's) viewpoint, back in the direction of U. This signal would also seem, to U, to be travelling backwards in time, now in the opposite spatial direction.

>> No.3761713

>>3761644
This greatly confuses me. Where did the popular opinion come from that stem cells come from aborted fetuses or...whatever. And during the 'great debate', why was the real procedure not explained?

>> No.3761714

>Indeed V could transmit this second signal back to W the moment (B) that he receives the original one sent by W. This signal reaches W at an event C which is earlier, in U's estimation, than the original emission event A (Fig. 5. 32). But worse than this, the event C is actually earlier than the emission event A on Was own world-line, so W actually experiences the event C to occur before he emits the signal at A! The message that the observer V sends back to W could, by prior arrangement with W, simply repeat the message he received at B. Thus, W receives, at an earlier time on his world- line, the very same message that he is to send out later! By separating the two observers to large enough distance, one can arrange that the amount by which the returning signal precedes the original signal is as great a time interval as we wish. Perhaps W's original message is that he has broken his leg. He could receive the returning message before the accident has occurred and then (presumably), by the action of his free will, take action to avoid it! Thus, super luminary signalling, together with Einstein's relativity principle leads to a blatant contradiction with our normal feelings of 'free will'. Actually, the matter is even more serious than this.

>> No.3761719

>>3761691
I know that feel bro.

Sometimes I feel like the internet is making me stupid.
Also getting older.

>> No.3761733

>>3761719
Well, I've very much been an underachiever all of my life, and it's simply easier to act slow, but I worry that I'm not developing the way I should, because I have less motivation to actually learn if I'm going to hide it. That's really why I started going to /sci/, to try to rebuild myself.

>> No.3761742

>>3761713
>Where did the popular opinion come from that stem cells come from aborted fetuses

Christian Fundamentalists and Republican Luddites, and also it was explained in full, over and over again, but people are stupid and usually believe the first lie told to them

You wanna win an argument with stupidity, you gotta land the first punch, or change the argument's frame to cartoon characters in a cartoon world. Arguments from Tooneworld characters ftw, always

>> No.3761746

>For we could imagine that perhaps 'observer W is merely a mechanical device, programmed to send out the message YES' if it receives "NO' and " NO' if it receives "YES'. Indeed, V may as well be a mechanical device too, but programmed to send back " NO' if it receives "NO' and " YES' if it receives "YES'. This leads to the same essential contradiction that we had before," seemingly independent now of the question of whether or not the observer W actually has 'free will', and tells us that a faster-than Fig 5. 32. If V is armed with a faster-than-light signalling device identical to that of W, but pointing in the opposite direction, it can be employed by W to send a message into his own
past!

>> No.3761747

>>3761713
Well because stem cells can be collected from aborted fetuses.
It's just not the bloody dehumanizing procedure people think.
You have a stem cell, then you insert a strand of some shit. And that's it. The End. The cell then reproduces.

>> No.3761748

Self-discipline is hard when you have to teach it yourself at 20 years old. I am doing the same thing I did last two years of college: not going to class and getting so behind on homework that the depression cripples me and I say "what's the point" and just stop. I continually escape to the internet. Even now. I didn't go to class last wednesday through friday, and this whole day I wasted even though I took my add med. I just masturbated and organized my porn, which is the same thing that happens every time I abuse my add meds.

Oh well, time to start calc I.

^ I posted all that in another topic. I still haven't started calc I.

>> No.3761772

>Let us accept, then, that any kind of signal not merely signals carried by ordinary physical particles must be constrained by the light cones. Actually the above argument uses special relativity, but in general relativity, the rules of the special theory do still hold locally. It is the local validity of special relativity that tells us that all signals are constrained by the light cones, so this should apply also in general relativity. We shall see how this affects the question of determinism in these theories. Recall that in the Newtonian (or Hamiltonian, etc. ) scheme, 'deternynism' means that initial data at one particular time completely fix the behaviour at all other times. If we take a space-time view in Newtonian theory, then the 'particular time' at which we specify data would be some three- dimensional 'slice' through the four-dimensional space-time (i. e. the whole of space at that one time). In relativity theory, there is no one global concept of 'time' which can be singled out for this. The usual procedure is to adopt a more flexible attitude. Anybody's 'time' will do. In special relativity, one can take some observer's simultaneous space on which to specify the initial data, in place of the 'slice' above. But in general relativity, the concept of a 'simultaneous space' is not very well denned. Instead one may use the more general notion of a space like surface. 26 Such a surface is depicted in Fig. 5. 33; it is characterized by the fact that it lies completely outside the light cone at each of its points so that locally it resembles a simultaneous space.

>> No.3761789

>>3761748
Strange, are you me? I haven't gone to class the past few days, but to be fair I work full time overnight and attend school. I missed two tests and now I'm simply too apathetic to consider making them up, and I believe I've missed the deadline anyway.

>> No.3761846

>>3761789

No, I am not you. But there are many like us.

My advice is to suck it up and talk to your teachers. Putting it off and living in that quiet desperation as you search for means to disctract yourself from what you know you should be doing is just terrible. I've done it. I'm doing it.

Start studying right now.

>> No.3761851

>>3761846
You're right, but I'd rather you weren't. Guess it's time to cram for a bit before work, and thank you.