[ 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: 80 KB, 700x486, 532964_463375513683465_562791690_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991724 No.4991724 [Reply] [Original]

Einstein in the center....
......................................like a boss.

>> No.4991727
File: 27 KB, 320x238, moray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991727

makes up cool equation
doesnt Bragg about it

>> No.4991731
File: 112 KB, 378x363, 1332739772103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991731

>>4991727

>> No.4991735

at least he wasn't bohr'ing

>> No.4991737

Schrodinger directly above Einstein = OWNED.

>> No.4991751
File: 505 KB, 1747x1476, curie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991751

OP's photo was doctored for the official press release.

Pic related. It's the original.

>> No.4991765
File: 274 KB, 3012x2268, 1337381592984.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991765

>>4991751

>> No.4991793

IF EINSTEIN WAS SO SMART HOW COME HE'S DEAD AND HIS BRAIN IS INSIDE A BOX? THAT'S NOT SMART TO ME.

>> No.4991796

>mfw Peter Debye looks a hell of a lot like a balding Hitler in this picture

>> No.4991804

>>4991751
Is Curie the only difference?

>> No.4991822

Clearly it is Dirac in the center.

>> No.4991824

>>4991793
Using gene therapy and advances in cellular biochemistry it is entirely feasible for us to correct defects due to ageing and achieve biological immortality within our lifetimes.

>> No.4991828

>>4991824
Bullshit. Immortality is a pipedream.

>> No.4991835

Why isn't Tesla in this picture?

>> No.4991842

>>4991835
10/10

Good rustler.

>> No.4991843

>>4991828
Why is that? Biological immortality is already apparent in many species such as lobster

>> No.4991846

>>4991843
Do we look like lobsters? And do you believe lobsters acquired this ability by doing scientific research?

>> No.4991847
File: 20 KB, 350x350, heisenberg1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4991847

>> No.4991853

>>4991847
Take this infantile shit somewhere else.

>> No.4991855

>>4991828
Flesh is not some mystical substance that cannot be tampered with. Proteins are nanomachines. We're naturally occuring "grey goo". All we have to do is figure out how to manipulate it, and we have made major advances already.

It will take decades of research and development but considering our progress with computing and various other fields it is entirely feasible.

>> No.4991857

>>4991855
Then come back when you figured it out. I highly doubt you ever will, because guessing from your posts you are an uneducated highschool failure.

> We're naturally occuring "grey goo"
Complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.4991859

>>4991853
daw shit, the smartest most sophisticated man on /sci/ is kicking me out of this thread

>> No.4991863

>>4991859
Damn straight. You got it.

>> No.4991865

>>4991846
Do you believe flight is a pipedream too?
After all, we look nothing like birds, and birds didn't do science to get where they are.
Surely, the only way for us to advance is through the gradual process of natural selection.
Idiot.

>> No.4991871

>>4991865
Obviously humans do not fly. All we can do is using the airplanes we built. We did not evolve wings.
You're on /sci/, bitch. Faulty analogies and strawmen are easily debunked.

>> No.4991872

>>4991855
This. +5 internets to you for also realizing that our body is compose of nanomachines.

Of course, if we manage to achieve this, we will still die from accidents, murders, lack of resources, wars, etc. Even if "immortality" were restricted to a few (ideally by merit but realistically it will be by wealth), we will eventually end up having to deal with overpopulation.

inb4 colonizing other planets

>> No.4991874

>>4991872
Keep dwelling in unrealistic dreams. Immortality is not going to happen.

>> No.4991877

>>4991871
Obviously humans do not survive cancer that would normally kill us, we just find ways using technology to avoid dying from it.
Obviously humans cannot dive to the bottom of the ocean, we can only submerse ourselves in powerful pressure-suits, and be lowered to those depths.
Obviously we cannot replace missing teeth, we can only substitute injured or missing teeth with prosthetics.
Obviously, you're an idiot for thinking something is impossible for us to do if we aren't born with the capabilities of doing it.

>> No.4991887

>>4991872
Birth rate decreases as standard of living goes up.
Ability to produce food/acre has not remained constant over time. We have continuously developed more and more efficient ways of making sure we get more food.
There's obviously a distinction that has to be made between "effective immortality" and "truly immortal" - with our current understanding of the universe, nothing is truly immortal.

>> No.4991886

>>4991877
So much stupidity in one post.

You probably also believe in FTL travel, aliens and time travel. Amirite?

>> No.4991890

I don't want biological immortality to ever be viable

>> No.4991891

▲
▲ ▲

>> No.4991892

>>4991886
>he doesn't think aliens exist!
>laughing Drake Equation.png

Or are you saying I'm wrong about existence of cancer treatments, depth-suits, and dentures?

>> No.4991898

>>4991892
Tell me what values you plug into the drake equation. The equation is meaningless as we have absolutely no evidence of existing alien life.

>> No.4991924

>>4991887
>Birth rate decreases as standard of living goes up.
You assume that socioeconomic conditions of the future will permit everyone to enjoy higher living standards. Admittedly, those that don't will probably not benefit from "immortality".

Nevertheless, someone living "forever" can be expected to produce offspring. If the birth rate remains above the mortality rate then there will be a problem, and the latter will obviously decrease in this scenario unless measures are taken to artificially augment it.

>Ability to produce food/acre has not remained constant over time. We have continuously developed more and more efficient ways of making sure we get more food.
Not all of those methods are sustainable. For example, the loss of biodiversity in food crops makes them susceptible to disasters that can wipe out staples of our diet with no readily available alternative.

Of course, by the time we can keep the human body running forever, we will probably be able to engineer crops as necessary.

Food is not the only limiting resource though.


>There's obviously a distinction that has to be made between "effective immortality" and "truly immortal" - with our current understanding of the universe, nothing is truly immortal.
Agreed.

>> No.4991928 [DELETED] 

>>4991857
It's not bullshit, you just haven't grasped the concept.

Let me break it down for you.

grey goo = self-replicating nano-machine
organic life = biological processes involving carbon-based molecules
Biological processes involve self-sustaining processes which often involve replication. A species is more likely to survive if it is capable of reproduction after all. A hydrogen atom is about 0.1 nanometers in diameter, so when we look at the proteins involved in carbon based life we are looking at molecules with dozens of atoms and essentially they are on the nanoscale.

So, unless you want to split hairs, for all intents and purposes organic life is a self-replicating nanomachine.

>> No.4991931

>>4991857
It's not bullshit, you just haven't grasped the concept.

Let me break it down for you.

grey goo = self-replicating nano-machine
organic life = biological processes involving carbon-based molecules
Biological processes involve self-sustaining processes which often involve replication. A species is more likely to survive if it is capable of reproduction after all. A hydrogen atom is about 0.1 nanometers in diameter, so when we look at the proteins involved in carbon based life we are looking at molecules with dozens of atoms and essentially they are on the nanoscale.

So, unless you want to split hairs, for all intents and purposes organic life is a self-replicating nanomachine.

>> No.4991934

>>4991872
I never said anything about making the entire population biologically immortal.

>> No.4991940 [DELETED] 

>>4991928
>grey goo = self-replicating nano-machine
See? We are not nano-machines. We are macroscopic organisms.

> organic life is a self-replicating nanomachine.
Reproduction =/= replication. We do not assimilate molecules of our environment to construct a replica of our body. Ergo we are not grey goo.

Your post reeks of teenage pseudo-intellectualism.

>> No.4991942

Compton and his goddamn mustache.

>> No.4991943

>>4991931
>grey goo = self-replicating nano-machine
See? We are not nano-machines. We are macroscopic organisms.

> organic life is a self-replicating nanomachine.
Reproduction =/= replication. We do not assimilate molecules of our environment to construct a replica of our body. Ergo we are not grey goo.

Your post reeks of teenage pseudo-intellectualism.

>> No.4991954

>>4991940
>We are macroscopic organisms.
No, we are composed of trillions of cells, each of them full of DNA and different proteins that operate on the nanoscale.
>We do not assimilate molecules of our environment to construct a replica of our body.
So where do pregnant women get the matter to transfer to their fetus?
>Your post reeks of teenage pseudo-intellectualism.
That's a subjective perspective, so it's irrelevant to the rational debate. However it is relevant because humans are not entirely rational and that's just something I will have to come to peace with. So, was it because I mentioned grey goo and nanomachines or some other reason?

>> No.4991961

>>4991872
Sorry I didn't say much in my last reply, nature called.

We will just have to take extreme care with our survival, not just crossing the street, our own security and preserving our position in society which I presume will be necessary to keep up with the needed medical treatments, but we will also need to take care of our own psychological state. We will need to be highly dedicated to this task and try to remain logical, competent and "worldly", so we don't become corrupt and deluded.

>> No.4991966

>>4991954
>>We are macroscopic organisms.
>No
Are you seriuosly saying we are not macroscopic organisms? That we (humans) are nanobots? 0/10, not even a highschooler is that stupid.

>So where do pregnant women get the matter to transfer to their fetus?
Are you saying that a fetus is an exact replica, an exact copy of the pregnant woman's body? How do you explain male children then? You're so full of shit, boy.

>So, was it because I mentioned grey goo and nanomachines or some other reason?
It is because what you posted is utterly retarded. I wouldn't even expect the most uneducated person I know to spout such horrible garbage.

>> No.4991969

>>4991954
I have screencapped this proof of your mental retardation and I'm gonna repost it every time I see you talking crap again.