/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5783735]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” -Albert Einstein

I'd like to start a new trend on /sci/.

Explain a science or math concept you feel familiar with as if you were explaining it to a six year old.

[Anonymous No.5783751]

>>5783735
How smart are 6 year-olds?

Geometry could have it's fundamentals (angles, parrallels) explained through use of pieces of wood, but even then it comes back to numbers eventually (180 degrees in a straight line, etc).

I suppose you could avoid trying to explain the numeric measure of angles, but then how much of geometry are you really able to explain?

[Anonymous No.5783753]

Raise it to a 10 or 12 year old at least. 6 year olds can barely multiply now.

[Anonymous No.5783756]

"Love is best when it's one-handed."
Albert Einstein

"Don't be afraid to eat the guacamole, it's made with tequilla."
Albert Einstein

[Anonymous No.5783771]

>>5783751
Angles are numeric, but proportions "aren't". Remember, degrees aren't proportional, radians are. Probably why people are so mathematically disinclined is they were never taught to refer to things by themselves and of their own properties, and once they get past that 12/13 age, they never develop that ability.

A comparison is like, I always had issues with words and speaking to people and trying to fit in, but after I started framing other people it got easier, and watching SICP, I instantly had a huge framework to base my models on, using lambdas and definitions, procedural philosophies, reactionary definitions, etc.

If you haven't watched/read it, the most enlightening parts I had:

Lambdas, the anonymous function. Something which goes and does without name. I liked this because I've always had trouble with words and framing things for people to understand, I used things without referring to some arbitrary identification.

Procedural philosophy: Something which goes and does to exist cannot be distinguished from something which was already "made" or "stored", except in the cases of processing differences, and if a theory of being permits such a distinction.

Reactionary definitions: One can define a thing such as a cat, which has properties, states, etc. Or one can define something which, upon interaction, forms what one can leave as-is or define to be a cat in abstraction. It's more of a merger of the two previous 'enlightenments', and is similar to "the thing in itself". When forming models and theories with a reaction-centric approach, instead of asking a question like "How can this person stop using drugs?" it's "What situations can arise that will stop the drug use from occurring in what appears to be a person?" Which is an approach with far more practicability and modelizable behavior.

[Anonymous No.5783773]

>>5783751
uh, the elements was written completely without numbers.
people were doing math long before they had numbers.

[Anonymous No.5783774]

>>5783753
Ok, 10 year old. Now, would you take away your nasty downv- er... sage? It's hurting my feelings

[Anonymous No.5783778]

I'd like to find a good explanation of that land yacht that can sail downwind faster than the wind. It was all over in the news stories, but I never saw any detailed explanation of it (the prop/wheel drive ratios, or the prop airfoil orientations). It doesn't make sense to me.

All of the videos I've seen (of the models, and of the big one) shows that it accellerates very very slowly. Whatever advantage it has must be rather small.

[Anonymous No.5783781]

>>5783773
>people were doing math long before they had numbers.

People who weren't six year-olds.

[Anonymous No.5783784]

>>5783756
Do you want a citation of the quote...?

[Anonymous No.5783785]

>>5783774
Sage does nothing to your thread and you have no cause to be offended by it.

[Anonymous No.5783789]

>>5783778
It might be related, I saw in Popular Science years back, giant kites that when flown in a figure-8 pattern, could generate ridiculous amounts of force on a metal ship by however alternating/harmonizing the motion captured more energy than a flat perpendicular sail.

[Anonymous No.5783810]

>>5783784
I don't trust your sources so I looked it up on wikiquote.

it isn't an Einstein quote.

>You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. variant: If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself.
variant: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Frequently attributed to Richard Feynman
Probably based on a similar quote about explaining physics to a "barmaid" by Ernest Rutherford
P. 418 of Einstein: His Life and Times by Ronald W. Clark says that Louis de Broglie did attribute a similar statement to Einstein: To de Broglie, Einstein revealed an instinctive reason for his inability to accept the purely statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. It was a reason which linked him with Rutherford, who used to state that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "
The de Broglie quote is from his 1962 book New Perspectives in Physics, p. 184.
Cf. this quote from David Hilbert's talk Mathematical Problems given in 1900 before the International Congress of Mathematicians:

"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."

[Anonymous No.5783815]

>>5783774
Here's an anti-sage. I tend to sage if my contribution isn't directly on topic.

[Anonymous No.5783816]

>>5783810
>"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."

This quote's loads better as it deals with the burden on science than the burden on yourself.

Because science should be developed so that the everyman can understand it and therefore use/appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.5783825]

Light is like the sound of an ambulance that passes near us. When its getting closer to us, it start to get brighter, but when its getting away from us, it brightness decreases. When light is too far away, it becomes invisible for anyone who can watch it

[Anonymous No.5783830]

>>5783816
true, but it's also not an Einstein quote.

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.5783832]

>>5783735
Hmm, sort of an everyman's guide to science, huh?

Sounds like something that would make a great, fun project for /sci/, OP


Gimme a couple minutes, I think I might have one I can put together.

[Anonymous No.5783833]

>>5783816
Keep in mind, these quotes are from people who hadn't fully embraced the idea of non-Newtonian physics. In Einstein's case, in particular, it was meant as a counter argument to something which every physicist agrees is true now.

Try this one instead: if a layman can understand it, you're probably not explaining it in correctly.

[Anonymous No.5783835]

>>5783816
You can explain something like operator algebras in quantum mechanics to someone on the street, but they aren't guaranteed to understand it.

Judging by the history of physics, very simple theories always turn out to be correct eventually. But "simple" doesn't mean that it's easy to learn, it just means that it's mathematically simple. Quantum mechanics is incredibly simple, but you still would have to spend years learning it and learning the mathematics (which takes longer to learn than the actual physics) before you get a good understanding of it since you can't relate it to anything you experience in your every day life.

[Anonymous No.5783837]

>>5783735

>Design an ASIC to mine bitcoins.

Aint no 6 year old going to ever do that so I guess nobody understands designing ASICs.

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.5783852]

>>5783832
>Spectroscopy
If you've ever seen a rainbow or seen light pass through a piece of glass, you know that light isn't made up of one color but lots of different colors mixed together. When we break apart light to look at all the colors that make it up, it's called a 'spectrum'.

If you put enough energy into a chemical - like running electricity through a gas or heating up a metal - it emits light, and different chemicals emit different colors of light.

If we look at the light from something like a star or a laser shining through a solution and break it into a spectrum - we can see bright lines that tell us what chemicals made the light, and dark lines that tell us what chemicals the light has passed through. Using this process to learn about what different things are made of is called 'spectroscopy'.

[Anonymous No.5783854]

>>5783835
As my physics teacher's notes go, Einstein only made TWO actual changes to classical mechanics in special relativity:

Laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames.

The speed of light is a constant.

Everything else, time-space dilation, space-time, gravity being a manifest of spacetime, energy-mass equivalence etc, follows.

http://faculty.genesee.edu/macrittenden/Phy133/notes5-8.pdf

[Anonymous No.5783861]

>>5783854
would he have discovered GR if he didn't first discover SR? assuming no one else did discover SR

[Anonymous No.5783867]

One of my profs introducing quasi-particles in babby solid state physics:

When you have a team of researchers who all have different particular knowledge and skills, and you ask them a tough question, the answer you get won't come from one person. Instead, the response will be a team effort, each one of them contributing a little bit.

In the same way, when you measure the way particles move in a solid object, you don't see the way real particles move, instead you see a combination of everything that's going on in the system. When you excite a system, its response will look like particles appear out of nowhere and start moving, but really it's just the collective response of the system.

[Anonymous No.5783873]

>>5783861
no, his success with SR is what let him quit his day job and do real physics, he never would have had the time to develop GR otherwise

[Anonymous No.5784231]

>>5783867
The difference between phase velocity and group velocity is really hard to grasp until you can explain it in terms of traffic jams moving backwards even if cars move forward.

[Anonymous No.5784241]

Feynman said "if I could explain my theory, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel."


Some things are just too complex to explain to a person not already steeped in it.

[Anonymous No.5784307]

>>5783810
"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said,
And the words to say it flow with ease."
Boileau (1636-1711), a french poet

[Anonymous No.5784336]

>>5783735
>I'd like to start a new trend on /sci/.
It's been done before.

[Anonymous No.5784704]

>>5783735
>I'd like to start a new trend on /sci/.
>Gets one or two actual replies
>Gets 20 posts arguing over the source and interpretation of the paraphrased quote used in the OP

[Anonymous No.5784777]

>different variables in algebra is like oil and water
me, explaining to a gorilla

[Anonymous No.5784786]

"Push me. And then just touch me. Till I can get my satisfaction" - Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.5784988]

How would one explain differential geometry to a 6 year old?

[Anonymous No.5785001]

>>5784988

Qualitatively.

[Anonymous No.5785039]

[Anonymous No.5785057]

>2013
>quotes
Don't waste time on quotes (or 4chan), it doesn't change anything.
Quotes are god damn boring and ineffective, it cant win against 4chan, easy jokes, reality shows...etc. i.e. It is useless.

For instance, most who received the message "imagination is wider than knowledge" received this message but that is all. When it comes to reality, quotes are often impure and inapplicable. Say, how am i suppose to use "imagination" instead of "knowledge"? For those who knows only the quotes, the quotes often lead you to nowhere.

[Anonymous No.5785062]

>>5784988
I would expect him to know it already because it's babby math.

[Anonymous No.5785064]

>>5785057
To add, quote is useful when you know what it means beforehand, so it is useful for those who look for agreement, also known as circlejerking.

[Anonymous No.5785073]

Let's try explaining Hitler to a Child instead.

[Anonymous No.5785076]

>>5784241
Feynman was also a criminal

[Anonymous No.5785085]

Behold!
I will attempt to explain Quantum Field Theory to a 6 year old.

pic related

[Anonymous No.5785148]

>>5783735
stupid people like to believe that any idea is available to stupid people. That those who think great thoughts do so because of hard work or luck. That anyone could do it, and doing it doesn't make one special.

stupid people think lots of stupid stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.5785155]

Can someone please explain the following:
>"non-local interactions combined with relativity lead to causal paradoxes"

[Anonymous No.5785161]

>>5785155
>muh quantums entangling proves einstein rong
>muh ftl
In a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.5785162]

>>5785155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

[Anonymous No.5785187]

>>5785155
It's wrong. See >>5785162

[sage No.5785244]

>>5785242
sage

[Anonymous No.5785242]

>>5785187
Specifically in the context of De Broglie-Bohm theory?

[Anonymous No.5785312]

>>5783852
Good one. I'm try using that from now on!

[Anonymous No.5785327]

>explaining hodge theory to a six year old

challenge accepted, /sci/. I'm gonna spend my lonely, whiskey-fuelled saturday night contemplating on this problem.

[Anonymous No.5785363]

May I choose the kid? I'm sure Jacob Barnett understood a lot of higher math at 6.

[Anonymous No.5785395]

'Man, fuck niggers, they really be getting up in my shit. Also cocks' - Albert Einstein

[Anonymous No.5785407]

>>5783852
What's energy?
- 6 yo

[Anonymous No.5785418]

>Einstein quote
lol

In 100 years people will be posting Jacob Barnett quotes on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5785421]

'The brain named itself' - Albert Einstein

[Anonymous No.5785423]

>>5785407
What's energy?
- 46 yo theoretical physicist

[Anonymous No.5785428]

>>5785327
>double index
Is that some spectral sequence shit?

[Anonymous No.5785429]

>>5785407
>>5785423
Energy is mc^2

[Anonymous No.5785439]

>>5785429
What is c^2?

[Anonymous No.5785452]

>>5783825
>invisible for anyone who can watch it.
i wot?

[Anonymous No.5785453]

>>5783852
>TIL

[Anonymous No.5785457]

>>5785439
'c' is a character, 2 is a number (in this case of integral type). This "^" is an operator, meaning in this case to multiply 'c' by itself. But since 'c' is a character, the multiplication operation is illegal (undefined because meaningless), this term as such is useless. c^2 means nothing. Next question please.

[Anonymous No.5785468]

>>5785457
But what is the speed of light squared, and how does it make any sense to square a velocity? What sorts of units do you get?

[Anonymous No.5785478]

>>5785076
Fuck you don't talk about my husbando like that.

[Anonymous No.5785483]

>>5785468
you get velocity squared.
You think those units are freaky? Check out Newton's gravitational constant, or the units of vacuum permeability.

[Anonymous No.5785490]

>>5785468
><interactive>:1:0:
No instance for (Num Char)
arising from a use of `^' at <interactive>:1:0-4
Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Num Char)
In the expression: 'c' ^ 2
In the definition of `it': it = 'c' ^ 2

I hope that answers your question. c can't be squared. It's impossible. Thanks to modern computer stuff we know that, Einstein could trick his peers in the past, but today we debunk him pretty easily.

[Anonymous No.5785492]

>What sorts of units do you get?

J/kg=Nm/kg

N=kg*m/s^2

Nm=kg*m^2/s^2

Nm/kg=m^2/s^2

Energy per unit mass

[Anonymous No.5785499]

>>5785244
How asspained can you possibly be?

>>5785242
The usual approach in dBB is to take a neo-Lorentzian view of spacetime, but I'm sure there're other approaches.

[Anonymous No.5785503]

>>5783852
My nigga, that's not half bad.

[Anonymous No.5785511]

>>5785242
No, deBroglie-Bohm allows FTL signalling in principle if you have better knowledge of the initial state than quantum equilibrium. Standard quantum mechanics with wavefunction collapse is a probabilistic nonlocal theory that doesn't allow FTL signalling.

[Anonymous No.5785515]

>>5785428

Dolbeaut cohomology, the analogue of de Rham cohomology for complex manifolds. You need double indices to account for the (p,q) decomposition of complex differential forms, which possess a holomorphic and an antiholomorphic part: for example, a holomorphic p-form is a (p,0)-form in this sense.
Vaguely speaking, the double index decomposition of differential forms reflects the richer structure of complex manifolds, as compared to real manifolds. This is one of the fundamentals of Hodge theory, which is widely regarded to be notoriously difficult.

[Anonymous No.5785544]

>>5785511
How is it nonlocal if it doesn't allow FTL?

[Anonymous No.5785550]

>>5785492
>E=mc^2
>energy is mass multiplied by the velocity of light squared
>the velocity of light squared is [some large number] of Energy per unit mass
>energy = mass * [some large number] * energy / mass
>energy = [some large number] * energy
>energy = lots of energy

It all makes sense now.

[Anonymous No.5785562]

>>5785544
There are FTL effect, just no FTL communication. If Alice and Bob make measurements of their part of an entangled photon pair, then Alice's choice of measurement will affect what Bob gets. But so does the result Alice gets, and that's random, completely out of Alice's control. Without knowing Alice's result, there's no way for Bob to figure out what message Alice was trying to send him with her choice of measurement.

[Anonymous No.5785588]

>>5785562
>implying correlations are effects

[Anonymous No.5785602]

>>5785588
No matter how you choose to interpret QM, there is no possible common-cause explanation for the correlations.

[Anonymous No.5785658]

THANKS THREAD FOR BEING 99% GARBAGE IN WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN MILDLY INTERESTING.

YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS

-Sincerely,
Regrets Posting.

[Anonymous No.5785743]

>>5785418
> In 100 years people will be posting Jacob Barnett quotes on /sci/.
> In 100 years
> on /sci/
Estimated lifespan of 4chan according to anon: more than 100 years. Oh anon, why you so clever?

[Anonymous No.5785787]

>>5783825
lolno

[Anonymous No.5785789]

>>5784786
top lel

[Anonymous No.5785837]

As you wish OP:

Science: Trying to figure out how things work, even those you can not see.

Physics: The science that does not deal with animals or humans.

Mechanics: How things move that are big enough to see them.

Quantum Mechanics: How things move that are to small to see them.

Particle theory: The idea that everything consist of small parts that stuck together and can be divided again, even the light.

Grand Unified Theory: The idea of finding one explanation to many different questions so that you only need to read one book instead of four.

[Anonymous No.5785863]

addition is the process of increasing something in quantity
if you have a cow, then you have another cow, then you have 2 cows.
a cow is equal to 1
a cow and another cow is equal to 2 cows
the numbers are just symbols used to describe how much of something you have
all you have to do is memorize the patterns of the symbols and then you can count easily and add easier

[Anonymous No.5785893]

>>5785468
The units for energy is (Kg)(m/s)^2 = J

So the c^2 gives the (m/s)^2 portion needed. When multiplied by mass it gives the correct units on both sides of the equation. I don't know what's hard to understand about that.

[Anonymous No.5786493]

The quote is from Bernard Vonnegut, the atmospheric scientist who invented cloud seeding with silver iodide. It goes "any scientist who cannot explain to an eight-year-old what his research is about is a charlatan."
Now cloud seeding is cool but Bernie is only famous because his grandpa & great grandpa were important businessmen and his brother Kurt was a writer.
That said; if a man does not understand his work well enough to dumb it down to that level then he does not understand it well enough to deserve funding for it.

[Anonymous No.5786505]

Yfw atheists are a bunch of dumbasses- Charles Darwin

[Anonymous No.5786516]

Try and remember back before you were born.

That is death.

There.

[Anonymous No.5786518]

>>5783735
>I just found out Reddit has a place called "Explain Like I'm Five" and want to make it happen here!

OP, as always, is a fag.

[Anonymous No.5786527]

"You should be careful about people on the internet falsely attributing quotes to influential people to artificially strengthen their arguments." - Abe Lincoln

[Anonymous No.5786533]

>>5784307
Poets can't into maths.

[Anonymous No.5787001]

>>5785893
The hard to understand part is that how does that make any sense, if c^2 does not give any meaningful units?

I could just as well say that entropy is a quark raised to the power of heat and make exactly as much sense.

>When multiplied by mass it gives the correct units on both sides of the equation.
I'm not really sure if I get what you are talking about, but this and what the other guy said sounds like saying the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible, which is the word of God and therefore always true.

[Anonymous No.5787114]

>>5783735
If we were going to start a trend like this why bother keeping it on /sci/.?

The majority of people who come to /sci/ are the regulars, who by and large already know a fair bit of science or are intelligent enough to have things explained to them at a higher level... or trolls who don't fucking care.

The people who lie somewhere in the middle aren't coming to /sci/ (at least not yet or in large numbers), they're on other boards.

If the idea is to encourage /sci/ posters to be able to explain scientific concepts to the everyman, why not start posting science Q&As on other boards?

We've already got that guy Space Elevator doing weekly science news threads on /pol/ and they're wildly popular. Why not expand that concept to other boards - someone start up the occasional "Ask a /sci/entist" thread or whatever on other boards and people do the best they can to answer people's questions?

[Anonymous No.5787276]

>>5786533
>Physics for Poets
>www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSo4sxQGqT4

[Anonymous No.5787326]

>>5787114
>Why not expand that concept to other boards - someone start up the occasional "Ask a /sci/entist" thread or whatever on other boards and people do the best they can to answer people's questions?

It'd interesting, but the problem is that other boards could not give a single fuck; too many fuckwits out there who are uninterested in science.
Also, the first argument you could encounter would be "But what this thread has to do with *board's interest*?" Example: "Well thank you, but what this has to do with anime?" if the thread was made in /a/; then, time later the board will be deleted with almost no replies.

[Anonymous No.5787331]

>>5787326
>time later the board
thread*
Sorry for the typo.

[Anonymous No.5787371]

>>5787326
Bound to happen but who knows - some people might genuinely be interested. I was on a Mass Effect general on /vg/ a couple weeks ago and some people just started talking about real space stuff instead of the game. Turned into like a 500 post thread discussing space science and space exploration and astronomy and stuff.

I think if people were to try >>5787114's suggestion, the success would depend heavily on the 'audience' involved.

[Anonymous No.5787382]

>>5787371
>I think if people were to try >>5787114's suggestion, the success would depend heavily on the 'audience' involved.
Yeah, I agree; if people want to try, I support it.

[Anonymous No.5787402]

>>5787326
Then just make it board related. We've had plenty of science-ish stuff on /a/ before.

[Anonymous No.5787407]

>>5787402
I really don't know, I don't frequent /a/, that was an example.

[Anonymous No.5787408]

Brotip that's not Einstein quote, it's just a modified version of Feynmans quote.

[Anonymous No.5787417]

>>5787402
>We've had plenty of science-ish stuff on /a/ before.

I remember a few gold stuff back when I still perused that shithole.
>How to kill Accelerator

[Anonymous No.5787422]

>>5787402
What's going on in there?
Also
>tensile strength
Did /a/ just pull a random measure to use out of their ass?

[Anonymous No.5787445]

My O Chem professor called hydrocarbon chains "stegosauruses."

I don't think she knew what she was doing.

[Anonymous No.5787464]

>>5785076
>Feynman was also a criminal

surely you're joking... explain.

[Anonymous No.5787577]

>>5787402
How about we start with something easy? I'll bet a "comic book science" thread or something thereabouts might play well with the /co/ crowd.

[Anonymous No.5787815]

>>5787445
That's a good one.

[Anonymous No.5787893]

>>5783825
guys what happens when something travels away from us gets like.. maximum redshift?

[Anonymous No.5787958]

>>5784786
/thread

[Anonymous No.5788609]

>>5787893
There is no 'maximum redshift'

[Anonymous No.5788647]

>>5787114
That could work. I'm a /tg/ regular, and in one of my D&D games I once had to figure out what would happen to the trajectory of an object that suddenly gained a substantial amount of mass mid-flight.

One of the player characters threw an enchanted item, a small statue, said the command word mid-flight, and it turned into a full-sized adult indian elephant. Said elephant then slammed into the vampire who had its back to a stone wall. Neither the wall nor the vampire survived, but the elephant got out with just some scrapes and bruises.

I'm sure quite a few people on /tg/ would be interested on how that math works out.

[Anonymous No.5789360]

>>5787114
... could be interesting.

[Carbon No.5790773]

>>5787114
>Space Elevator
>my nigga

[Anonymous No.5790799]

>>5787001
The unit on velocity is m/s.

Therefore, (m/s)^2 = m^2/s^2.

That times kg = Kg m^2/s^2, which is a Joule.

If that's wrong, explain how, because it makes sense to me.

[Anonymous No.5791648]

Luckily I'm skilled at this, although from explaing concepts to people my own age.

[Anonymous No.5791664]

>>5790773
Space Elevator is your nigger?

[Anonymous No.5793736]

>>5791664
... yes

[Anonymous No.5793746]

Most people don't understand things well enough to explain them to their children, which is the major reason for the prevalence of western religion in its modern state.

[Anonymous No.5793784]

A vector is like an arrow, kinda.
I should start teaching math.

[Anonymous No.5793816]

>>5786516
what is "born"? where do babies come from?

[Anonymous No.5793826]

remember kids, ionic bonds are like disgusting cis-scum hetero man-wife relationships, while covalent bonds are like pure and beautiful same-sex relationships.

>inb4 explain same-sex to children in this day and age

[Anonymous No.5793891]

>>5793826

>forcing explanations on others
>not allowing them to inquire at a natural point of curiosity

Compulsory education is the cancer killing knowledge; anyone that actually cares is ignored in lieu of waves of retards that don't give a shit.

[Anonymous No.5793944]

>>5793891
That sounds like an indictment of the entire educational establishment.

[Anonymous No.5793948]

>>5793944

It is.

[Anonymous No.5793966]

>>5793948
but go-anon, how can we ensure societal equality without educational standardization and uniformity?

[Anonymous No.5793976]

>>5793966

The problem is assuming everyone is equal, which is demonstrably false.

Here's a nice emperical experiment for you. Get two people to attempt to draw a perfect circle. I can guarantee you one person will be more accurate than the other, even when taking multiple attempts. You can also look at differences in height, eye colors, hair color, et cetera. If everyone were equal, no one would have any variation whatsoever.

Imagine a universe with no variation; no time, dimensions, color, sound, no anything. If anything were there, it would have to be different enough to distinguish it from something else.

Categorizations exist to distinguish one thing or group from others. We're naturally attuned to notice differences.

[Anonymous No.5793990]

>>5793976
Watch your step, you're on that slippery slope

[Anonymous No.5793998]

>>5793990

What slope, exactly?

[Anonymous No.5794006]

>>5793990

Perhaps I should clarify that differences do not imply superiority.

[Anonymous No.5794023]

>>5784786
lol'd hard

[Anonymous No.5794034]

>>5793976
that's all well and good, but wouldn't you agree that without some form of standardization such differences could easily prove cumbersome instead of liberating

[Anonymous No.5794203]

>>5794034

Standardizations, such as the normal distributions that measure height, intelligence, weight, and others? Because those already exist, and they maintain the differences while distributing them in relation to eachother with a calculated likelihood.

[Carbon No.5794254]

>>5791664
Indeed

[Anonymous No.5794278]

Can someone explain spin, singlets and triplets like I am a 6 year old? Learning this now and getting very confused.

[Anonymous No.5794283]

>>5794278

http://somedeadguy.tumblr.com/post/6097096724/singlet-privilege-checklist-imperfect-incomplete

[Anonymous No.5794307]

>>5787417
The same arguments every time...

[Anonymous No.5794338]

>>5783771
Watching SICP? Is this a movie?

[Anonymous No.5794341]

Einstein was full faggot when he said this. How would you plebs explain something even like a quasi-coherent sheaf to a six year old? This is stupidnit drives me wild.

[Anonymous No.5794359]

>>5794341
Actually you can, but when you are done the child will be 20 years old.

[Anonymous No.5794385]

>>5794341
einstein never said this.

one of just millions of things einstein never said but is attributed to him anyways.

[Anonymous No.5794426]

>>5785468
sqrt(3*10^8)

[Anonymous No.5794427]

>>5794385
My personal favorite is when articles slap a random number on his IQ.

[Anonymous No.5794432]

>>5794427
yeah, or diagnose him with autism.

it's amazing what forensics can do nowdays.

[Anonymous No.5794439]

>>5783735
Look, Einstein was a genius and all, but that shit about 6 year olds is some old bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5794656]

>>5794341
Quasi-coherently.

[Anonymous No.5795625]