[ 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: 129 KB, 1200x627, neil-degrasse-tyson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6650989 No.6650989 [Reply] [Original]

I'm bored, /sci/. I will do my best to seriously answer any question at all. Ask me some.

>> No.6650993

>>6650989
what is consciousness?

>> No.6650998

>>6650993

Awareness.

>> No.6651013

>>6650989
what is the most alpha god tier STEM field?

>> No.6651018

>>6650989
Who are you and why should I care?

>> No.6651019

>>6651013
literally alpha god tier? Probably biochemistry.

>> No.6651020

>>6651013
mechanical engineering

>> No.6651059

>>6651020
ha, hahahah

>> No.6651071

>>6651013

I do nuclear engineering. It sucks. Highest alpha god-tier is probably electrical engineering.

Those fuckers.

>>6651018

I'm a PhD in science. You can call me Dr. Science.

>> No.6651072
File: 280 KB, 577x1024, FOT63E4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6651072

>>6650998
Animals are conscious. Are they aware as well then?

>> No.6651117

>>6650989
I want to be a film maker. I'm going to college in a month. What should I do with my life to become a film maker?

>> No.6651119

>>6650989
can you make my dad come back?

>> No.6651131

Is this science, or pop-sci bullshit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKk-VAMOsLk&t=22m

>> No.6651306

when were you when heat legend dies

>> No.6651309

>>6650989

do all the non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function all have real part 1/2?

>> No.6651311

>>6651013
math. specifically, foundations... zfc + aoc shit

>> No.6651315

>>6650989
What are your credentials?

>> No.6651318

Will I find a job as environmental scientist

>> No.6651470

>>6651117
If you have enough talent, then it'll be easy

Otherwise, start sucking dick and fingering assholes

>> No.6651497

How can I make you to kill yourself for being the cancer of /sci/.

>> No.6651757 [DELETED] 

>>6651311
what's aoc?

>> No.6651810

>>6651311
> navel gazing mode engaged

>> No.6651813

Is P = NP ?

>> No.6651824

How do I get gf?

>> No.6652106

>>6650989
Can the universe be proven to be finite or infinite?

>> No.6652138

What is not the response you will give to this question?

>> No.6652140

>>6651072
yes.

>> No.6652145

are you bored

>> No.6652147

>>6652106
The universe is finite but ever expanding.
Like a balloon being inflated.
At any one time, it's dimensions are absolute, but it's alway increasing.
I think the estimate is like 93 billion light years across.

>> No.6652252

>>6650989
what do you think about physics?

>> No.6652277 [DELETED] 

>>6652138
No this.

>> No.6652279

>>6652138
Not this.

>> No.6654373

What is the meaning of life?

>> No.6654409

>>6654373
The first meaning of life is to find meaning in life.

>> No.6654607

>>6651071
if the solar wind is basically neutral on average why does the Earth's ionosphere always carry the same polarity of charge with respect to ground?

>> No.6654614

>>6651013
Physics
/thread

>> No.6655116

>>6651013

Biotech
Nanotech
Quantum Comp

Maybe neuro-science related technologies too? My knowledge in this field is too limited so I cannot really know if it's god tier.

>> No.6655227

what is heat based on nuclear level?
i think it's just kinetic energy, but could you give me a formula?

>> No.6655236

>>6650989
When will stem cells be able to reconstruct any part of the human body?

>> No.6655239

An objective, salaried, tenured, well-established, published, peer-reviewed, Harvard and Yale educated, PhD, professor and scientist, was teaching a class on evolution, a widely accepted theory.

He walked toward the front of the class and said: "before class begins, you must accept that the theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of all credible scientists, and that this establishes its truth and the fact that he should be taught in all classrooms across the world, in pertetuum, forever, until the extinction of our species or the evolutionary descendants of our species, or until the heat-death of the Universe due to entropy."

At this moment a lover of wisdom, who every moment communed in his soul with the knowledge of his own ignorance, who feared delusion and falsehood more than he feared death, and who understood the necessity of reducing all arguments to first principles, stood up with a desire for sophia in his soul:

He asked the professor, "professor, I am a humble student, a mere chaser, a flirter with wisdom; but you and your esteemed colleagues have spent your lives embracing her, becoming intimate with her immortal and everlasting beauty. I therefore humbly plead that rather than resorting to vulgar intimidations by shouting the credentials of your theory, speaking of the honour of the men that profess it, and implying that I love popular and established opinions rather than wisdom herself, that you state your theory simply so that I may admire its truth and beauty, thereby becoming indebted to you eternally."

>> No.6655241

>>6655239
The objective scientist smiled quite scientifically, "I can see that you're eager to get an A in this class; very well, we shall proceed right away! But first I will inform you that the scientific method and peer review process are well established and have provided us with technological advancements and progress unprecedented in the history of mankind, and that with over a century of peer review backing it the theory of evolution has been raised to the status of objective fact."

The student, still inwardly gazing at sophia whose bright face shone through the veil of his human vanity and ignorance, teased the professor, "Please professor, I am sure that you were joking with your comment about getting an A in this class, as though I were some kind of sophist seeking to reap worldly benefit from wisdom - such people are not true lovers of wisdom, and must be despised by you and I who love her more than our lives. And as for your technological advancements, professor, in the old days there were sorcerers and magicians who could perform marvelous feats that awed and dazzled the common man impressed by mere spectacle, but we lovers of wisdom knew even back then that these tricksters knew nothing of truth and preferred the show of wisdom to wisdom itself. Another amusing remark of yours is this progress of mankind, as though it were "mankind" that progressed in wisdom and not the individual human soul. I'll forgive you for that rhetorical blunder, professor, if you can tell me how the scientific method and the peer-review process came into popular use; surely the scientific method itself cannot have been discovered scientifically, and the peer-review process was not itself chosen through peer-reviewing."

>> No.6655242

>>6655241
The scientist replied with emotion uncharacteristic for his occupation in extolling objectivity, "that, sir, all that that you rambled on about, I believe is the /philosophy/ of science, not science. If you want to discuss those "ideas" you can take a course in philosophy, though you can enjoy selling coffees with your impractical philosophy degree afterwards", he laughed to himself.

The student acquiesced, but inwardly noted with lament how the scientist was more interested in professing the knowledge of his own expertise rather than engaging in a dialectic to move closer to wisdom - for who can ever say that he has ever fully arrived at wisdom, other than the God? - and the love of wisdom was disappearing from modern Universities, being replaced with a desire for certificates, worldly promotion, and pedantic understanding.

>> No.6655243

>>6655242
"So then", continued the learned professor, a genius in his field, "the theory of evolution begins with the observation that we see in nature an increasing degree of complexity in biological forms, from the single-cellular organism, to the species Homo sapiens", he nodded towards the Homo sapiens in front of him, "from this observation we deduce that there has been, over the course of our earth's 4 billion or so year history - and I hope we don't have any religious fundamentalists here who think that a literal interpretation of Genesis is relevant in the developed world! - that there has been a gradual transformation of species from a common ancestor who was a very simple organism, to the more and more complex and varied organisms that we see today. Now, there is debate about the /mechanisms/ through which this transformation takes place, but it is widely established through observation of the fossil record and other sources, that this transformation has indeed taken place and continues to take place, however the great Charles Darwin put forth the most popularly held mechanism, which is natural selection. Natural selection states that organisms preferentially select to breed with organisms that have suitable genetic material to produce fit offspring - and by fit we mean adapted for survival in its environment - so that by the selection of healthy mating partners and over many generations, and with the assistance of random genetic mutation which innovates genetic material and allows for the creation of new organs and biological mechanisms, a species will gradually transform as the less fit die off and the most fit survive, until the species is a new species distinct from its ancient ancestor, so that an aquatic species in one age me through gradual transformation become an amphibious species in another age, and so on.

>> No.6655245

>>6655243
The beauty of this theory is that we now have a picture of human origins which is totally natural and requires no supernatural voodoo, as we can see how the first organic life on earth gradually developed over millions upon millions of years to the human being, who through science is able to recount this epic story and relate it back to the Universe! Hail science!"

And it is in this moment that the goddess sophia revealed herself to her votary in her eternal form and beauty. He was transported from the material realm to the realm of eternal forms, where sophia existed in her unchanging, everlasting state of perpetual truth and beauty. She revealed to him the first principle which had to be declared to convict the proud sophist of his sophistry, and, moved with godly inspiration, he stood up in his toga, raising his right arm in a lofty manner towards the heavens in classical oratory posture, and defended his goddess thusly,

"Sir, I cannot for a moment accept the truth of anything that you have just said, for you see that in your manly attempt to enlighten us with truth you have stupidly erased all truth from the cosmos: if a human being is but a bundle of cells rubbing against one and other competing with other bundles of cells for survival, then the truth means nothing. Indeed, if this is so then by your own admission there is no need to teach the theory of evolution as though it were true, we ought instead to teach which ever theories increase our chances of survival - yes, indeed, we ought to teach that human beings are immortal, for example, when they die in war for their country, so that our soldiers will fight more bravely and our chances of survival and spreading our genetic material increases - we should choose whatever theories make us "adapted to our environment", and disregard truth as a phantom, a dream of fools.

>> No.6655247

>>6655245
Your entire picture is repugnant, for you depict intelligence arising out of unintelligence: tell me, O wise one, how an unintelligent thing can create something more intelligent than itself, how a mere rock can make itself into a truth-contemplating man, through the sorcery of "millions of years". It is clear then that if man can contemplate eternal truth, that he must have some part of himself that is equipped for it, some part in him that is like eternal, that is like unto truth; but you more or less than man does not even exist, that here is an illusion generated by a certain mixing of chemicals in a "brain". So how can you claim to be teaching us truth when you undermine the very notion of truth? I therefore declare you a sophist and a hypocrite."

At this point one of his fellow students accused him of being a virgin, and another of being a weirdo. The professor told the student to shut up as this was a science class, and the rest of the students had paid to receive an education in science, and their money was more important than his opinion. The student then quietly dropped out of University and spent his life selling coffees, dying without fame or recognition.

>> No.6655394

>>6655247
>Hyperbolically misrepresenting the scientific method

If this isn't a Poe, then I don't even know what to think. Evolution isn't a philosophy or a doctrine, nor does it imply either of those. It's simply a way to explain a bunch of observations.

Then again, this could all be going way over my head, and could be satirical. Who knows.

TL;DR: Of you're being honest, you're a faggot

>> No.6655405

>>6655394
Well, fuck. I just had to go and misspell something.

*If

And disregard the faggot comment, I love ya c:
(All the homo)

>> No.6655424

>>6655247
way to get no dat dere student pussy ever fucking faggot lel

>> No.6655427

>>6650989
How does one prove Riemann Hypothesis?

>> No.6657997

>>6651019
hahaha i enjoyed the fact you take literally god into thought

>> No.6657999

>>6652147
is infinite real or merely a concept?

>> No.6658001

>>6654614
math
>>6655236
they already can, its what they do. When will humans be able of replicating this in a lab is what i think you meant

>> No.6658434

Do animals have free will?

>> No.6658468

I lost my keys somewhere in my flat.
Where are they?

thanks.

>> No.6658490

>>6650989
Earth revolves around sun
Moon (1.2% of Earth's mass) revolves around earth
If I am floating in space, why wouldn't a golf ball orbit me? Or...alternatively, if you kept all proportions the same and shrunk the earth, sun, and moon down...at what point would the orbits cease to exist and why? What is the cutoff mass-wise for gravity to "kick in" for noticeable attraction. If it doesn't work using the relative masses of the objects, then it must be an absolute number, a constant unit of mass which is the cutoff for allowing things to orbit one another? Can you at least elaborate?

>> No.6658512

>>6658490
Assuming no objects with a large sphere of influence, the ball would orbit you.

>> No.6658529

>>6658512

But that's where it gets shady and why I cited the example of the Earth /sun relationship. The moon orbits the earth despite obviously being inside the "sphere of influence" (isn't that from "Meet the Parents") of the sun. So why can't I have that same relationship whilst inside the sphere of influence of the Sun? From the Sun's point of view, there is not much difference between me and the Earth. Why does one get to have a relationship with an object .0012 its mass and I don't. I'm jealous. I WANT MOONS. No but in all seriousness...I don't get it.

>> No.6658540

>>6658529
The Earth and the Moon are affected by the Suns gravity to a very close degree, there is nothing really pulling them apart. So they are both in the sphere of influence of the sun, but at the distance they both are from the sun the influence of earth is far more powerful.

Anywhere near earth your sphere of influence would basically be nil-- but if you got _way_ out away from planets and other objects-- even while orbiting the sun, small objects would orbit you.

>> No.6658547

>>6658529
the moon is also orbiting the sun, albeit in a slightly squiggly trajectory since it is disturbed by the earth

>> No.6659273

>>6658490
The golf ball wouldn't orbit you because the gravitational attraction between you and the golf ball is miniscule. Sure, it *could* orbit you, but it would do so ridiculously slowly.

The earth and moon both orbit the sun. The earth and moon are also both ridiculously big, and ridiculously far from the sun (though, of course, the earth is tiny compared to the sun.)

It's a bit complicated, but basically, the tidal forces of the sun's gravity on the earth-moon system aren't powerful enough to tear them apart, so you can count the whole system as one- just take the centre of gravity of the earth and moon.

>> No.6659774

Okay sci/ this has been bugging me since I was a kid, so if I had a rigid stick which i could make as long as i want and I swung it and knowing that the acceleration of the end of the stick is proportional to how long I make the stick. What would be the longest I could make it (assuming I could lift it) until the end of the stick can't accelerate further.

>> No.6659813
File: 39 KB, 600x600, 1392541238876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6659813

>>6658490
The Earth-Sun system revolves around their shared center of mass

>> No.6660115

>>6659774
What do you mean by ''can't accelerate further?'' Do you mean the point at which the end of the stick would reach c?

Besides, rigid sticks don't exist. Your question is invalid.

>> No.6660125

>>6659813
>ignoring all the other planets

first, its a multi-body problem.
second, the stellar center of mass is found within the core of the sun. so for all intents and purposes, the planets revolve, ellipitically, around the sun.

>> No.6660128

explain how the fuck particles manifest in a complete vacyooom