/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7144091]

I believe two things that seem to upset everyone I talk to

1- intergalactic travel is easy, in regards to propulsion. though the mechanics have not been explained completely just yet, which is reason for a lot of confusion and fuss, generally speaking travelling through a void of material stellation is very *quick*

2-intergalactic travel isn't what you think it is. Time is essentialy non-scalar measure, people don't want to hear it, they'll rant and rave and argue and bitch until the cows come home, but time is a vector. 'Travel' is not proportionately direct as what we define as a 'line' or 'axis' so voyages between galaxies will require tremendous amounts of data to work.

I sincerely believe that the parallax is wrong, not in magnitude, but mechanically.

so, am I an /x/ worthy nut or do I have some notability?

[Anonymous No.7144092]

>I believe

Stopped reading there. Science is about facts and not beliefs.

[Anonymous No.7144102]

>>7144092
I'm sure the peasants and nobility said the same to Galileo.

[Anonymous No.7144107]

>>7144102
The peasants didn't even get to know Galileo. And the scientific method wasn't known yet in his time. Your lack of education is showing.

[Anonymous No.7144197]

>>7144107
I don't think that if you can't conceive a simple metaphor you should be posting on this board.

[Anonymous No.7144199]

>>7144197
>posts something factually wrong
>gets called out
>"it was only a metaphor"

nice backpedaling

[Anonymous No.7144200]

>>7144092
but scientific doctrine is based upon the belief in empirical data.
if not to what language does it apply?
if not to language, then what suspends it?
if it is not suspended, how is it implied?

[Anonymous No.7144214]

>>7144200
Empirical data is factual and does not require belief. Go back to reddit, if you want to go full retard with your infantile "cannot know nuffin" wannabe kindergarten philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7144222]

>>7144091
>I sincerely believe that the parallax is wrong, not in magnitude, but mechanically.
*the* parallax? What parallax?

[Anonymous No.7144223]

>>7144199
if you can't regard a metaphor in it's own context, I don't imagine you'd have very much to contribute in the field of theoretical cosmology.

That being said, it's obvious that the validation of your opinions hinges upon defaming others, that's ubiquitous with stupid people in general. Are you stupid? Or are you so used to stupid company that you act like one?

Consider /pol/ or facebook for example, count how many arguments there are, how many posts regard the argument, and how many posts defame each other. What category do you fall into?

Stay wise and stay happy, your aimless contempt and poor arguing skills waste your own time much more than they waste my own.

[Anonymous No.7144226]

>>7144214
>Empirical data is factual and does not require belief

>Empirical
is sensed
>Data
is transmission of language
>belief
is the stipulation of an idea bounded by definition within a language.


Sensation is transmission of language: stipulating the boundaries of definition wherein language is its transmission.

this is cyclical. Data is not true, data is agreed upon. Zeno wrote a few useful equations in addition to deliberating the very fundaments of science that you're currently mocking.

[Anonymous No.7144228]

>>7144223
>posts a meaningless buzzword salad
>no math
>no experimental data
>only replies with childish whining
>expects to be taken seriously

OP confirmed for faggot. Back to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7144231]

I believe two things that seem to upset everyone I talk to

1- We are living on the inside of an hollow Earth with Sun at it's center
2- Reptilians live on the outside of the hollow the Earth's shell and secretly try to suppress this information.

Prove me wrong faggots.

[Anonymous No.7144233]

>>7144226
Whatever you're doing there, it's bizarre and cringeworthy. Spamming dictionary definitions of everyday vocabulary is a pointless and autistic endeavour. Please learn to communicate like a functional human being.

[Anonymous No.7144648]

>>7144091
Well, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.7144658]

>>7144226
The point is, if every asshole who took beginner philosophy and read some scifi tried to tackle timetravel, you'd end up with, well, 4chan. You may not see it right now, but you're not even in the area code of having any idea what you're talking about. And the people who can even begin to discuss this subject, notice how they're not here? That's because even if they thought you were worth their effort, and willing to sit down for the amount of time necessary to make you even begin to understand how much more there is to the subject than you seem to be able to wrap your head around, you still would be lacking the basic understandings of what would just said and you'd just be confused and frustrated and have more big words to google and later attempt to use them to prove your intelligence to the internet by discussing things you still cannot effectively discuss.

[Anonymous No.7144721]

>>7144102
Peasants and nobility, sure, but not other scientists. He had evidence to back his claims, you have assertions, or so it would seem.

>>7144222
Hold a pencil in front of your face. Close one eye, then open it and close the other. The pencil appears to jump, relative to the background. This is parallax.
Using basic geometry, you can use this to measure the distance between an object (here the pencil, and yourself. OP seems to be saying that this is nonsense.

>>7144226
Data is sensed, biased, and misinterpreted left and right. Yes.

But what OP is doing here is suggesting things with less backing than the heaps of suspect data, and providing no reason to follow except 'I believe'.
Personally, I am going with the data.

[Anonymous No.7144776]

>>7144214
>Empirical data is factual and does not require belief.

You're adorable. Hell, fedorable.

PS: not that you have one but were you to get a PhD in STEM; the 'Ph' stands for, stands for...

[Anonymous No.7144784]

>>7144091
>intergalactic travel is easy
>a void of material stellation
>intergalactic travel isn't what you think it is.
>Time is essentialy non-scalar measure
>I sincerely believe that the parallax is wrong

>so, am I an /x/ worthy nut or do I have some notability?
The former, obviously. You're a gibbering, incoherent loon.

[Anonymous No.7144790]

>>7144776
Philosophy, the love of wisdom.

That nifty thing called natural philosophy got turned into natural science.

Of course, I am sure the 'purity' of philosophy, is something that could be long debated by philosophers.... And generally wholly irrelevant to scientists.

[Anonymous No.7144796]

Look, if you make a thread about yourself, this is one of the few times on 4chan where it's ruder not to use a name than it is to use one. Expecting everyone to figure out from context which posts are yours and which aren't is ridiculous.

Also: just don't make threads about yourself.

[Anonymous No.7144805]

>>7144091
INTERGALACTIC PLANETARY PLANETARY INTERGALATIC

ANOTHER DIMENSION
ANOTHER DIMENSON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORYO0atB6g

[Anonymous No.7144806]

>>7144231
Janny removed my satire post, guess I shouldn't have used a merchant picture.

[Anonymous No.7144809]

>>7144790
>And generally wholly irrelevant to scientists.

Agreed. On April 1st humanity will call the color green "grue"*. This will not affect anything, completely irrelevant to science too.

*you may want to Google this

[Anonymous No.7144820]

>>7144776
Too bad in my country it's just called a doctorate and not a PhD. Philosophy adds absolutely nothing to science. You are not deep for repeating inane questions every child asks. Please go be a worthless pretentious douchebag on reddit.

[Anonymous No.7144829]

>>7144820
When you see one of your own shops come around to meet you, the feeling is just so great.

[Anonymous No.7144840]

>>7144829
I know, it's a great feel. Please continue to contribute OC to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.7144880]

>>7144829
>>7144840

Meanwhile in Circlejerkland...

Grue
Bleen

[Anonymous No.7144904]

>so, am I an /x/ worthy nut or do I have some notability?

You're a nut. Parallax is mechanically simplistic and the rest is nearly devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.7144929]

>>7144091
/x/-worthy, I'm afraid. Most of what you've posted really doesn't line up at all with science-as-we-know it, and much of it doesn't even make sense; while this doesn't mean you're *completely* wrong or actually crazy, the past couple centuries of science have proven pretty well that you cannot make advances in science based on what you intuitively know or speculate - you have to back it up both experimentally and mathematically to prove you actually have anything useful!

There is one of these that I can actually address based on known physics:

>1- intergalactic travel is easy, in regards to propulsion. though the mechanics have not been explained completely just yet, which is reason for a lot of confusion and fuss, generally speaking travelling through a void of material stellation is very *quick*

While you're correct that - since Space Friction isn't a thing - it's very easy to accelerate in space, you run into a bit of a problem here.

See, right now, the only known way to produce thrust is to throw shit out of the back of your spacecraft.

(If you could just make your spacecraft speed up without pushing on anything, you'd violate Conservation of Momentum; this is one of the laws we're really sure about, because you can derive it directly from "the laws of physics should not depend on your linear position in the universe" and we're pretty sure of that one.)

This means you run into a problem. In order to accelerate your spacecraft a little bit (say, x m/s), you have to throw x amount of shit out of the back. To accelerate it twice as much, you need more than twice as much shit to throw, because you need to accelerate both your ship and the extra fuel!

This continues exponentially - the amount of fuel you need for a given change in velocity grows as e^(change in velocity).

So getting to another galaxy is easy - but getting there *in a reasonable time* is ludicrously difficult.