/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5476615
Well that's fair I guess

Though I don't think any of them outweigh each other

>>5476590
But what benefits do social sciences hold when compared to hard sciences?

>>5476567
Well this thread isn't very intellectual at all.

>>5476547
Oh wow, more assumptions

>>5476542
In what way was he dismissing Tesla?

>>5476521
Dismissing someone as a troll is about as anti-intellectual as it get buddy. Debate with be faggot.

A few days ago I started a thread about the application of artificial life forms, you don't know shit about good discussion.

>>5476517
Tesla was also humble.

>>5476508
if you need to have info on every particle at once that isn't really viable

>>5476500
Man you are butthurt. Quit looking for validation and make that water filter nobody will give a shit about.

>>5476473
If you ask me, the true mark of genius is the creativity to solve practical problems quickly, efficiently, or in a way that others have missed. Solutions that make way for even more improvements and breakthroughs. I don't believe fiddling about for fun really quantifies as genius.

>>5476458
You're asking for people to circlejerk you off.

>>5476448
You're also a pompous twat with an inflated ego.

>>5476433
Ah, yes, true true. I was mostly speaking in generalizations, but those specific terms are important for preserving specific qualities of objects.

>>5476417
So what about comets that don't come close enough to the sun to display emissions? Do we just call them icy asteroids?

>>5476404
It's made up of the same materials of a comet (like all other Kuiper objects) so if you generalize it it really is a big comet, kinda like how brown dwarfs are just failed stars but big planets at the same time.

>realize Pluto is just a big fucking comet when playing Magic Schoolbus Solar System at six years old
>scientists still haven't put it this bluntly even though it's pretty obvious

That being said, it isn't genius at all.

There have been no studies on tulpas but it'd be interesting to see one.

That being said tulpas are not proper science.

>>5476335
You can't say that until it's proven otherwise. (I presume you mean to say non-carbon life.)

>>5476287
That's a very interesting point there, Earth is classified as a silicon planet. Would life as we now it emerge on the hellish landscape of a carbon planet? Can an ocean form here? Would an ocean be necessary?

>>5476292
Yes yes, it's all up-in-the-air, nothing is certain. However, non-chemical life is in the realm of philosophy, there's no point in seriously considering it right now.

>>5476304
Forgot my image.

>>5476268
Boooooooooooooo

>>5471198
Richard Dawkins has the patience of a saint

>>5476206
Yes, carbon is our best bet obviously, because we (should) know what to look for. Other biochemistries will most likely be discovered by accident.

Carbon is our best bet currently, but life could emerge out of millions of bizarre, unfamiliar chemical combinations. Of course, it's fun to imagine weird life forms with odd bio-chemistries.

Imagine what life would be like of a frigid Titan, with methane or other organic gasses forming slushy lakes where chemistry could take place.