/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8097051
you say 'USSR got nothing close to [Von Braun] after the war', but do you really believe they would've treated him so well, let alone put him at the top of their space program?

The fact that the Americans recognised so early the value of the V-2 rocket engineers and took the initiative so early to smuggle them into the United States is an achievement in itself.

>>8097029
pretty much

>>8097007

most conspiracies theories are easier to integrate than the reality though. when I say imagination I really mean integratable; most people would rather believe a theory that fits their ideological perspective of the world. It's easier to believe Princess Diana was murdered in a creepy Royal Family plot than an absurd car accident, for example.

Also I never said Von Braun et al is why the US got to the Moon first; that poster was trying to disqualify the superiority of the US space program /because/ of operation paperclip.

>>8096955
>>8096952
trolls or no, I always wonder what leads some people to refuse to believe in events outside the scope of their imagination (holocaust, moon landings, 9/11). There's definitely an arrogance to it.

>>8096956
clearly google isn't your friend, the US integrated foreign scientists into their space and nuclear programs far more effectively than the USSR ever could.

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/448/2/1816

reading the paper, what they're actually proposing is that vertical oscillations of our solar system may push our earth through 'dense clumps' of dark matter which interacts with and periodically heats up the earth's planetary core.

Their proposals are supported by the fact that extinction events occur every 26-31 Million years, which is the same periodicity of this cyclical galactic activity.

All they're proposing is that geological and biological evolution on the Earth may be partly controlled by the rhythms of Galactic dynamics, not that dark matter itself annihilated the dinosaurs.

>>7040132
>On a side note, explanations in physics are often bullshit too, but the numbers are a fit, so who cares?

are you referring to string theory

Get it right next time, fascists.

Some technologies are evil; if the primary purpose of their design is to inflict injustifiable suffering onto human beings.

she sounds she's brain damaged or on drugs.

didn't daniel dennet unveil how bullshit the concept of qualia is decades ago?

>>4593907

except it's obvious chat bot is a chat bot.

Why not? If something reacts just like a human consciousness would then why shouldn't it be treated as living?

What mystical component are you looking for that would separate a person who is 'really' conscious and a zombie who behaves exactly like he is conscious?

>>4593884

I guess when they pass the turing test and can figure things themselves without the need for our guidance or understanding?

I read somewhere that once it happens the AI will technologically evolve very quickly because it could enhance itself beyond the limitations of the human mind.

How long will it be until someone creates a self-aware AI, /sci?

Can we predict this using Moore's law or will it come with the unlocking of quantum computing?

people are stupid OP, technocratic democracy is our only hope.

it's already happening, teachers are already being told not to focus on rote learning facts and memorising dates to children who can instantly google-search the information on their iPhone.

instead they focus on creative approaches and how to manipulate data etc. The only buffer is the need for some physical input by our fingers, but this input is becoming more discreet all the time with shit like google's project glass.

Hey biologists

if you're so smart how come a cabbage has more genes than you do?

CHECK and MATE.

>>3955868

does tyson have to slap a bitch?

Reminds me of the kantian ideas of animals as soulless machines, their screams of protest and suffering comparable to the noise of machinery breaking apart.

Of course the jump from this to l'homme machine is frighteningly narrow.

The question is not, 'what can we see in animals?', but rather 'what do they see when they look at us?'.

Camus is a poor man's Nietzsche.

>>3876447

maybe you haven't read this yet, but apparently Thea crated two moons which crashed into each other

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14391929

>>3876350

i heard there was a dramatic increase in the number of students taking traditional sciences and math thanks to his shows

>>3876273

I'm not a creationist, it just seemed logical to me that if the moon can move entire oceans and manipulate geological processes with its gravity from 384,400 km away then if it was much closer we would then its effects would be magnified.

>>3876244

i thought /sci/ loved cox

Moon question coming at ya like a beam, /sci/

I hear it all the time on popular science programs that it's a pure coincidence that the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, but the Moon is 400 times farther away from the sun so we can get these 'perfect' total eclipses.

But I'm sure I heard my physics professor saying once that during the Dinosaur tiemz the moon was much closer to the earth (it covered a third of the night sky) and there was much more deadly volcanic and tidal activity.

Couldn't it just be that only now the moon is sufficient distance from the Earth that the conditions here are hospitable enough for more intelligent but fragile life to evolve?