/sci/ - Science & Math

ITT: No one has read Alistair Reynolds

>>1927365
>>1927399
You guys missed out on this shitstorm, didn't you?

Enjoy the vidya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt1w4iRNWLA

(and yes, they paid him back the difference, and this was even mentioned in the New York Times)

>>1890839
>obstruct necessary technological progress
So you'd kill people who protested the creation of the atmoic bomb?

Once again, you are an abhorrent, evil, vile, disgusting human being.

>>1890800
>I'm not trying to quash deviation from the status quo, within science
Yes you are. And that's exactly what your tyrannical, evil little shithill of an empire would devolve into.
You're literally advocating killing everyone who isn't a scientist.

You're evil, not to mention an overly egotistical narcissist.

People have the right to reject your ideas, theories, and hypotheses for whatever reason they choose.

>>1890754
>Okay, I'm fine with that.

Lawlwut
So you'd have killed Edwin Hubble?
You do realize the universe is not static, right?

I think your trolling is showing

>>1890708
>I'm proposing we apply it to science deniers
And so, you have perfectly demonstrated why it is evil.
What science do you deem we kill people for denying? What if someone denies dark energy, then what? Kill them?

In the early 1900's you'd have been killing people for denying a static universe.

You're just proposing fascism against people you dislike. It's that simple.

IF you don't believe in freedom of speech, thought, and expression (even of ideas you dislike) then you do not, in fact, believe in Enlightenment values.

>>1890668
The principle is unpopular because applying it to humans is evil and puts a level of power in the hands of those who decide by what criteria someone lives or dies that is wholly unacceptable.

Unless you just hate all Enlightenment values, then there is no application with humans that is not evil.

Maybe everyone just decided to orient themselves with the galactic plane and they all agreed, then, on what was "up".
Why? Because who the fuck knows.

>>1890641
Oh shit, I wouldn't even have thought of that.
I think your version might be easier for him to understand, too, when written out.

>>1890637

>>1890548
Very wrong. They were taken literally, and used throughout the news literally. They didn't "represent" anything, the woman who took them didn't intend them to "represent" anything, as she has stated before, she just thought it was an interesting picture to take and years later it was bandied about as "the polar bears are trapped!"

It was literally used as propaganda.

>>1890581
>>1890581
Sorry, I cannot into subtraction.

When subtracting
you are left with

(34x + 10) / 12 y

You then remove 2 from all terms

And you get

(17x + 5) / 6y

>>1890519
Nonononono
Take one piece at a time

Give them the same denominator

that would be 12y you're shooting for
so multiply by 3 and 4 respectively. This gives you

3((18x + 2)/4y) becomes
(54x + 6) / 12y


and 4((5x-1)/3y) becomes
(20x - 4)/12y

then you subtract and are left with

(24x + 10)/12y

reduce it by removing 2 from all terms, and you get

(12x + 5) / 6y


Or not, whatever, I haven't taken a math class in 10 years.

>>1890462
Polar bears can swim dozens of miles. The pictures you've seen of them on iceflows are not "stranded" bears. The famous one with the mother and cub was of a mother and cub playing on the ice, they then hopped off and swam back to the larger mass.

Pictures like that are, more or less, propaganda and do not help the debate in the least because when they are shown to be so much smoke and mirrors people say "SEE?! IT'S ALL BULLSHIT!"

>>1890459
wat

>>1890442
Well, there's always the "Absent God" idea, which is that God merely set the universe in motion, and let the chips fall where they may.

Or he created the universe in such a manner that it "must" have turned out as it did.

There's many responses to your question, but it's impossible to actually test any of them, obviously, so it's kind of silly to debate about except in a sort of philosophical/theological mindset.

Debating these things as "science" is counterproductive.

>>1890396
As far as evolution is concerned, actually, yes it directly conflicts with young earth creationism in a manner that can only be explained away as "Lol, God just made it that way in the beginning!"

There is no problem with having a hypothesis that "The Earth is only 6,000 years old" etc. That's fine, because it is testable, but it has been demonstrated that it is impossible for the world to be only 6,000 years old.

The response, from creationists, is that "well God just made it that way" or "God did this" or "God did that". Those are claims that are impossible to refute, prove, argue with, test, nothing. It's like saying "Well, because magic."

This is the problem with creationism. It isn't the initial claim, it's the refusal to accept that the claim is demonstrably false.

>>1890363
>neither did any of the things you do make you a scientist

I never claimed they did. But it did give me an understanding of scientific methodology, which you are losing your mind over due to a single word without, yet, addressing the minor point, which was not even that argumentative to begin with.

>>1890357
Again, all you're doing is distracting from the actual argument with a strawmen. Even the post you just made is a strawman.

>>1890346
>that's not "work in nuclear physics"
Yes, it is. The field of study included nuclear physics, as did the job.

>>1890344
No, the important word is "consensus" which is the only point I was attempting to make.

You distracted from the actual statement with a strawman that you've been hacking to death for 15 minutes, without addressing the original point in the least.

>>1890329
>just means you phrased it wrongly.
So I improperly phrased it, obviously, that doesn't negate my point.

You're playing with logical fallacies in an attempt to argue a point that I was not even attempting to make.

>>1890315
No, it's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_School

>>1890304
>>1890304
I'm a troll because your word is law?
You just spent 15 minutes arguing the definition of the word "prove"
And you weren't even right.
If anyone's trolling, it's obviously you.