/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3129980

It's called a reaction engine, the reaction mass doesn't need to react against a static force, its own momentum (see conservation laws) is used to impart inertia on the spacecraft.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+light+/+1+gee

A little less than a year at Earth surface gravity.

>>2468461

<div class="math">\frac{-b\pm{}\sqrt{b^{2}-4ac}}{2a}</div>

You learn LaTeX.

http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

>>2468130

Because computers and cellphones aren't allowed on exams.

And using a calculator is still less effort than pulling up my laptop and using Mathematica.

>>2468117

TI-84+ here

>no symbolic differentiation or integration OOTB

shitsucks

>>2462762

Yes, but none of the multiverse ideas have been "calculated". The closest thing to a scientific reasoning I can find in the entire idea is "Wow, what were the odds of our universe developing life? Inorite?"

I'm not questioning anyone's endeavour to continue researching in this direction. I'm just annoyed by all the publicity this idea is getting and the downright retarded interpretations of it by the mainstream media. Stuff like this is what makes normal people doubt ALL OF science.

>>2462738

>hardly understand the universe
>make elaborate assumptions and hypotheses about "other universe" based on your imagination alone

>>2462698
>he hasn't heard about the anthropic principle

Sure, life "as we know it" may not exist, but some other form of life might, wondering why the universe is so well suited to IT. We just don't know why the universe allows our existence, and the entire multiverse idea is just jumping to conclusions with no rational process or scientific method between the assumptions, hypotheses and conclusions.

>>2462656

You're wrong, what you're referring to is the observable universe.

>The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists.

>>2462645

"universe" is archaic? Really? Who gets to define it now, pseudoscientists and metaphysics morons with nothing better to do than speculate with no actual data?

Show me one area of science where any of the multiverse theories are a necessary assumption and/or backed up by scientific experiment.

Do these retards even know what the word "universe" means? It means, literally, "all there is". If 'another universe' can be observed from ours, it follows that it physically affects our universe and is therefore part of THE universe. If it can't be observed from our universe, than we don't really know it exists.

The cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be.

The furnace, freezer and a transport to get snow/ice back above the furnace would spend far more energy than the turbine would ever produce.

>>2065628

It's fucking 3150€ per platform. If the fact that I don't have that much disposable income somehow makes me "poor" by your standards, than I'd question your standards sooner than I would my financial status.

>>2065634

>learn a low-level programming language to do mathematical computation

I'm guessing also you get food by blugdeoning wild animals and chewing on grass roots?

Is there a torrent/rapidshit yet? Linux version preferred, but windows is acceptable.

>Atheists: what evidence makes you believe beyond a reasonable doubt God does not exist?

None. Since you can also not confirm the non-existence of buddha, allah, thor, zeus or any other deity, please feel free to practice every religion man ever knew, "just to be on the safe side".

Science doesn't prove negatives, it assumes negatives until proven otherwise. Thus far, we haven't seen any compelling evidence to believe a 2000 years old jewish fairy tale, or any other religious text for that matter.

>>2048638
>>2048600

Dog owners confirmed for closet racists.

>>2047817

Was he the antiocial, semi-retarded recluse that the War On Some Drugs people want you to believe all cannabis users are? Nope.

Carl Sagan.

>>2036715

OK, first, most "war crimes" probably are federal offenses, whatever that is (I'm not American).

Secondly, you're basically saying a "war crime" is a crime with "while at war" appended to it? Because I don't think that's how it works.

so much stupid in this thread...

>>2036703

>war crimes

You don't recognise the difference between organised warfare and murder, but you do recognise the difference between crimes and "war crimes"? wait wat

>>2036695

""Force projection" is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory."

Also, if you don't recognise the difference between organised warfare and murder (like every civilized state does), you're a delusional faggot.