/sci/ - Science & Math

They are publishing their findings so that other researchers can try to figure out what systematic error(s) could have skewed their results. Like tectonic plates moving or the moon orbiting or something like that. They’re thorough, and have stated that they will triple check every possibility in due time.

Also there's two widely speculated questions going around:
1)Can we hit things with an inverse tachyon beam
2)How much longer before we can convert biological mass into neutrinos with a deceleration system that allows the particles to slow at the destination and reconstruct the matter

This could this be because distance between two points is not constant measurement, but depends upon the particles at the end. We earlier believed speed is constant, then concluded it is relative to the observer.

For centuries we believed time is constant and then v came to know time is relative to observer.
could this be the revelation that distance between two points in turn is relative to the particles at two end?

For example for an electron distance between point A and B could be X, but same distance for a proton could be Y, where X-->Y (tends to)
I made some calculations and they sent the neutrino 732 km, the light travels that distance in, 0,002 441 689 177s(speed of light is 299 792 458m/s) 60ns faster means neutrino traveled in 299 799 825m/s.. that is 7367km/s faster then light, not a little

and if you put the speed to 300 006 00m/s that would make the time for the neutrino to be there 0, 000 001 737 976s faster = 1,737 976x10^-6s ( µs)

I think there has to be more experiments. One is not enough. It could be a hardware glitch.
This only comes from one source. Many different sources have to replicate those results for them to be somewhat valid. And even then, we would need to check for the malfunctioning of the research software and hardware, and see if all these sources use different types of software and hardware.

Its ridiculous how precise the measurements have to be, a delay of 100ns on recording the time of released neutrinos could account for this. Really need to wait for some independent experiments to back this up before taking it too seriously.
But…http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html
It is not a measurement error. This is the one thing the researchers are sure of, i.e they checked their instruments before talking to the public.

>My response to the posts in this thread and reliable evidence to justify ones claims

The human condition traps us between the two options: infinite and finite.

We cannot accept things with an end. If I say there is this biggest number ever, you will rebel and find the next one. If I say you die and then it's nothing, you rebel. If I say the universe came out of nothing or is heading towards nothing, it sounds absolutely impossible.

At the same time, the thought that infinite possibilities are real, beyond space and time, beyond imagination and sensoral response, we rebel just as well. The part turns out to be bigger than the whole, the ending is the middle of the beggining, anything can happen and will happen and is happening is a frightening thought.

So, we create models, simple models that are there just to hold this burden. "My dad knows it all, I'm just a child". "Humans don't know stuff, only God knows his plans for the universe". "I cannot feel the universe, so I'll try and understand it rationally". Abstractions, states of mind, that's all.

>on topic
On any level involving whole brains: free will exists.
On any level below whole brains: free will is n/a.
Why?
Because WE ARE OUR BRAINS!!!
If you go below the level of the self, you can't expect concepts that only emerge with the self to apply.
It's like saying "evolution doesn't exist (on a biological level) because when you look at the level of DNA it's just chemistry". Of course the concept of evolution doesn't apply to individual atoms in DNA, it only emerges at a higher level of complexity.

Ready for my bullshit?

Scientists established that the Earth shifted its axis by less than a degree several thousand year ago starting a downhill tumble for the Sahara rainforest. It shifted the weather patterns driving less and less rain to the region.

The sahara was largely vast grass lands and on the top coast of Africa was cedar forests. What happened to all of that? Rome, Greece and Egypt needed the lumber for construction and fuel for cooking and firing limestone to make plaster.

Today, and thousands of years ago those cedar forests are gone, and the destruction of those forests caused massive erosion. It became so arid and the soil so sandy and infertile that the permanent, nearly lifeless desert arose.
Today the land is so dry and sandy that when it does rain, the water never reaches the water table and evaporates almost instantly. The super heated sand also prevents the proper conditions for rainstorms to occur in the first place.

tl;dr The Sahara desert is largely manmade. We fucked it up.

>>3331265
.......

>>3331107
you'll have to be more specific, but assuming your a guy...I'll just make a hunch and say yes, doctors recommend you take some type yoga or meditation practice

>>3331112
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6416695/OSHO_-_What_Is_Meditation

and you may need this aswell
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5914920/Meditation_Music

>>3331062
meditation only shields you from chronic stress, and makes coping with stress much easier. What they don't tell you though is that it doesn't relieve severe anxiety or things like PTSD

>>3328987
The relaxation response includes changes in metabolism, heart rate, respiration, blood pressure and brain chemistry. Henry Benson and his team have also done clinical studies at Buddhist monasteries in the Himalayan Mountains.

Only when meditation is used as some sort of mystical remedy for illnesses and stress does it have its drawbacks

So, once you're relaxed and don't need to fidget, start paying attention to your breath. You don't have to control it - in fact controlling it splits your attention into two things (controlling the breath and sensing the breath) - just notice when your breathing happens naturally. Notice when you breathe in and when you breathe out. Inevitable, your mind will do other things while you are doing this, but that's normal for beginners. Whenever you notice that your mind has wandered off to something else, just take a deep breath or two, and refocus on your breathing.

It will probably seem hopeless and impossible at first, but again you probably couldn't deadlift 500lbs your first try either. By doing it over and over again, you'll build up the ability to concentrate for longer and longer periods of time on one thing. This capability transfers quite easily to any other subject you might care to think about, such as math.

It should be understood by everyone that meditation is not some mystical power that magically improves concentration and focus; the benefit to meditating comes from the fact that practicing meditation is practicing concentration and focus.

trying to focus my attention on a specific part of my body. Generally I start with my big toe on my left foot - begin by paying attention to the feelings coming from that toe (the pressure of your leg on it, the opposed pressure of the carpet, etc), and in doing so you will be refining the focus of your attention. Then, while focusing on that area, imagine that every time you breathe out, your breath travels down through your body and goes out through your toe. A few times doing this makes my toe feel quite relaxed, and if you begin to feel your pulse in your toe, you've got it and can move on. Feeling the pulse there isn't necessary to move on, that's just what works for me. Other people feel a tingling sensation, heaviness, etc.


Then do the same thing for all the areas of your body - the whole foot, lower leg, upper lag, butt, back, chest, face and so on - and eventually you end up feeling very relaxed and inclined to sit still and not move.

That is good practice meditating in and of itself, but it's primary value is in helping you to not become distracted by bodily sensations while doing other kinds of meditations for longer periods of time. This is because when one attempts to meditate, itching, rearranging clothes, moving your hair, yawning etc, are all distractions that interrupt mental focus.

no, unless you wake up. Unlike a day dream, you can’t lucid dream while you are awake, so adequate sleep is absolutely vital. Another important thing to note is that you experience REM sleep (where dreaming occurs) longer as the night progresses, so you must be able to commit around 8 hours to sleeping

Its stated that the best time, or must successful time to lucid dream is when you wake up in the middle of the night, so I can see how that would effect your sleep schedule.

http://dreampush.com/benefits-of-lucid-dreaming/

>>3327655
yes, I'm quite the linguist

I've only been there twice, both times were for from college opportunity.

majoring in business, but I'm fascinated with the fields of science

>>3327580
Thanks for the validation, I was thinking about it earlier today and had been annoying my friends in the process for some sort of crutch.

Most say the underlying philosophy makes repercussions around science and as such, should be split into an entirely new unit of study, the scientific method

I'll delete this thread in a few mins, sorry if I came off as some sort of base, vulgar pseudo-intellectual

>>3327507
Fine, and sorry..

Instead of deleting the thread, another question had popped into head.

Scientists established that the Earth shifted its axis by less than a degree several thousand year ago starting a downhill tumble for the Sahara rainforest. It shifted the weather patterns driving less and less rain to the region.

The sahara was largely vast grass lands and on the top coast of Africa was cedar forests. What happened to all of that? Rome, Greece and Egypt needed the lumber for construction and fuel for cooking and firing limestone to make plaster.

Today, and thousands of years ago those cedar forests are gone, and the destruction of those forests caused massive erosion. It became so arid and the soil so sandy and infertile that the permanent, nearly lifeless desert arose.
Today the land is so dry and sandy that when it does rain, the water never reaches the water table and evaporates almost instantly. The super heated sand also prevents the proper conditions for rainstorms to occur in the first place.

Could the Sahara desert be largely manmade?

Science is a philosophy based on the foundational principles of empiricism and scientific determinism.

Within that philosophy is the scientific method, which is a tool, that with those two assumptions, should yield valid results about the world.

Then often times when people refer to 'science' would they also refer to the mountain of knowledge that exists within this philosophical framework that the scientific method has validated?

Because gamma radiation travels at the speed of light towns all over the globe would have no warning that a cosmic disaster was about to unfold. If a gamma ray burst bursts, i'd be the brightest thing in the night sky, instead of one sun in the sky you'd see two suns, and you'll know something bad is about to happen.

Now although the closest star to the earth that could explode is only 8000 light-years away, even at that distance a burst headed towards earth could be catastrophic, taking out the o-zone layers and leaving us defenseless.

Temperatures would rise, anything with eyes would be blinded, everything would stunt at a molecular level. All life on earth would die, and only bacteria would survive.

thoughts?
pic unrleated

Quite a feat OP, you should be proud.

>>3098620
18/m/US
4.2

I practice derivative and geometry when lucid dreaming

6 back
anonymous 100.00 523.13 ms 523.13

>>3042442
>this belongs in the troll philosophy board
fix'd

I seem to be in the right place

It's not free will that is the illusion, the actual illusion is material nature. Everything you experience with your senses is material and is really just an overlay that your brain creates from interpreted data that is taken in of the surrounding environment.

The actual form of this data (The universe) is literally a series of slowly vibrating waves of energy. Your brain gives the universe its material form without which the universe would just be a lot of waves passing between each other, so does free will actually exist?

Just because our brains are computational machines, ultimately acting in an automatic way (at the lowest level), does not affect the notion of free will on a social level.

On any level involving whole brains: free will exists.
On any level below whole brains: free will is n/a.
Why?
Because WE ARE OUR BRAINS!!!
If you go below the level of the self, you can't expect concepts that only emerge with the self to apply.
It's like saying "evolution doesn't exist (on a biological level) because when you look at the level of DNA it's just chemistry". Of course the concept of evolution doesn't apply to individual atoms in DNA, it only emerges at a higher level of complexity.

To say that "you don't have control over your own actions", is bullshit because the very concept of "you" already takes into account the determinism that you claim destroys >"your" ability to decide.
So, (deterministic)you does have (deterministic) control over your (deterministic)actions.
As determinism is attached to all terms in the equation it can be ignored when dealing with problems such as what action to take and personal responsibility etc.

Now, onto morality,
of course morality exists. To behave in a way that you know is either unfair or will lead to a decrease in fairness is to act immorally. To act in such a way that is fair or will lead to an increase in fairness is to act morally. Simple as.
The only reason there are disputes over what is fair is because we do not have the capacity to completely prove what is the most fair option all the time (even though it in theory does exist). Similarly, there are disputes (opinions) over the effects of different economic strategies, but that doesn't mean economics is "subjective".

http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/2573771

http://pastie.org/1803179

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/

http://bib.tiera.ru/static

>>3014248
Fine. But I'll take being smart over being athletic. Plenty of people may disagree with me. I'm a fairly average athlete (started for HS football team, but that's about it), but I scored in the 99th percentile on my ACT/SAT.

I think it all comes down to adaptations to environments, as you said. Africans developed differently as a direct result of environmental aspects, and as a result many people of african descent have genetics that are favorable to an athletic build, but place less emphasis on intelligence. It simply wasn't selected for. Smart non-athletes were devoured by the animals. Quick idiots survived. And smart athletes survived, but few are blessed with both qualities. The exact opposite took place in Europe, where natural selection was more dependent on intelligence because society developed much faster.

TL;DR, stereotypes exist because of the majority and are true because of the environments which cultivated the phenotype originally. However, exceptions exist semi-frequently, and there are smart black people and athletic whites. Racism is unwarranted because not EVERYONE in a racial group is the same, even if a majority are.