/sci/ - Science & Math

Or is it just a bunch of bullshit scientists created to explain stuff they dont know?

it was just a big electromagnet pushing against earth's magnetic field

nothing else to do in the frozen wasteland

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/486/1/1192/5380810
Turns out that galaxy with no dark matter? Those calculations were using a way-off value for how far the galaxy was. The real distance is more than 25% closer to us.

Amen, you appear to be some kind of AI of a beautiful magnitude.

>>8233001
This is retarded. Just because someone doesn't use the designated process to figure something out doesn't mean they aren't right.

>>8231947
What does it mean if you don't like you're mom?

>>8225197
Some people's brains aren't programmed to do certain things. SOME of this has to do with how they were raised. And some of it doesn't. Everyone is different. Someone who is good at math might have no social skills, which believe it or not, IS a skill. Some people might be really good at mechanics, and some good at reading and writing. But math is something anyone CAN learn. It just comes more naturally to some. 2+2= 4 FOREVER. That never changes. This is why everyone can learn this skill.

>>8175015
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.

The search is over.

Few hours ago:
http://www.futurity.org/dark-matter-gravitational-wave-1189062-2/


Turns out dark matter is simply primordial black holes that were formed at the time of big bang.

Welp, that's it folks.

This guy seems to think we don't. He's a professor at Princeton.

When the original "Big Bang Theory" was first devised, there were two versions. The first is the one we know today, the second was the idea of a cyclic universe, which expanded and contracted on a regular period. More about this later. Anyway, when Hubble did his initial research into universal expansion, he happened to pick galaxies that worked, but he didn't pick very good ones (some were orbiting other galaxies, etc). He got his constant wrong by quite a lot. However, nobody knew this at the time, and his figures seemed to disprove the cyclic universe, since some of the stars in our galaxy were supposedly older than the cycle was calculated to be.

So the idea was thrown out. However, modern calculations make it plausible again, and would eliminate the need for dark energy. They would also get rid of the quantum tunneling problem, the expansion theory, and all the problems with multiverses and continually expanding sections of the universe.

However, the Big Bang (actually named by an opponent of the theory in the hopes that the ridiculous name would cause it to lose credibility), has been forced into modern science and education as "the correct theory," even though it creates all kinds of problems such as the ones listed above.

Thoughts? Comments? I'd be happy to try to answer any questions about the theory.

light speed is too slow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygE01sOhzz0

>>6956916
Sorcery maybe,
But you gotta have faith
To work miracles, baby.

>>6937399

OK then. You can say that another way.

Σ(days sigma was needed) = 0

Who let Bill O'Reilly in here?

>>6935705

Newton Stuck a bodkin in his eye socket to observe how it distorted light on the back of his retina. he stared in the sun long enough to make him partially blind. He drank lots of mercury. He went into parliament and spoke only once to have a window shut. He took over the British mint where he had counterfeiters and coin-shavers hung and was very effective he even went undercover to gather evidence on criminals.

Yeah. the guy lived maybe the most full life you can have without getting any ass.

>>6937296

OK, hang on. I've stated a claim that Amphetamine is not a drug well suited for practical application.

This claim may be errant.

You called me a faggot and told me to enlighten myself without providing evidence for your claim. This is called shifting the burden of proof. If you want to contradict my claim provide evidence that the claim is indeed errant.

If you're a Chem Post Doc I assume you can provide this evidence, and I'm all eyes and ears because I am no expert in this. The claim that I am going off of is that as a stimulant amphetamine is not much more effective than caffeine, because if dosed equivalently the effects would be roughly the same and that there is no exclusive medical practical application that cannot be treated more effectively with alternatives.

If you want to contradict this claim I think it would be rather easy to show how much more effective amphetamine is than caffeine is as a stimulant or provide evidence for medical application for amphetamine that cannot be duplicated or surpassed by another drug.

>>6937253

Do tell.

I snuck into on an Ivy league lecture and pissed a lot of people off but it was worth it. (anyway I thought it was semi-open to the public, and I was working where the lecture was being held.)

According to the professor, who I will not name, Amphetamines are about as effective at dealing with attention deficits as caffeine. All forms of amphetamines have been prescribed with very little study into their effectiveness. Adderall is an amazing case of this. Before being used to treat ADD the same drug was label as Obetrol and was supposed to treat obesity.

I asked the professor after the talk what an actual practical use for amphetamine was and he didn't think there was a practical application that wasn't already met with more conventional drugs.

So yeah, amphetamines are kind of a scam.

>>6936948

You forgot to mention abolish gun control and bring back Jim Crow, ya fuckin' hick.

>>6936906

There is a certain amount of unreasonableness to it though, isn't there? I mean take charge for example. When Newton was working on the orbit of the planet he had no idea that charge even existed, or at leas no idea what it was but the calculus he was developing to explain orbits turns out to provide the exact functions needed for Maxwell to describe electrical charge. So these completely different fields of physics use the same exact methods to describe each of them.

On the other hand you go off of the hypothesis that all of the values in both endeavors are fundamentally quantitative (Mass and charge) and anything quantitative is subject to mathematical laws. If it can be counted it can be calculated, regardless of where it comes from.

But then you get into ideas that don't seem quantifiable like the -1/12 infinite number series sum or probability amplitudes where the concepts are so baffling and the results seem so counter-intuitive and yet even when rational thought and language can't seem to describe these phenomena and ideas mathematics can.

Here's another thought. Math as it is taught today is faceless. Students aren't taught about where math comes from and how it was discovered.

I think math should be additionally taught as history. If you start educating with basic mathematics, learning about Archimedes and Pythagoras and what they figured out you can work your way into Islamic math, Al-Karaji and Alhazen and the development of the scientific method, then you can discuss the development of Calculus, integral and differential equations, commutators and dot products With Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange. Who knows, You might even get up to Feynman QED or Reimann n-dimensional math, Eigenvectors. I think it would be great if students could be able to pursue higher math if it interested them so teachers should be able to personalize their work with students a bit more (Which means smaller and more expensive classrooms, I know) but it's important that students be taught that Math is also a story that has been passed down from ancient Greece through the Islamic world into the Renaissance and the enlightenment to the industrial revolution and the computer age which now stretches from the cell phone in your pocket to the Voyager probe crossing into deep space.

>>6936194

No, the problem is the system. When I was in school they had a normal math program, an AP program and they had algebra for the less advanced. Thus there were a certain amount of seats that they had already designated had to be filled with those who didn't do as well. Rather than getting everyone in the same math class they decided 'Hey, lets make sure that a certain number of students have to be put into something substandard, and even though they might not be dumb we have to meet that quota.'

But if I were to make the changes I'd want to show the breadth of mathematics rather than overwhelming students with big numbers.

Show how math can be used in different ways, Show theorems and Geometry, prime numbers and proofs, matrix equations and calculus. Demystify the sigma sum symbols and binomial theorem at an earlier age. Once kids know basic arithmetic spend the rest of high school on teaching them how to decode the sometimes overwhelming language of math so if they want to go deeper into math in college.

Another good idea would be to try to join math and physics more intimately in high school. Teach kids to be able to build basic predictive models using math and then execute those models in lab top experiments. Show math in its various forms and applications, and don't make its intention to be difficult with larger numbers as much as showing how it can be practical with more common everyday values.

Is the relationship between Mathematics and Physics unreasonably convenient or intrinsically deductive?

In other words is it amazing that mathematics can be used to describe all the phenomena of the universe or plainly obvious as that is what mathematics was designed to do in the first place.