/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1650456
>Ph.D in mathematics
>Any job I want
>300k starting

>>1648166
Dude, I said "Momentum is not a force" and "Gravity doesn't work against itself." If momentum were a force, everything would accelerate forever. Do you disagree with one of these statements?

>>1648110
>gravitational pull is such that any object is in equivalence with the forces of gravity and momentum.
> basic misunderstanding of physics
Why yes this is a basic misunderstanding of physics. The gravitational force's effect on the planet's path IS the force of gravity, and momentum is not a force. Are you defending the statement that momentum is a force? I hope not.

Orbits are defined by the sum force of gravity upon them - mainly from the primary object, and the effects of momentum. Momentum is not a force! Momentum is mass times velocity, and it represents the tendency of a vector to resist change. Gravity pulls an object directly towards the primary, while the momentum of an orbit tends to move it around the primary before it hits.

>>1648042
>gravitational pull is such that any object is in equivalence
Also wrong. In an ellipse, gravitational potential energy is exchanged for kinetic energy. They are not "in equivalence."

But orbits are based on relative mass - the other planets orbit the Sun, and the Stars' motion is not related to the Earth's at all.

>>1647191
>Do you see where you went wrong?

Fine, I'll never stay on topic again.
>>1647193
Ho-hum. Crashing the colony is lame. Send relativistic gravel at it from all directions.

>>1647293
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymothoa_exigua
The parasite replaces the fish's tongue, and is actually better for the fish - it attracts more food.

>>1647134
>Hey /sci/, let's build a space colony
If we're building these, we're building them for beings that exist.

>>1647069
> nearby stars
Going by reflected light alone, these stars would have to be alarmingly close to that star. Something like a light-hour.
>outer surface is populated
By beings that constantly hang at 1 G over a fall of infinite height?
>an industrial zone that needs illumination
tl;dr that is a floor. Very few uses come to mind for a dim near-uniform glow hanging above a void. Industry would be best-served on ledges. It's not heat radiation if it's white-hot.
>>1647076
>all problems solved
One has to wonder about terrorism. It's hard to make these things impervious to any reasonable impactor once you consider the human factor, and rather hard to repair damage. It could be done though, and would be crazy-sweet.

>>1646951
Truth. Every "OMG Secure Flash Drive" software I've seen is trivial to bypass. Use strong encryption and keep backups - all you can possibly lose is the thumb drive.

>>1646917
Artists suck. The back side of a ringworld would be as black as any other shadowed object in space.

>>1646903
Statites don't orbit. They use some form of free thrust to resist the sun. At Earth orbit it's something like 1/100th of a G.

>>1646886
A ringworld? 10000 km in diameter? That's smaller than the sun, bro.

>>1644436
>helpful tip: disproving evolution doesn't automatically make intelligent design the winner

No shit sherlock. What honest person thinks that? Putting forth a mechanism of minor change and claiming that it explains all change throughout the fossil record does not make it right.

>>1644201
>How can someone believe in signed, binary addition, but not believe that, if I add one to a positive value over and over again, it'll eventually roll over and become negative.
tl;dr not only have you not shown that microevolution can progress far from a starting point, but no evolved shape can ever 'flip its sign.'

>>1644201
>How can someone believe in signed, binary addition, but not believe that, if I add one to a positive value over and over again, it'll eventually roll over and become negative.

I'm sorry, without showing that observed small variations in organisms are sequential, cumulative, and infinite in capacity over extended time, this metaphor is invalid. Does selective reproduction produce real new species?

Prove it. We've been observing species in enough detail to distinguish mutation and reproduction as a mechanism for change from any other mechanism for about half a century. This is like watching the water level on a dock for a moment - and seeing that the water is going up. Surely the dock will flood in hours! Unless you're missing a key point.

The sun is currently contracting (or it was a few years ago) at a rate that implies that it engulfed the earth about five hundred thousand years ago. But from knowledge of physics (stars are easy) we have information leading us to believe that this cycle reverses regularly.

Biology is more complex simply because there are more types of interaction. You must show that the observed, massive changes in the fossil record do arise from microevolution caused by mutation and reproduction. Nothing 'new' has been observed, and until then it is mere speculation to presume that mutations, the only mechanism we know of, are th ONLY cause of speciation.

>>1644125
>Everybody would be much happier if you just pumped in some carbon monoxide and you all went home.

Pump nitrous oxide in and they'll die laughing.

700m / 3 months
700 m / 90 days
7.78m / 1 day
.32m / hour
30 cm per hour

That's doable with a tunnel boring machine, and it'll be a 68cm hole, not a 1m hole. 1m is roomy; you can crawl in it.

>>1643208
>has to be a change in DNA, or at least its expression.
Also, expressing old DNA is not enough to get new species. You actually have to show that microevolutions can result in new DNA and new structures, or at least important reorganizations of the organism. That's vague, but it's as vague as species divisions.

>>1643208
>Also, if the animals are growing differently, there has to be a change in DNA, or at least its expression.

No, I just quoted the study showing that they have the same DNA. You are assuming here that every variation in different environments is a new development. That, sir, is not the case.

If they don't accept phylogeny, it's because they are ignorant.

HOWEVER, one could STRONGLY DOUBT that survival of the fittest and mutation could lead to new features. We see those things happen in the fossil record but don't have direct observation of that happening - major changes in a population. Concluding that another phenomenon MUST exist, as anti-evolutionists must do, is a stretch.

>>1639302
>pssst look up the record for the longest distance an animal has ran. Its a human.
How anthropocentric. And we were talking about speed, not "How far they have been seen running lately."
>Have you ever managed to outrun a quadruped
'Outrun' precludes it catching you early, like a horse would. Unless you're climbing, but that's not running.
>>1639359
>beat the sprinter no problem.
See, I don't know why they brought up marathons when we're talking about quadrupeds catching bipeds. I mean, it wasn't even a marathon humans win very often. If it were even you'd expect it to be better than 2/30.

>>1639020
>how can I identify wood

You can get accurate results with simple tools.

27

>stuff that happens to my flesh for example( at the macroscopic level)?
The proteins in your skin denature, killing each cell. In extreme burns, water in your body flashes into steam.