Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 391. page

>>8996870
http://www.braeunig.us/space/

File: 4257380038_59c2466b3a_o.jpg (655KB, 4088x2908px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 4088x2908px

>>8996900
That site seems to be about rocket technology. It doesn't seem to hold answers for my geometrical problem.

>>8996915

Not him but they probably meant to link you to the orbital mechanics page on the left side of the site.

(Cont.) What we would experience is, at the dawn of consiousness on Earth, there would be many different intelligent life forms in the universe and possibly in our own galaxy. Over time they would get wiped out by one of many great filters out there (gamma ray bursts, giant asteroids, death of the host star, rogue black holes, etc.,) but only from OUR perspective reality. If they had achieved a similar level of consiousness themselves they would continue to exist in a timeline where they never went extinct. So over time we would see the other forms of intelligent life in the universe slowly get wiped out one by one, and they would see the same thing. Until eventually, every consious race in the universe would find themselves being the last surviving race, and wondering when they would follow the others into the black void of non-existence. We are either close to, or have already reached this point, explaining the seeming lack of intelligent life anywhere but on Earth. Many have described god (note the lower case "g" indicating my lack of faith) as part of the mind, a being who created us, and watches over us to keep us safe. What many people call god is just a function of high level consiousness, resulting in us eventually becoming the only beings left in the entire universe. A universe seemingly made for us, and only us, by our own evolutionary need to pass on our genetic code.

I realize this is entirely unfalsifiable, and closer to philosophy than science but this is the only place i could think to share it. Thoughts?

>>8996765
For the love of god, paragraphs!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some examples:
A video and an article, titled “What Happens at the Edge of the Universe?” and “What Lies Beyond the Edge of the Observable Universe?”
First the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwwIFcdUFrE
The title of the video is “What Happens at the Edge of the Universe?” not “can we reach the edge of the universe in a spaceship”. But he goes on to say we can’t reach the edge of the universe because we would have to travel through expanding space, and the closer we get to our destination the more space would have expanded, so we never reach the edge of the universe.
> “… (Assume we break the cosmic speed limit) to chase the particle horizon. What do we find? Almost certainly, just more universe (4:32)”
> “…Is sapcetime really is perfectly flat (…) we get that the universe is infinite (…) what happens if you cross the particle horizon, the unigerse just goes on and on and on and on and on… (…) there are many types of infinity including some that involve infinite repeating versions of this bit of the universe…” (5:27)

Then the article: https://futurism.com/what-lies-beyond-the-edge-of-the-observable-universe/
> “…Astronomers think space outside of the observable universe might be an infinite expanse of what we see in the cosmos around us, distributed pretty much the same as it is in the observable universe. …”
> “… So, in some ways, infinity makes sense. But “infinity” means that, beyond the observable universe, you won’t just find more planets and stars and other forms of material…you will eventually find every possible thing. Every. Possible. Thing. …”
> “… That means that, if this holds true and we follow it to its logical conclusion, somewhere out there, there is another person who is identical to you in every possible way…”

how do cosmologists have jobs?

>>8995897
>hacker collective
not a thing
fake news
more like some dumbfuck neck beards with no skills released a random video under the many thousands of channels with some variant of the name "anonymous"

>>8995897

>Anonymous

Such a reliable source

>>8995897
love those bullet points
they have absofuckinglutely no relation to each other, but somehow they justify that stupid fucking headline

I HATE him, when I was younger I would listen to his speeches
How COME that we aren't a type III civilization yet!?
He said it would happen soon

personally, I think he is great, teaching science to dumb americans

>>8994498
freemason shill for scientism.

>>8994413

actually using it is something a trained monkey could probably do

>>8994420

I want to understand the theory

>>8994426
literally read the wikipedia article

>>8994123
nice monke

>>8994123
You are right, not forget network science
Being able to research in economics is a different story. But desu economists are completley detached from reality, we got shitshows like neoclassical economics because economists are too busy proving highly abstract theorems that don't translate to real economies that are complex entities with emergent behavior

iktf. it seems like the more granular one gets into economics the less applicable it becomes

>>8988686
its not poor design its unoptimized evolution
anything door designed dies out

look at a horse's knee.
if I wanted to design a bad joint, prone to failure in the job it was designed to do, it would look a lot like a horse's knee.

>>8988686
>poor design
there's a classic though unconvincing response to this sort of question

you can look into descartes if you want to see an example

>>8996812
yes. is that what you want to hear?

>>8996812
no. is that what you want to hear?

>>8996812
>Is the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics a meme scientist.
No.

>>8996725
Did you make this or someone else?

>>8996732
Op here , i made this ,give it a shot

>>8996725
is the pic related?

>>8996006
This made me realise how normie teir /fit/ really is.
Half the threads on this board are about collective consciousness and discussing the deeper topics of life, meanwhile were trying o figure out how high you could send a woman flying with a proper clean upper cut.

Also shameless bump

>>8996019
Hi there, also from fit. The curiosity is really getting to me, I might start learning kindergarten level physics.

>>8996019
Yeah, I sort of feel bad, but not.

I know I can launch a 50kg woman at least 4 metres horizontally with a decent knee strike.
But wouldn't a punch be much better for velocity transfer and hence distance as it's going to accelerate faster?
Or would the reduced leverage/energy cause it to be worse?

>>8995776
>Logical autism
Lmao no one cares. QM is too predictive.

>A is A

Not true. The statement actually contains two different objects; "the left A and the right A", or "the first A and the last A". Thus, although both objects are called "A", they hold a quality that can be used to separate them from each other. Therefore they are not one and the same.

Similarly, if you hold two apples in your hand, it is clear that they are not the exact same apple, since in that case we would be talking about one apple instead of two apples.

File: epicycle-epicycle.gif (2KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 240x180px

>>8995807
Epicycles were very predictive too. They didn't describe the physical reality though, they were wrong and prevented humanity from progressing.

>>8995811
No, A is A means that anything that exists has a specific identity (its own identity). Thus, under certain circumstances that entity can only act in one way (law of causality).

For example, if you let go of an apple, it will fall to the floor. That's the only possible outcome; it's not going to go up, or disappear, por burst into flames for no reason. The apple has a specific identity and so only one outcome is possible under specific conditions.

If I said that there's a 50% chance it will fall to the floor, and 50% chance it will rise up and hit the ceiling, I'd be saying that the law of identity and law of causality aren't true. It seems to me that that's what modern physicists are doing with QM.

They are both correct in the context of the calculators' evaluation rules.

>>8995386

What's your stance on implicit multiplication?

Is 1/2πi = πi/2 or 1/2πi = 1/(2πi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Exceptions

>>8995386
Casio was "wrong".
The standard way to do these operations is the aditions from left to right and then the multiplications from left to right.

File: dice_probabilities_2.png (53KB, 1020x656px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1020x656px

I've recently been trying to come up with some sort of weird probabilities you roll a d2, d3, d4, d5, and d6 at the same time.

The reason for this is because you can use dice shaped like the platonic solids in order to roll this, just by rearranging the numbers on the races. Take a look:

>altered d4 = d{1,1,2,2} = d2
>altered d6 = d{1,1,2,2,3,3} = d3
>altered d8 = d{1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4} = d4
>altered d12 = d{1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6} = d6
>altered d20 = d{1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5} = d5

But even though this starts out promising, I haven't found any probabilities that seem very interesting yet.

>>8995075
>dice and the math behind them
The distribution of the sum of two or more independent die rolls is the convolution of the individual distributions.

That's about the only nontrivial bit of math you'll actually need.

>>8995087
Convolution?

>>8994736
That's more like a 60k job. Also you're gonna have to have some ECE knowledge to get that job with your CS degree. They probably have CS positions though

>>8994736
Install gentoo and fuck off back to /g/

>>8994801
Its a job listing from rockwell automation. I looked up the salaries on indeed reported salariea and they are 75k-95k for electrical engineers... but this is just one of many examples a CS degree can be used in another field