Exoplanet research, prove to me why this isn't the biggest waste of time and money to come out of """nasa"""
Because it's cool to know stuff?
If we send a message that says:
> aye, what's up guys? we from earth n shit, haha hmu
We'd get a response in 2 years
It's not a waste. Id rather have tax dollars spent on new discoveries and interesting things instead of welfare and neetbux
If evolution exists why haven't we observed any changes in humans?
>>8692045
An even better question: Why are apes still here?
>>8692045
>If evolution exists why haven't we observed any changes in humans?
There was a past thread I just attempted to find that actually did detail how humans are still evolving in a way. I remember one post there about the human eye being capable of seeing more fps I believe it was and if I'm not remembering wrong. I also made a few posts about the whole humans evolving, changing idea before on /sci/ and also in the last "bettering humanity" thread that had this concept and other great ideas
>https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/8678094/#q8678094
>Pic related and being /fit/ are the closest we can and will realistically get to advanced humanity/transhumanism, especially since pic related happened already in a way throughout humanities history. Borg-ing ourselves(mechanical transhumanism) and playing Tetris with genes (genetic engineering) still have a long way to go as well as problems and risks. A more /fit/, human, and seeing what we can do with what we already have could do the job and can especially realistically be done now. Especially regular people just plain currently getting fitter.
I'll still try to see if i can find the other thread
>>8692151
And more info on the concept and Joe as well as what he can do in the series
>http://www.t5forums.com/forum/the-vs-sections/general-discussion/respect-threads/48059-joseph-newton-respect-thread
And don't lie you fatlards. Me: Medicine, Université de Lyon.
KU Leuven
Chemistry
MIT
Double major in quantum physics and Africa American gender studies
I don't study anymore, I'm math teacher for underage fags. Worst job ever.
I'll start us off.
How long do you have to study linear algebra to finally have the 'red pill' on it? My course now covers: Vector spaces, Linear Transformations, Orthogonality, and The Spectral Theorem.
10 years
Why is the entropy of the universe increasing? Are we gonna die when we reach thermodynamic equilibrium?
>>8677716
we're more than likely going to die off way before then, but I reckon the universe will have a cold death, yes.
Entropy is increasing because of the rate of expansion. Eventually all the stars will burn out, there won't be any hydrogen or helium gas left to burn, black holes will probably dominate until they also "burn out" and then we will just be left with a vacuum. Entropy will have reached its highest and final point, given there is no more matter remaining.
>Tfw there are actually extremely intelligent people devoting their life to asking questions like "is there objective reality", "how can I achieve the pure absolute truth", "what if I live in a simulation", "what was before time", "do I exist", "how can I prove this rock is grey"
>Tfw there are also other extremely intelligent people devoting their life for money and power, getting work done, fucking gorgeous babes every day, everyone respecting them
I hope you never set your foot on the mentioned path, /sci/
But isn't literally everyone asking themselves these questions all the time tho, yourself included
>>8696655
>asking
>devotion
Words can have a meaning and magnitude bro.
>>8696650
Show some respect to our elders who have been trapped by the void instead of liberated by it.
Never forget that science is built on two words.
Sin and Cene.
Without Blindness.
>7 potentially habitable planets all very close to each other
>if humanity started on one of those planets, we would have started colonizing the others decades ago
>it's literally the setting for a utopia
Anyone else feel pretty shitty that they weren't born there? I just want to die. Fuck earth, eat shit and die.
>tidally locked planets
>utopia
>>8694637
implying we actually know anything about what their surfaces would be like
>>8694637
I'm pretty glad we don't have the opportunity to destroy 7 planets instead of 1, yes.
Why is it that /sci/ sees so many posts about the idiot meme-drive (you know the one I mean) while ignoring the real miracle about to revolutionize space exploration?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/nasas-longshot-bet-on-a-revolutionary-rocket-may-be-about-to-pay-off/
>>8694351
>implying this meme drive could ever be better than NSWR
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
>>8694351
>arstechnica.com
Sage, hide and report.
ITT: Things brainlets say
>Philosophy is useless
>>8692303
>earth is sphere
>>8692303
obligatory post about philosophy
>your degree matters more than your connections, always go for a STEM major
...?
so in other words sociopaths are realized humans.
hm where do nihilists fall on this?
>>8692071
Not at all you silly boy!
>nihilists
Oh this is an 18+ chart/for people who don't live with their parents
>>8692052
Edgy af.
Hey /sci/. Hypothetically speaking, if you had the ability and equipment to bring any new race of sentient beings into existence...would you?
Why? Why not?
Yes, catgirls, only girls, and they'd be sufficiently genetically different and low intelligence enough to be considered a different species you can keep as a pet, but still smart enough to use the toilet themselves and maybe cook.
>>8696701
....no anon has to be a race. Gotta clone a cat boy or nine. The whole nine yard of yarn. The whole Adamnya and Evenya thing. They will begin learning human languages, build their own cities, everything. Full free will.
Do you still do it?
>>8696701
Also, Bonus question.
How would the world religions react?
Would scientists world wide have to make their own religion and go back to the old ways of wearing hoods and hats and living in observatories while dressing like mages and wizards?
>unsolved problems: how bikes stay upright
what is angular momentum?
And time for another edition of OP feels smart for answering dumb questions that nobody asked.
>>8692502
Didn't this exact thread just 404?
>>8692502
False. Bikes do not stay upright through gyroscopic forces:
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyrobike.htm
If prime, 2017 is the year Riemmen's Hipothesis is proven right or wrong.
Math general.
>>8691595
5*11*158029
What's another year.
Is it possible to have two functions defined on the same domain (for the sake of argument let's just say R^n, otherwise the answer would be trivial), that is equal at every x, yet we can't show them too be using straightforward algebraic manipulation?
well?
Do your worst.
>>8685595
>>8685595
>>8685595
This is the best one I think.
Do they have even a 10% chance of being out there /sci/?
As things stand do you think it would benefit the earth if we did make contact?
>>8664097
100% chance given the size of our galaxy, yet alone the universe.
No, we aren't ready for contact. Not until we colonize Alpha Centauri.
>>8664140
What about Mars?
>>8664216
We had the tech to colonize Mars since the late 1970's.
I'm working through Velleman's "How to Prove It", and I decided to try and do a proof of a lemma used in one of the exercises. The question in the book were for the reader to think about whether there are any more triplet primes except 3, 5, 7.
Of course there aren't, and the easiest proof of that is showing that since one out of every three consecutive integers needs to be divisible by three, it's impossible for all those three numbers to be prime.
Since that proof uses the (unwritten) lemma that for every n consecutive integers, at least one of them will be divisible by n, I'd try my hand at proving it, before actually diving into the proof methods of the book.
In short, rate my proof /sci/:
Theorem:
For every [math]n[/math] consecutive integers, at least one of those integers will be divisible by [math]n[/math].
Proof:
The case where n is 1 is trivial, since all numbers divide by (at least) 1.
Let [math]n[/math] be an integer such that [math]n > 1[/math]. Let [math]x, x-1,x-2,...,x-(n-1)[/math] be the list of the [math]n[/math] consecutive integers.
We proceed by contradiction. Since none of the integers in the list is divisible by [math]n[/math], [math]x[/math] is not divisible by [math]n[/math]. Thus,
[eqn]x = qn + r[/eqn],
[eqn](1) x - r = qn[/eqn]
Where [math]r[/math] is the remainder.
Since [math]r[/math] is the remainder, [math]0 < r < n[/math], but [math]r[/math] must be greater than [math]n-1[/math], since all integers from [math]x-1[/math] to [math]x - (n-1)[/math] are found in the list. Thus we have a contradiction.
Q.E.D (hopefully)
Feel free to point out the flaws in my proof, there are certain to be some. Anything that's unclear, or unconventional in proofs.
the proof is technically fine but it's a bit weird when you say
>but r must be greater than n−1, since all integers from x−1 to x−(n−1) are found in the list.
in my opinion it's easier to just note that since 0<r<n (by the division algorithm), x-r is in the original list, so you have a contradiction
>>8696357
it's actually quite good.
>>8696365
Yeah, that felt like the "weakest" part to me too, I was afraid there was some circular reasoning going on there, but perhaps not.
And yeah, the way you explained it was way better. So is replacing the last part with something like:
"Since [math]x-r[/math] for every [math]0 < r < n[/math] is in the original list, we have a contradiction."
a better version?