Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1086. page

>>8541751
They're both the same answer, I don't get it.

>>8541751
Modelling continuous problems was certainly one of them

File: 1481386661096.gif (623KB, 360x263px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 360x263px

>>8541768
lmao brainlet

>>8541475
makes working in polar really really easy

good for triggering people

Haha get it? xD

>>8541475
complex numbers = time evolution in waves

>>8541391
underage b&

Is it truth this has applications in physics or just idiots creating sources out of nowhere?

>>8541403
In the video he refers to the formula being used in a string theory textbook.

Since strong theory has yet to be proved or unproved (in fact we don't know if we can ever prove it) then pretty much amounts to nothing real.

Chen confirmed that Cast has developed a test device of the EmDrive and that tests to verify that the device can actually fly are already being carried out in low-Earth orbit. This ties in with information sources in the international space industry gave IBTimes UK under condition of anonymity that China already has an EmDrive on its orbital space laboratory Tiangong-2.

>>8541141
Brainlet here. What's an EmDrive? And where can I get one?

>>8541152
This was posted, almost, a month ago on NSF, and everyone ridiculed the guy who posted it.

March claimed that the superconducting Cannae test is producing, in the excess of, 50 N/kW. No idea why there hasn't been any other labs who are testing these things.

File: be6.jpg (13KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x216px

>>8540798
stop

space is retarded go away

>>8540840
This

>>8540706
Dirty chink.

>>8540706
He hasnt done any real science since the 1970s , and his understanding of physics atm is laughable. I mean heres his description of the higgs boson:
>The Higgs boson is often called “the God particle” because it’s said to be what caused the “Big Bang” that created our universe many years ago. The nickname caught on so quickly partly because it’s a great explanation of what it’s supposed to do - the Higgs boson is what joins everything and gives it matter.

The Higgs had nothing whatsoever to do with causing the Big Bang. It also doesn’t "join everything" whatever that means. It does give *mass* to elementary particles like electrons and quarks, which isn’t the same as giving “matter” (since that kind of doesn’t make any sense), and besides which it doesn’t give mass to protons and neutrons and therefore most of the mass in ordinary objects.

Its like he just decided fuck it, why do real scince when i can just make shit up and the public wont know the different anyway.

my favorite quote made by a real theoretical physicist about him is
>It seems that Professor Kaku feels it necessary, in order to engage the imagination of the public, to make spectacular distortions of the physics behind the Higgs field and the Higgs particle, even to the point of suggesting the Higgs particle triggered the Big Bang.

>In doing this, Professor Kaku sows confusion among journalists and the public, and undermines the efforts of serious particle physicists to explain and convey, both vividly and accurately, the science and the excitement of our time. And on what grounds does he justify this? Doesn’t the taxpaying public deserve the truth? Isn’t the truth already exciting enough? And what will the public think of science if, in this information era, the promulgation of falsehoods and near-falsehoods on national media is unanswered by complaints from other scientists?

>>8540706
Absolute madman like most popsci guys that shill a fuckton

But hey, he's trying to make people get into STEM (kinda) so it's a good thing (for the universities)
So i guess it should be a kind of /sci/ dream, just like /g/ has them too with Linus

>He isn't getting money from just making shit up and having fun

>>8540315
Single mothers are shit. Depending on what he means by muscles, he's also wrong. Drop this guy quick as he seems like a beta back bitch.

>>8540315
Yea he is, if he merely looked at fossils and bones of people from those times men had much larger upper body bones compared to women. It was highly evident that men contained and grew more muscle and their testosterone enabled that growth

Where does he even get that there is no physiological or biological evidence? There's tons of it just in bones alone that support the claim. There's even more seen today where many apes have large males and smaller females

He'll even genetically we can differentiate these growth protein spawning groups down to the Y chromosome and where It specifically starts

What a crock of shit

>>8540322
Physical muscles.
>>8540329
Other than muscles. For example, life expectancy,

I cant speak for the Euro schools but some of the Harvard and MIT math classes are insanely difficult.
>tfw this fucking course
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-712-introduction-to-representation-theory-fall-2010/

But in academia theres still hope for you even if you did do you undergraduate at a lower class school. One of my Physics I TA's went to a liberal arts school for his undergrad in physics and is now doing a condensed matter theory phd at mit.

>>8540147
Nigga, having education in a 1st world country is the best shit in the world

Don't be stupid, even a University of [state] is good enough for the rest of the fucking world
Just apply to the best university around you, get a nice fucking GPA and learn how to write a nice resume so you can get the jobs that the "Top 10" universities could have

Hell, they're top 10 because of cost, prestige and how they innovate but there are a fuckton good universities as well in the US and UK

>inb4 brainlet that didn't got into a good school

>>8540147
Very stupid post.

>>8539479

you start getting a respectable job.

>>8539479
Other than engineering, what are some good career paths a chemist can follow. Thinking about changing my major to chem from bio, aside from research, chem interests me.

>>8539488
I sort of was aiming to find out about the biological consequences.

there are no detrimental GM crops on the market and while monsanto has performed some legal moves of questionable ethics, the real problems are the IP and legal systems that encourage and reward that activity

Monsanto is evil, and some gmo is bad (pesticide resistant crops may accelerate the rate of pesticide resistant pests).
The gmo opposition are usually pants on head retarded, though.

>>8539255
Then why is eu banning-regulating gmo

rest in pieces, /sci/

>I met this guy Elon Musk, very successful.
>He lands rockets, he's a great guy! Total genius. Very smart.
>I spoke to him and we both agreed that we don't win anymore. We need to go to Mars to be great again.

too lazy to do textual trump impression

>>8539213
Oh crap trump really is trying to make the dankest cabinet ever isn't he?

im 25 and have pancreatic cancer, i doubt this new advancement will ever reach me

>>8537740
Well that's depressing.

Okay somebody explain the article to a brainlet.

What its basically saying is that donated young cells act like young cells on an older body and the older body is okay with the young cells with no repercussions and the body acts like its younger?

File: 1480721247892.jpg (75KB, 537x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 537x800px

>>8537038
The trick of television is pacifying you. It doesn't obey you, its content is 99% meaningless, it has no coherence with itself, it is irresponsible, and it will make you feel great for nothing. When you come back to real life, you feel scared, so you go back to television.

>>8537051
I guess you're right, it's sad to see how much it's holding us back as a specie, if everyone would substitute watching television with something useful, we'd end climate change, war, hunger and poverty all across the globe in 2 years tops.

>>8537038
>how did we reach a time where people would rather sit on a couch etc.

Dude it's human nature. What's remarkable is that anyone *wouldn't* want to do that if given the choice.

>>8534514
>I don't know where to post this, so I hope there are some doctors or med students here that could help me...
Not here.

>What are the odds I have lung cancer at my age ? I'm worried sick...
Wait for the results.

>>8534514
You might have asbestosis or silicosis, and if you actually end up having them, your fucked.

>>8534514
highly doubt you have lungcancer at 23 just because of smoking for 3 years.

18

x<12

Around 45.