Hi /sci/,
Do any of you know if this makes sense?
It's not as easy as googling it. Or maybe it is and I'm stupider than I'd thought.
MD here, he's wrong
>>8346557
He is? How so?
Bump. This is pretty important. I'm voting Bernie but Clinton is gonna be the next president
Is natural selection and the survival of the fittest still in a thing for mankind in modern society?
Yes. All that has changed is the definition of "fittest".
Yes. Also consider that it's not just about volume, but also about social classes.
>>8346540
Yup. The only thing that has changes is what traits are selected for.
Is love a meme or is there science behind it?
>>8346539
Let us stop believing that carnal love is high and noble and understand that any end worth our pursuit -- in service of humanity, our homeland, science, art, let alone God -- any end, so long as we may count it worth our pursuit, is not attained by joining ourselves to the objects of our carnal love in marriage or outside it; that, in fact, infatuation and conjunction with the object of our carnal love (whatever the authors of romances and love poems claim to the contrary) will never help our worthwhile pursuits but only hinder them.
You know what's a meme?
"Is ___ a meme?"
>>8346544
pointing out memes is a meme as well
kys
Is it me or are you guys too naive about the future? I don't understand how you people think a "singularity" will happen, or how interstellar travel is possible
In my opinion, we'll return to dark ages
>>8346530
I don't understand why do people just keep referring to "singularity". singularity is anything and everything that is singular in it's existence in some way. like gravitational singularity is the single point in spacetime where gravitational forces are infinite...
what you are refering to is Technological singularity, so at least if people could spell it out, or just say Super AI or something... gosh, ambiguity like this triggers me...
anyway, People can only be this naive about stuff they don't understand. I think that's perfectly normal though, expectations and dreams are always motivating. And the other half thinking this are trolls and memetards
>>8346530
That's okay...you're young and stupid, and take the huge leaps forward in technology in the last couple of decades for granted. You think the internet and flat screens and computers you could put in your pocket and streaming shows and games and music, etc, were always there and that garbage like vinyl and video tapes practical special effects and 2D animation in movies and sending humans into space instead of badass robot probes were something we voluntarily put aside and something worth missing, like all the nostalgic hipster bullshit out there these days.
Being alive a while might give you some perspective.
>>8346799
if you look at history, technological booms are not uncommon, followed by a few years of quite time. It takes an important discovery to cause such a leap in technology and we don't get these kinds of discoveries every day. Not to mention that interstellar travel for example is a huge problem even if you had infinite fuel and have been able to approach speeds of light. you need FTL speeds for that to even be viable.
Can entanglement exist across time between the same particles?
just a baby to quantum physics, but if i had to guess, i'd say that IF it happens, it only happens on a VERY small scale, on the order of nanoseconds or smaller
bumping because i'm also interested
>>8346423
Yep, it's been done a number of times and is one of the main mechanisms behind quantum information.
What's that drawing supposed to be?
>>8346618
This is interesting, How would you do such an experiment? I though you need immediate access to both particles you are trying to entangle. so how can you entangle one with the other before you entangle to other at all?
So, /sci/, I want you guys to consider this.
1. There exists sets X and Y
2. There exists a number x, x is an element of X{R|1<x<2}
4. There exists a number y, y is an element of Y and is an element of {R|1<=y<=2}
5. X is a subset of Y
6. ∴X implies Y AND x implies y
7. ∴ 1 and 2X,1 and 2 Y
8. 1 and 2 are NOT an element of X, and ARE an element of Y AND 1 and 2 are elements of Z
10. Set Y contains exactly two more elements than set X.
11. ∴Y>X
What do you think, /sci/? Is it proof of different levels of infinity, or that infinity plus two is not infinity? Am I retarded? Could my proof be revised? Am I doing something wrong? I talked about this with my calculus prof. Also, how do I do this using the LaTeX? If anyone could do that, that'd be nice. But, my reasoning in plain words:
>Think of two sets
>In the first set, are all real numbers greater than 1, less than 2.
>In the second, are all real numbers from 1 to two.
>The second set has every element that A has.
>The second set has two more elements, 1 and 2.
>Therefore the second set has more elements.
>A proof for infinite sets that contain more elements than others?
[math]\mathbb{N}\subsetneq \mathbb{N}\cup\{\mbox{banana}\}[/math].
>>8346328
Fuck off latex piece of shit. This worked fine in the preview.
>>8346334
banana
This, my friends is the SINGLE proton. It is the basis for all the elements.
>>8346207
Now, observe as two become one. You could say they have DOUBLED. Behold, diatomic Hydrogen.
But we can go further......
>>8346210
no its H+
huehuehuehue
This is probably a retarded question for this board, but it seemed like it was most closely related to /sci/, so I'll post it anyway.
I was a moron and pushed my pencil into this railing, and as retarded as it sounds, I want to know if there's any surefire solution to get it back that doesn't involve me doing something stupid like flushing it out or using special equipment no one would have.
The tip of the pencil is approximately 6 inches into it, and the diameter of the pipe I'd guess to be about 4 inches. The white circle in the tube represents the approximate location and diameter of the pencil.
>>8346171
you're fucked.
try shoving in more pencils
Coat hanger?
>>8346171
jizz into the pipe, making sure to hit the pencil, and wait for it to dry. then you can just pull it out
Redpill me on the "aquatic ape" theory. Any validity?
>>8346148
Evolutionary "just-so" stories are generally unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
>>8346148
Pretty sure fat stored by humans is very different from blubber
Um, no. We evolved from tree dwelling apes to apes that stood upright due to climate changes in East Africa when the trees were replaced by savannas.
We are upright walking apes which has nothing at all to do with swimming.
Hi, I'm new to the board and I was just wondering if Nuclear Engineering is still a viable career, and if so whether a masters is sufficient. Also what a day-to-day job in NE would be like. I'll delete this if it is better suited to a QTDDTOT
>>8345964
>Also what a day-to-day job in NE would be like.
>show up to work
>answer some emails
>have a meeting
>make a round through the plant
>fill out 9000 pages of DoE paperwork for a 2 inch ball valve
>do more paperwork
>even more fucking paperwork
>lunch
>more emails
>read a journal or two
>get the 3 pm crash and just browse 4 chan the rest of the day
>go home
>>8345964
studied nuclear engineering but work as a physicist in the medical industry, so not quite what you're looking for but my daily grind is:
>show up
>check nitrogen dewar for IGe detector to see if needs filled
>get cc'd on hella emails
>get called to troubleshoot some problem some manufacturing worker has that typically is no more than an issue of mistaken units
>measure iodine for impurities before allowing into production
>lunch
>weekly/monthly meeting
>get called/paged to measure calibration seeds/strands
>get calls from ADCLs to send cal seeds
>implying 4chan isn't blocked at work
>go home
some days i'm barely at my desk, running around trying to fit everything in, other days i get paid for about 30 minutes of total
>>8345999
was it hard to find a job or did you just prefer the physicist role more?
What reason do "hard problem" believers have for thinking A happens instead of B in pic related? And not just for cases where you speak about something you see, but with any case where you report on what you "see," "hear," "taste," etc... if you just suppose in each of those cases all that's happening is something like B in pic related where you're just being compelled to act *like* you saw, heard, tasted, etc., how would you ever know that wasn't the case? And since you have no way of telling the difference given that B in pic related will always make you act exactly like if you would if you really did have magic thought bubble "experiences", what would be the point of anything like A ever happening to anyone when B explains it just as well with nothing but straightforward classical physics style cause and effect chemistry? I mean, consider the same pair of options but instead of a person substitute in a computer and instead of vision substitute in a hand pressing a key. Would it make sense for that computer to have a magic thought bubble "experience" of a key being pressed? Or would it be sufficient for the computer to merely have a series of cause and effect relationships which make it behave *like* it "experienced" receiving a key press by showing the key's letter on its screen?
>>8345906
There's nothing paranormal about this topic. Behaviorism is the opposite of paranormal.
You see something but it's not categorized until you processes it in your brain. You're getting confused because you see an apple and your brain processes it in milliseconds. Since you recognize it so quickly, you assume that you just know it's an apple without consciously thinking. But your eyes see the object, the brain pairs it with memories of other apples and then retrieves the word associated with the image.
Remember when in the early 2000s space tourism was the next big thing that was going to propel the next wave of innovation in space and pave the way for humanity to enter the outer space in earnest? Whatever happened to that?
>physics
>>>/x/
>>8345888
A few events come to mind.
2002: One of the people from Nsync was going to do it, media got hyped, then he didn't do it.
Later in 2002: Mark Shuttleworth paid Russia to take him to the ISS. NASA and every other country that helped on it weren't happy about their project turning into a space hotel run by Russia.
2003: Space shuttle Columbia exploded.
Remember in the early 2000s when they said increased education and the spread of the the Internet would eventually result in everybody becoming secular/atheist? Whatever happened to that?
how come every time I talk here about the fact that every scientific study link meat consumption with cancer I get called a shill?
we're made to eat a vegan diet faggots.
>>8345862
You can literally link cancer to anything as a cause.
>>8345872
then how come vegans have 0 cancer?
>>8345882
cuz they arent real beings XDDD
What would the edge of the universe look like if it were possibly a thing?
My dicke lmao
>>8345784
yeah that's what im talking about, like if you imagine looking at it like it is a small thing, what shape would it have?
anons dicke but also pennis and balls
>breezed through calc 1 to 4 with an A's(b+ in 2)
>breezed through physics 1 and 2 with an A's
>breezed through chem with an A
>had to get core electives out of the way
>take a music appreciation class my senior year
>3 weeks in i'm barely hanging on with a C-
how the fuck is this possible
wtf is calculus 4?
You're autistic in the literal sense of the word
>>8345659
Music is fucked since well-tempered shit arrived