what happens when we die?
>>8166308
microbes consume your flesh
>>8166315
cute
any neurofags have an idea on what happens to the brain?
>>8166308
You die in one timeline, keep living in another, of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
If you're lucky enough to exist in a timeline where technological immortality is within reach, you're effectively immortal. Which we already are:
http://www.brainpreservation.org/
Is INTP the best MBTI of all?
>>8160210
Depends for what
>>8160314
Generally, even considering the lack of socialization
>>8160210
Anything that doesn't have E or F in it is good-tier.
/sci/ humor thread. Does anybody have more like this?
>>8155663
>bullshit meme quotes are funny
kill yourself
>>8155685
>>8155663
>quantum skeletons
Every time.
Find the exact value of x^x = 2
Wizard mode: No Wolfram Alpha
>product log
define exact value
A value in terms of functions of the given numbers i.e. not a decimal approximation
/sci/ ask a polymath anything.
what are your areas of proficiency?
>>8170161
whats a polymath?
>>8170164
Good question. My areas of proficiency include anthropology, history, philosophy, mathematics, psychology, neuroscience, computer science, quantum physics, bioengineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and much more.
> Vast and complex Universe
> Material in nature
> This material apparently self generated
> The Universe was created in and of itself
Explain.
matter wasn't created. it was always there
>>8170060
isnt that ascribing the powers of a god to the universe?
no matter which way you look at it, it is a miracle.
>>8170066
how did you came to that conclusion ?
Sup /sci/, I'm not buying the theory of evolution. Can you convince me?
>>8164094
evolution is a lie but shut up and let us "research" it, we need money for food
>>8164094
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
>people still can't accept evolution
Fossil record you fucking nigger
Why should I learn chemistry if I'm studying electronic engineering?
I hate chemistry.
Grow up
lol stop whining
>>8169921
>electronic engineering
You mean electrical engineering?
He's trolling, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeaT2mWj6Y
>>8165779
He's always trolling.
Master ruseman.
>>8165779
No
>>8165779
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~weigand/Skript-strings11-12/Strings.pdf
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~shlomo/docs/Advanced_Calculus.pdf
>pedophile cartoons
>back to /a/
[math]\displaystyle{\frac{e^{-\frac{(x-\mu )^2}{2 \sigma ^2}}}{\sqrt{2 \pi } \sigma }}[/math]
whats /sci/'s opinion on this guy?
>>8163569
these threads work better when you start with giving your own opinion
>>8163573
well I wanted to ease into it since anytime you make threads like this on /sci/ its usually flamed for being /x/ bullshit but I am legitimately curious what some of you thought. If you look into his stuff and listen to what he has to say obviously its very speculative but I don't really see how its that far fetched and why someone would go to such measures just to tell fallacies about working on extraterrestrial technology
>>8163569
After all of his interviews that I have listened to, I could never help thinking '"this guy does not sound like an engineer, a physicist or any other kind of scientifically trained professional."
Just his language, grammar and vocabulary, he doesn't sound like a highly technical advanced scientist at all. always thought he just sounded like some average blue collar schmuck reciting some ideas he gathered together from reading alot of science fiction and binge watching the Discovery Science channel.
The theory of life starting on earth by lightening striking a tidepool or puddle is the most retarded thing that has ever been accepted as truth in all of recorded history.
Flat out.
Retarded.
I have more respect for flat earthers than puddle people.
>>8173679
>Retarded.
not that it matters to anyone... but why?
Do you have a better theory? Can you give reasons for why the theory should not be true? (I havent even heard of it, btw)
>>8173682
Because it has never been proven but is still lofted up like a goddamn golden bull for all to follow.
Abiogenesis is hailed as the one thing to follow when it comes to the origin of life as if the world of science is a goddamn religion. Usually when you say "uh, lightening hitting a puddle didn't start life on this planet. I don't know what did but it sure as hell wasn't that" /sci/fags tend to get a little pissy and start calling you a christfag and whatnot.
>>8173679
Iguanodon is my favourite hervivore dinosaur.
Are there any actual creationists or ID proponents here?
>>8172801
At least come up with your own fucking jokes
>>8172795
>Are there any actual creationists or ID proponents here?
That regularly post here? I doubt it. Creationism is wholly incompatible with having any kind of desire to actually understand how nature works.
A 'creationist' will pop up in this thread, but they're probably just trying to bait people.
The attitude that 'LaTeX is easy' is perpetrated loudly by people that haven't had to use LaTeX very much. It is only tentatively saved by the comprehensive (sometimes, if you're lucky, even readable) documentation of all its quirks. Left to over 30 years of growth outside of its intended use case, LaTeX proper does nothing you would need it to, and the packages that you use with it are horribly fragmented. Maybe Latex is good at the things it sets out to implement, but those things aren't what I or anyone else uses it for (creating publication-quality documents). So in considering latex we are forced to also consider the environment of libraries in which it exists.
LaTeX brings all the problems you had in the Windows 2000 era of programming into document creation.
> misleading compiler messages
> dependency hell
> choosing a compiler
> bad environment
> inconsistent syntax
> GOTOs
> knowing whether or not you have run the compiler enough times to produce a document (!!!)
> semantic code is impossible
Every time I want to do anything other than add words to my document, I have to think about whether I want to use Latex's meager facilities, facilities that I had to code, or facilities that someone else invented, then worry about all the quirks in them. If I want to add a table to my document, I need to decide whether it should be:
> tabular
> tabular*
> tabularx
> longtable
> align
> array
> eqnarray
> matrix
Someone told me that one of these is very bad and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, although he didn't tell me why, and I don't remember which one.
It baffles me that thinking about these things is prerequisite to writing a document.
I am not going to stop using Latex, but no one will ever get me to say that it's easy.
>>8171013
> choosing a compiler
does anyone use anything beside MikTeX?
> bad environment
you shut your whore mouth
> inconsistent syntax
really? I haven't noticed it in my years of using it
> GOTOs
ur doing it wrong
I only use tabular (inside a table environment making it a float)
aligh and eqnarray are for equations...and they are ever so slightly different
I used some longtable package, but ikr when.
The rest sound like junk unless you convince me otherwise
Floats are gross, but by their nature they kinda have to be.
>>8171013
Honestly, if you really run into all these problems frequently, you seem to have some misconceptions on how to use latex.
>>8171035
> does anyone use anything beside MikTeX?
Yes, there is also TeXlive and others, but that's not what I'm complaining about.
Should I use pdflatex, pdftex, xelatex, xetex, or lualatex then dvi2pdf or ....???
My code previously compiled using pdflatex, but now I need some of the features that only the xetex family has. but it wont compile under xe* compilers. Why not? I don't know.
> bad environment
Recently in my lab we had a problem where one guys pdflatex would compile the paper to 11 pages, and the other guy's would compile it to 10 pages. There was a 10 page submission limit. We had to go use Dan's computer every time we wanted to compile the document. It was an environment issue. We never figured this one out.
> inconsistent syntax
Here's a fun challenge for you, try referencing the same footnote multiple times throughout a document. References are universally done using \label and \ref, except with footnotes, where some arcane thing with how the counter is implemented in LaTeX. Known issue, marked as won't fix by developers. To perform this you have to create your own global counter variable, and recode all the footnote management yourself.
> GOTOs
There is a difference between function calls and expanding syntax. can you tell which is which, and when it matters?
>gross, but by their nature they kinda have to be
nothing has to be this gross
It's all here in this NASA paper:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800010907.pdf
To summarize it's a paper about field propulsion, some kind of warp-drive using lasers and magnets, nothing tinfoil here, we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations and that NASA Eagleworks has been openly working on these things for years.
Here's where it gets weird: Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.
Then it gets weirder: Despite this disclaimer, the entire paper is essentially them admitting that UFOs could be real aliens and we should study the phenomena with "photographic spectra", "magnetic measurements" and "geiger counters" in order to glean information about their propulsion systems. In short, stories of scientists prodding crashed spacecraft in Area 51 is bunk, it's really about monitoring emissions from UFOs in the sky.
Finally there's the picture that I have included in the bottom half of pic related. NASA's ideas for a field propulsion craft; it looks exactly like the famous UFO that was seen in 1947.
So the take-home message from this is not that aliens are real, this isn't proof of that but that NASA does take the idea of space aliens seriously. Not only that but they are actively involved in studying UFOs and have even gained something from it.
>>8169458
>ASTRACT
more like ass tract
this "paper" is full of nonsense, what the fuck is this?
>>8169458
Flying wing research has been done as early as 1935 and this is with proof and documented by the Germans,stuff could have been work in progress much earlier.
Someone taking on theoretical research on different types of propulsion is nothing new.
If you thing there are really UFOs than you should get your head examined.
Seriously.
>>8169458
>we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations
It isn't, actually; reading through that paper, it's relying on speculative physics that have not been borne out in the last 38 years of physics research. Nobody has developed a working theory unifying electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields that has achieved acceptance. (Kaluza-Klein theory was promising for a while, but no evidence has been found for it and, like other GUT attempts, tends to predict that protons should decay. We looked and, as far as we can tell, they don't.)
Also, all known warp-drive and wormhole solutions to Einstein's equations have the slight problem that they either require truly astronomical (as in, large-planet-sized) amounts of exotic mass-energy, or require squeezing that exotic mass-energy into Planck-scale structures and Planck-scale densities, or both. Also, it's unknown whether exotic mass-energy could ever stably exist or be manipulated in such quantities and configurations. They work mathematically, but nobody knows how to get from a universe which has not been warped in such a fashion to one which has, or whether such a configuration actually represents anything physically possible and not a flaw in our theories. (General relativity is almost certainly not valid at the Planck scale, as that's around where quantum gravitational effects are believed to become too significant to ignore.)
>Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.
Because the paper clearly states that it's inspired by UFO research, and NASA is trying to cover their asses and say "somebody else wrote this for us" so they don't look like they're too closely involved with the fringe?
Anyway, yes, of course NASA's interested. That's the whole point of Eagleworks, and its predecessors including the program this paper's for - [cont]