Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1741. page

We have nuclear power plants because the orbit of Mercury was unexplainable with Newtonian physics.

>>8000129
>muh cherry picked anecdotes

I'm okay with using MY tax dollars to pay for this equipment. I'm interested in the world.

>>7999075
Agree **OR *** disagree

He's been saying that for a while now. Hawkings basically believes it's bad to specifically seek contact with alien races because we have no fucking idea how they might react, which is completely true.

>>7999083
What I never understand is if scientists don't believe in FTL then why are they simultaneously scared that aliens listening in on SETI might come and attack us?

God is great is isn't it ?

>>7998789
looks like a club sandwich lol

>>7998794
Th-thanks god

>>7997300
Tell me about it, I did chem eng and its been impossible to get a decent job. Honestly the only """ job""" I've found so far is what is effectively an internship. I'm a graduate with a 3.7 GPA and I've already got experience, is it just the job market right now that's not looking for chemE?

>>7997300
LOL

meanwhile, as a software developer, I will make at least $50k a year out of school.

>>7997300
College is a scam bro.

You can get an entry level job working at the docks for like $20/hr, no experience needed just have to have at least a GED.

Explain the Lorentz transformations to a retard please. I only got the [math](t_{2}-t_{1})^2 - (x_{2}-x_{1})^2 - (y_{2}-y_{1})^2 - (z_{2}-z_{1})^2 = 0[/math] part, and the time dilation via multiplication by the Lorentz factor. I don't get the rest.

>>7997278
Since you don't measure absolute velocities, only velocities relative to your reference frame, you need a way of transforming between the different frame's. Otherwise you'd end up in the bizarre situation where physics was affected by the velocity of your frame. Classically we the Galilean transformation (which if you've never heard of before might help you). When we get to relativistic velocities we find the Galilean transformation no linger works (it predicts that the speed of light should be dependent on the frame velocity when we know from both theory and experiment that it's a constant in all frames). So we need a relativistic generalisation of the classical transform, that lead's us to the Lorentz transformation. Better?

>>7997295
I get that, but what I don't get is the math behind the transformations, and how to get from the classical Galilean transformation to a relativistic one.

File: fishpom.gif (3MB, 1530x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1530x1080px

here is a picture of a weeboo cartoon to cheer you up.

disclaimer: you will die

>>7996716
why are you scared of dying anon.
Tell me, I'll fix you for free.

>>7996716
> afraid of dying
highschool kid detected. gtfo this board

>>7996394
Applied math mathterrace

File: IMG_20160409_014758.jpg (16KB, 207x152px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 207x152px

>>7996394
You think your field is the best?

>>7996394
>a foundation towards an application, and not as a means to an end.
uh... a means to a means to an end is still a means to an end

>>7996166
Intelligence isnt one thing. Its depth and speed of recall, 30 different kinds of reasoning, creativity, eloquence and a bunch of other shit

>>7996174
This, I would add that there are ontological issues in assuming these are true. However, if we're examining the mind in these frameworks to begin with, which begot the question, think of intelligence like an atom that expands with more nuanced and relevant material to construct its growth; as capacity: if you have one or more of said traits, how well you execute them amounts to its a-typicality. You need to look at the general population and standardize capacity, then you examine your traits and see how well you're exceeding it. Read up on logic, and nuanced the execution is in reasoning or sequential logic. The entire circle of the 'chart' get bigger as your capacities exceed the standard.

I will say that this evaluation is meant to be holistic, and that judging mistakes is not the way to do it. Especially mistakes done on occasion. It's about how well you can do the things you're good at. Look at yourself across the spectrum of time. Too many people get too self-critical of mistakes.

>>7996179
I would just say "intelligence" is a simplified way to talk about numerous more or less related abilities/characteristics, and that you can be better or worse in each one

File: 1436099047444.png (126KB, 539x481px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 539x481px

>>7994298
>height is genetic
When will this meme end?

File: 1460223538994.jpg (45KB, 920x459px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 920x459px

>>7994302
Man it hurts.

Was hoping for more input than >>7994302

>>7993821
>0.999...=1

File: 3f3.png (296KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x327px

>>7993821

>>7993821
Why can't people have an opinion on it if they've read about some of the theories? Like the idea of quantum physics entices me and I love it, but you're saying my opinion is invalid because I don't know the math? Gtfo

>>7992288
There are none.

against*

None really, "it could be fake" is very elastic and stretches to cover anything you throw at it.

>>7990722
You just jelly they are doing well

>>7990728
They really aren't, though.
Why would anyone use their unreliable service?

>>7990722
>Antagonizing big companies because of personal insecurities you don't want to admit to

In other news, another bear seen shitting in the woods.

I am an ultra-leftist and I think we should build a fuckload of nuclear powerplants to provide socialized electricity and fight global warming

File: Nuclear-protest-Nuclear-Power-Is-Not-The-Answer-To-the-Climate-Crisis[1].jpg (51KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x300px

>>7988207
You're not. You're a disgrace to the liberals.

>>7988156
Bed-wetting liberals who got their panties in a twist over 3 Mile Island

>>7985214
Philosophy isnt a science and doesn't claim to be

File: 1458859545491s.jpg (3KB, 122x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 122x125px

would you be more open to discussion if I used the term "in your opinion" somewhere in there?

From Tractatus:"Frege says that any legitimately constructed proposition must have a sense. I say that any proposition is legitimately constructed". Laws of syntax are similar in form to ethical laws: thou shalt not (form such and such sentences). Wittgnstein's response in both cases is "and what if I do?" Frege attempted to justify syntactic rules ("laws of logic") by appealing to other laws of logic, so did Russell with his type theory to avoid contradictions of self-reference. Wittgnstein rejects this idea as "clearly" wrong.

Bearn explains:"If the combination of signs is nonsense then we don't need a law to tell us that we should not combine the signs in this way. What we need is a logical syntax that makes logical structure, which is already there, clear. Logic must take care of itself... According to Wittgenstein, the so-called laws of logic are built into unspeakable structure of logical space... They are manifest in the fact that some combinations of signs and not others make sense. Russell misconstrued the task of logic as the installation of rules obedience to which would keep our propositions within the realm of sense. The theory of types was of precisely this nature. Moralists make the same error. They attempt to construct a set of moral rules obedience to which will give our lives meaning." In other words, Wittgenstein favors unified logic that fuses language, meta-language, meta-meta-language, etc., and has a single set of "logical laws" that function synthetically, not formally, "one is enough". As Russell pointed out in another context, such view would make mathematical logic "impossible".

>>8008911
y=9+90+900+9000+....
y=9+10y
y=-1

>yfw you realize this is how complement math works

>>8008911
>Doing arithmetic with undefined objects

sage

>>8008911
Thank you for your submission. Other users have reported the same bug, and our developers are working to resolve the issue in time for the next patch. We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for using math.