Did Newton and his contemporaries take the fact that gravitational acceleration is the same for all masses for granted?
I mean let's pretend masses don't "generate" gravity like newton thought. If you released two metallic objects of different masses near a giant magnet they wouldn't necessaritly accelerate towards it at the same rate because their resistance to acceleration is not the same as their magnetic attraction because they're unrelated.
Why didn't they see that it's too much of a coincidence and a convenience for gravitational mass to "just happen" be the same as inertial mass unless they are the same thing?
Why did Newton introduce gravity as just another magical force like magnetism and everybody just accept it? Doesn't this go again occam's razor? What would be the probably in nature that two completely unrelated things just cancel out?
>>7725132
that's not what I meant at all. You can replace magnetism with any magical force. Just to show that having two unrelated things happily canceling out is too much of a coincidence.
Could you be a little more specific what you mean? I don't really understand what you are saying here exactly.
As far as I know Newton didn't propose that all masses feel the same acceleration in the same gravitational field.
Newton's law of gravitational force (equation A) states that 2 interacting objects feel the same FORCE much like 2 electromagnetically charged objects (equation B).
However the acceleration itself can be calculated from the Newton's second law of motion (equation C) where we see that acceleration is same with the 2 objects that feel the same acceleration only if they have the same mass:
> F = m * g <=> a = F / m
> Let there be 2 objects interacting in a way that they feel same force m1 * a1 = F = m2 * a2
> It follows that a1 = a2 only if m1 = m2.
> QED
Same way you can see that in the gravitational field of one object 2 objects can feel the same acceleration only if they have the same mass (and distance).
I'm starting to believe that you have confused gravitational constant G here (about a scale of 10^-11 and is in units of [N m^2 / kg^2]) with the free-fall acceleration (scale 9.8 [N/Kg] or [m / s^2]), which is used in the motion-equation (C) to approximate the accelereation objects get in the free-fall of the gravitational field of the earth.
To be fair they are both often marked as G.
If your question was why free-fall acceleration is often approximated with a constant even though it should depend of the mass of the falling object the answer is 'because it's easier'.
On the other hand I don't know if Newton ever made this approximation...
But if you meant something else please do correct me.
>>7725393
Me again. Had a little slip there:
>However the acceleration itself can be calculated from the Newton's second law of motion (equation C) where we see that acceleration is same with the 2 objects that feel the same FORCE only if they have the same mass
Thoughts on this book?
The guy basically says the optimal diet for human health and longevity according to science up to this point is one that minimizes all animal products and processed food, maximizes whole plant foods, with as much variety as possible, and includes a vitamin B12 and DHA omega 3 supplement. He cites 3000+ research articles.
Bullshit or accurate?
>>7724701
Accurate. Though lean meats like poultry can be alright.
Neu5gc along with how most meat is raised, makes the majority of it non-viable. American in particular massively overconsumes meat in a way we as a species likely never have.
The final word on that is there simply isn't enough information to be sure. Diet is incredibly complicated and everyone has their own opinion.
Not to mention people from different parts of the world have different tolerances for certain foods; i.e. Lactose tolerance in European countries and you can't put a blanket diet on all the people of the world and say that that is the best.
>>7724701
Meat is fine if it is raised properly. Livestock ingest too many chemicals these days. Try to get natural shit. Eat less processed garbage. You'll do ok.
I should practice what I preach.
Why is this allowed to happen?
I just came across the most extreme example yet: Lorentz contraction.
There's a tonne of simple math out there that allows you to calculate the amount of distortion something will have, but seemingly no explanation for what causes the distortion, and an abundance of confusion as to why a fast moving object looks short.
>inb4 lorentz contraction doesn't exist and everyone's quoting everyone else on it in a big circle.
>>7724144
this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>>7724144
The formula was derived empirically. The equations explain what was being observed, but there was no theory for what was happening.
Special Relativity explains why objects are warped in spacetime at relativistic speeds.
>>7724144
>no explanation for what causes the distortion
Movement through the aether
>Surprising as this hypothesis may appear at first sight, yet we shall have to admit that it is by no means far-fetched, as soon as we assume that molecular forces are also transmitted through the ether, like the electric and magnetic forces of which we are able at the present time to make this assertion definitely. If they are so transmitted, the translation will very probably affect the action between two molecules or atoms in a manner resembling the attraction or repulsion between charged particles. Now, since the form and dimensions of a solid body are ultimately conditioned by the intensity of molecular actions, there cannot fail to be a charge of dimensions as well.
http://www.lawebdefisica.com/arts/lorentz/
Hey guys and girls, what sort of calculator would you recommend for university/college maths and physics? Specifically a Bachelor of Advance Science (Hons), planning to major in either maths or physics and gain a PhD. Currently I use a TI 84 Plus and it's a good one but I'm interested in other ones, like the TI Nspire CX CAS. Any other recommendations or words of wisdom?
I understand that any respectable institution will have a list of banned/approved calculators when it comes to exams. However this is more for self-study and improving my understanding of the concepts and ideas by playing around with them on a good calculator.
>inb4 you shouldn't rely on a calculator
My arithmetic and mental algebra skills won't suffer from using a calculator for hours at a time as I've already done that with my TI 84 Plus and my skills have only improved in the three years I've had the TI.
I have TI 84 plus and I can't imagine needing to upgrade.
I have seen people with fancy calculators that can do almost anything except maybe sing and dance.
All I've ever used it for is graphing and checking sine values. To be honest I don't even know a fraction of what this calculator can probably do.
I'm physics 3rd yeat btw.
>>7724036
Do you know the names of the fancy calculators others had? The TI 84 Plus is programmable as it has BASIC in it. I write programs for conics, matrices, solving quadratic formulas with complex solutions, etc. Writing them helps imprint the processes and formulas into my memory so I can recall them quite quickly and accurately whenever needed.
>>7724041
Sorry, can't help you with the names.
What can I say? I am an old-fashioned pen and paper man.
Whenever I need a numerical solution, I use Octave. It seems like an awful hassle to program the TI84+. I've never even looked into BASIC programming so I can't tell if you're onto something with using the calculator for that.
Can you by chance compare Octave/Matlab to using a calculator? I'm now genuinely curious as to whether it is worth the pain of getting used to the keyboard on the calculator and to learn basic.
What would happen if you tried to swat a black hole the size of a fly with your hand?
You will be dead.
>black hole
>the size of
>>7724028
>black hole with a schwarztfield radius of 1/4 inch
Be honest with me about the hadron collider and particle accelerators and stuff.
It seems like scientists are always asking for more money for these things, but what is the purpose? If the results were useful to companies, wouldn't the companies be happy to pay? It makes me wonder if this is really useful if the government needs to pay the bill... the market should decide. Like, how does Higg's boson help me?
Also, is there any risk of funding this stuff? Like, think about the Manhattan Project. Learning about nuclear physics seemed like a good idea at the time, but now you have Iran and North Korea. Couldn't the same happen with these particle accelerators?
>>7723621
How exactly do you expect Iran or North Korea to try and build a 30 mile particle collider without us noticing?
>>7723621
people respect knowledge, even if it has no apparent practical use today. There are groups that pool money for the purpose of developing understanding and there are people that start businesses to understand things. It's not just about money to everyone.
>>7723621
I hope no one is stupid enough to fall for this thread.
>but now you have Iran and North Korea
biggest danger is Israel the US of A though
>in philosophy class
>teacher makes us watch a new age pop sci film called "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" about quantum mechanics and consciousness
>afterwards a girl asks someone to explain heisenberg's uncertainty principle because she is confused about it
>one guy in the class says "ok you know how we can only see where something is by bouncing light off of it? when you bounce light off of a particle you change its momentum. so the mere act of observing something changes what is being observed"
>the girl looks up at the ceiling for a moment like she had some kind of epiphany. "oooooooooooh so that's what it's all about"
>at this point I can bear it no longer and pipe up
>me: "Actually you're conflating the observer effect with the uncertainty principle, a common mistake. The uncertainty principle actually says something much deepe--"
>guy cuts of me off.
>he pinches his nose shut and says in a nasally voice: "ayyyykchooolly"
>everybody in the class starts laughing
why is the world so cruel /sci/
>>7723303
Things that never happened.
>>7723307
True. Anon would have never spoke up he's far too beta.
>in science class
>group of people talking
>one girl says she keeps hearing about quantum entanglement on the news and wants someone to explain it
>one guy in her group says "ok imagine you have two balls in a box, one red and one blue. You give the box a good shake and take out one ball and give it to Alice and the other one to bob. Neither Alice nor Bob are allowed to look at the color of their ball until they are light years apart. Now when Alice or Bob look at their ball they instantaneously know the color of the other person's ball."
>I decided to join in.
> "Actually what you're describing is called a local hidden variable theory and is prohibited by bell's theor--"
>girl cuts me off
>"uhhhhh why are you even talking to me? I don't even know you"
>everybody in the class starts laughing
why is the world so cruel /sci/
First year Chemistry PhD student here.
Are there any other chemistry PhD students (or PhDs) here?
What type of subdiscipline/field did you do?
I am approaching the point where I need to make a decision on this. I want to do either Physical, Analytical, or Inorganic. I definitely don't want to do Organic, Biochem, or Medical/Pharma.
I was kind of thinking of getting my PhD then working for a company instead of doing academic research as a career, so I guess I'd want Analytical for that, right? I'm interested in all 3 of the ones I mentioned, so idk.
>>7723079
Physical chemistry master race
Do Analytical for 100000 starting.
>>7723079
ChemE PhD here, whazzup
Physical Chemistry ftw
What's the benefit of bringing a human to mars?
Literally nothing. It's a barren world that is useless to humans until we can construct orbital factories around it and send robots down to harvest its resources, which will be never.
>>7721753
Same as sending one to the moon
>>7721753
Well before someone inevitably goes into specific benefits and details, you need to ask yourself:
What is the point of doing anything? If we're not willing to set the highest goals for civilization then why set any?
Does /sci/ agree with him?
>>7717898
Well, it's by definition not science, so he's right in that regard.
As for the computer part, maybe? CS majors tend to know jack-shit about computers and instead just know how to purely code, so I guess that's right.
>>7717907
>CS majors tend to know jack-shit about computers
source?
What if it was renamed to computing science?
Would that be more accurate than computer science?
>tfw average IQ
>tfw scraping by at uni
The only thing I want to do with my life is perform medical research. I'm really trying /sci/ but I only ever scrape by on theory exams. What am I even working towards, no grad school will ever accept me to carry out research with average grades. I know something has to change but I feel like I have tried everything. How am I supposed to know if I'm not wired for this?
>mfw top-performing med student übermensch
Has anyone ever been in a similar situation or can anyone offer advice?
>>7716058
Do you what's more important than an IQ-score? Critical thinking.
>tfw I took 20 mins to get my head around pic related.
Anyone else low IQ high interest here? Post feels.
>>7711952
Post feels relevant to having a low IQ but high interest.
So R is the set with the elements x that are not in x. But x = x, so the elements x that are not in x is nothing, which would mean R is the empty set. What's wrong with this reasoning?
what should i do if i wanted to have my thesis ready for when i finish taking all my classes, as a math undergrad? is it possible to do it without a professor? or at least only have minor details to work on
hello
>>7726835
Hi.
>>7726837
are you a math graduate?
Have you ever realized that people openly block advancing technology unless they're in a war desperate to kill the enemy? Technology gets shot down my contrarians today when during Nazi Germany stuff like the EM drive, Skylon and Nuclear pulse propulsion would have gotten "fuck it why not?" government funding. Everything the Nazis funded was originally trashed by Western scientists. Rocketry, you bet your sweet ass no Western government would have poured $50 billion into Goddard's research which was what the Nazis spent on the V-2. Even the jet engine, Whittle was told it would never work by the RAF chief scientist and had to pay for it out of his own pocket until we saw the Germans doing it so had to start funding it ourselves. Moral of the story is that contrarianism is what is holding back technology not lack of ability for when it is wartime and people ignore the contrarian arguments out of desperation to win technology leaps forward.
>>7726763
let's start some wars then
>>7726771
With nationalism and far-right rethoric on the rise in Europe it's not such a crazy idea anymore.
>tfw you'll *maybe* live long enough to see interstellar probes
>>7726791
>Far-Right on the rise
>National Front BTFO in French elections
>Commisar Corbyn Runs the British Labour party
>Merkel the cuck has been in power longer than Hitler.
So..WTF
Just found out this was real???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_skeleton
isn't it just a fetus?
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/what%E2%80%99s-real-deal-about-atacama-alien
interspecial child