File: 1486675439315.png (229KB, 1075x1430px) Image search:
[Google]
229KB, 1075x1430px
I cant help but cringe at everything
Is this a symptom of /too high IQ/?
5 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8957261
normie detected
gtfo
>>
>>8957261
It's a symptom of assburgers.
>>
>>8957261
No, probably you're just way too mature and are basically that "no fun allowed in my head" type of guy.
File: laughingchineseman.jpg (53KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 1280x720px
> There are people out there who believe that the cosmos was self actualised
2 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Anonymous
Gimme some tips to become good in differential geometry and stochastic maths ! 2017-06-04 10:13:48 Post No.8957182
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Gimme some tips to become good in differential geometry and stochastic maths ! 2017-06-04 10:13:48 Post No.8957182
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: variete_differentiables.jpg (42KB, 341x500px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 341x500px
Gimme some tips to become good in differential geometry and stochastic maths !
Anonymous
2017-06-04 10:13:48
Post No. 8957182
[Report]
[View this topic]
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I want to become good in differential geometry and stochastic process !
I have 1 month before my R&D internship. Please /sci/, tell me how can I become great in Differential Geometry and Stochastic Process, discret and continuous with brownian motion.
I'm higly motivated and can download all Springer books you can suggere.
I'm quite good in maths but I just want a clear book with corrections. I need to become a master in both of them for my career, I want to become a top quant.
5 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
It's /sci/ not /biz/
Aldo pure maths phd > "quant"
>>
>>8957182
>tfw you're so highly motivated that you shit up /sci/ with textbook threads because you're too lazy to spend 5 minutes finding one yourself
>>
>top quant
Top kek
Jk op. It's a good career. I heard you need to be a good programmer
WHY DONT WE KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE
9 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8957160
We do.
OP is with 100% certainty a faggot.
>>
>>8957160
coz it would be boring
>>
>>8957160
Because everything we know is based on inference from observation.
Was Starlite a hoax?
9 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
I don't know enough chem to comment or even speculate how it works but showing something extremely useful then keeping it secret to your deathbed has to be the biggest dick move an inventor can do.
>>
Nope it's not a hoax.
I also have a cold fusion reactor in my back yard the government doesn't want you to know about!
>>
>>8957147
t .Andrea Rossi
File: 618486main_earth_320.jpg (58KB, 320x240px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 320x240px
if a satellite took a close up picture of Earth would buildings be shown as horizontal / at an angle?
6 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8957084
wat
>>
>>8957095
put a tooth pick in an apple thats what i mean
>>
>>8957084
The buildings would be oriented "up" based on wherever they happen to be on the surface - they would all appear to be pointing away from the center.
I mean, it seems pretty obvious.
File: artworks-000163159082-zp6j5j-t500x500.jpg (28KB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
28KB, 500x500px
Any of you brainlets know a credible online IQ test?
6 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8957003
>IQ test
>hurr durr dis wiL be a mehzure of my iNTeligence!
lmao... brainlet
>>
>>8957003
what race are you? I'll tell you your IQ for free
>>
>>8957003
>credible
>online
pick one
File: 1228088724461.jpg (122KB, 1152x777px) Image search:
[Google]
122KB, 1152x777px
Hey, /sci/, I was wondering something and was hoping you guys could help. In Star Wars Legends the Empire had a procedure called Base Delta Zero, basically a big orbital bombardment. It was described as:
"Base Delta Zero denoted the most severe of several levels of destruction that could be directed against a center of resistance, and involved laying waste to an entire planet by orbital bombardment, reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag[2][3] or in some cases, atomizing the planet's top-soil."
My understanding of this would be the "upper crust" would be around 15-25km deep, as Earth's continental crust is 30-50km deep. Legends also explains that three Star Destroyers could perform this within a "matter of hours".
Using this information is there any way of knowing how much energy that'd be? Or how powerful the shots from the ISDs were?
9 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8956960
I can tell you right off the bat that is fucking stupid and you can't make sense of Star Wars physics without ludicrous mental gymnastics e.g basically admitting it's all fucking magic.
You would need tens of gigatons of TNT equivalent to blast away a single big hill.
Liquefying entire planetary crust with three, kilometer long space ships powered by some roided up fusion reactors is insultingly stupid.
You would need trillions of tons of antimatter for something like that.
>>
>>8956996
No offense, but I'm not asking if it's realistic or anything. I'm asking how much energy would be required to do it. It's scifi, you should never expect it to be realistic. But that doesn't mean we can't apply real world science to it to figure out what it would require to achieve those results.
>>
>>8957004
My rough calculation was at least 100 billion kilograms of anti matter assuming you only need to heat the top half of the crust to melting point and let the heat from the mantle finish the job.
This figure doesn't include a lot of factors that could make the real energy requirement much higher.
File: LMUFsoX.jpg (71KB, 1024x640px) Image search:
[Google]
71KB, 1024x640px
I'll start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6QinYav-_Q
2 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
File: So... this is the power of Autism... not bad.jpg (5KB, 304x166px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 304x166px
>>8956943
>BALLOON ALMOST TOUCHES THE SUN
I ain't watching that shit if you paid me.
File: 42064_lagavulin_de_2016_fl_gh.png (775KB, 1080x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
775KB, 1080x1080px
Why isn't the universe saturated with black holes?
After the big bang and the first stars began to form, they were super massive. They also had super short lives, so you would figure there would be black holes everywhere after an epoch like that.
But when we look out there, we don't find evidence of much, just a few here or there.
Why is that?
4 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8956891
What do you think are galactic cores, my melanin enriched friend?
>>
>>8956891
That's one hypothesis for dark matter:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_compact_halo_object
MACHOS are becoming more favorable because we've failed to detect WIMPS
>>
>>8956891
According to Stellar Evolution the star would have to be a certain amount of solar masses large for it to become a black hole as it could also become a neutron star depending on it's mass. If I remember correctly they have to be atleast 5 times the size of our sun to go hypernova. Most other stars simply went supernova which would explain the amount of supernova nucleosythesis that would have to had occured to generate new atomic nuclei which fairly large atomic numbers.
File: stewart.jpg (20KB, 300x353px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 300x353px
I got this book for cheap. Is it a bad idea to use it for self study?
Going through it briefly, it seems very scatterbrained, constantly jumping from example to example without going into any depth about the subject at hand.
8 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
And not sure if this makes any difference, but I am studying statistics
>>
>>8956885
Is there seriously a non-metric version of this textbook? If so, for what fucking purpose?
>>
>>8956885
Alright OP, listen up.
I am one of the persons that picked this up and went subject from subject, chapter to chapter, till I (almost) finished the entire book. Well not almost I still missed the entire multi variable sections.
Heres my advice:
This book will teach you what calculus is about, it has plenty of exercises. But perhaps by the end you will be so fed up and tired of it that you will just drop it (like I did).
If anything I would recommend you to pick some other book or use this as some supplementary one. Going through Stewart can feel rewarding at times or very very boring. So you might as well work your way through the popular books posted on the wikia (apostol, etc)
File: 1495415229887.jpg (965KB, 1582x1627px) Image search:
[Google]
965KB, 1582x1627px
Is there a pattern of thinking that could make me better at solving math problems? How do I get better at it?
8 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
Yes. You start by not posting /pol/ shit
>>
>>8956842
First pic I clicked on, didn't even look
>>
>>8956842
Stop being a commie.
File: abiogenesis.gif (8KB, 391x366px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 391x366px
Do you think abiogenesis still happens to this day? If so, why can't we detect it?
Also, why haven't we figured out it yet?
8 Posts / 1 Images
View this topic
>>
> still no replies
/sci/ BTFO
>>
>>8956802
Yes. It's too far away. IE on some other planet besides earth.
Any abiogenesis happening on earth today is going to be impossible to detect because today's life will just eat it.
>> why haven't we figured it out
We don't have any fossil molecules of very early life. Second, because figuring out what the heck was going on in soup of early earth is difficult. Just because it's so damn big even rare effects are important
>>
>post shitty thread
>get no replies
ya u btfo'd us pretty good
File: 51TNSWPz5fL._SX306_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (50KB, 308x499px) Image search:
[Google]
50KB, 308x499px
Looking for actual scientific study of UFOs. Not muh aliums not muh spiritual shit, but actual, scientific research into weird lights and disks in the sky.
Stuff like Hynek's research, but more modern.
10 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
>>8956775
Fuck off, /x/ is just succubi and transcendence. I came here for actual SCIENCE.
>>
>>8956770
Type Ufology into google and click on thing which don't read like total clickbait.
File: so i was thinkan.jpg (8KB, 270x203px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 270x203px
ok guys so I'm not a science guy or a mathfag but a buddy of mine at work got me thinking the other day on this whole global warming thing. me being a skeptic and a troll, the whole thing sounds more like religion to me than science. now then, if television has taught me anything, its that good science can always be proven with math. if not for math how else could the moon landing have been faked so well? anyway so this morning I set out to disprove by means of some numbers collected from google, a carbon footprint calculator from the entarwebs and a cursory knowledge of Microsoft Calculator 6.1 usage. as is practice in global warming claims, my evidence is at best anecdotal and I will be rounding numbers a bit for simplification, also I couldn't be bothered to get data down to the 5th decimal place. So in summation the following shall be my evidence that climate change is bullshit. if you find some manner of glaring error, please feel free to submit your own calculation in the same simple math format for us laymen to understand.
lets start with atmospheric pressure, which google reports as 14.7psi sea level. as I understand, this should mean a column of air, the thickness of the atmosphere weighs 14.7lbs on 1 sq inch at the bottom of it. there are 144 sq inches per sq foot and 27878400 sq feet per sq mile as also reported by google.
14.7 x 144 x 27878400 = 59012997120 lbs/sqmi
or 29,506,498.56 tons per sqmi
google says the surface of the earth is 196.9 million square miles, I could not be bothered to measure it myself.
29506498.56 x 196900000 = 5,809,829,566,464,000 tons weight of earth's atmosphere
footprint calculator has my truck at about 8.7 tons/year, my heating bill at about the same, I do enjoy a bit of light and sound so I'll round out my overall footprint at about 30 tons/year. hell, lets go 50 because murica fuck year~! lets just use this bullshit number of 50 tons per person for the population of the USA of 321M
50 x 321000000 = 16,050,000,000
9 Posts / 2 Images
View this topic
>>
ermahgurd thats sixteen billion tons~! sounds like a lot of emmissions right? lets do one more calculation to get perspective.
16050000000 / 5809829566464000 = 2.7625595237156690769947328861582e-6
woweewowow thats a big sciencey number! but what does it all mean? well if i'm understanding the whole scientifical notary stuff right that should be something like
0.00000276255 and a bunch more numbers that dont really matter because what i'm looking for is a percentage of emmissions versus total atmosphere.
0.000276%
if the entire population of the USA just up and disapeared, all power plants offline and not a single car running, emmissions would be cut by a whole less than 3 tenthousanths of a percent of the earth's atmosphere which is supposed to affect temperatures by half a degree centigrade or something. anyway bullshit.
>>
op here, so did I miss something here or is my math completely outside the realm of reality? please /sci/ tell me, I want to understand, is this one of the reasons global warming isn't spread by means of math but only dubious charts and suspect infographics?
>>
>>8956746
Here's my proof that alcohol getting you drunk is bullshit:
According to http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5
3 ounces of 80 proof liquor is enough to make a 100 pound person drunk. This translates to 0.075 pounds of alcohol. But that's only 0.00075 of the person's body. Obviously such a small amount can't make you drunk. Therbefore alcohol doors not cause intoxication.