What/Who decided that the Earth is actually facing upwards, I'm guessing it's just because Europe is at the north side of Earth and they got to decide everything? Is there a scientific explanation for why our North pole is actually at the top of our planet?
What if the Earth, and everything we know in the Universe, is actually upside down? How do we even know which way is up?
Butthurt australians...
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/maps-cartographycolonialismnortheurocentricglobe.html
>still doesn't realize the earth is twice as big as claimed
>still doesn't realize we're on the bottom half
>still doesn't realize the equator is actually Antarctica
As above, so below.
I guess most of you have heard of the wow! signal and also of the Mandela effect?
The Wow! signal: was a strong narrowband radio signal received on August 15, 1977, by Ohio State University's Big Ear radio telescope in the United States from outer space.
The Mandela effect: The phenomenon where it is discovered that a global, well known fact has apparently changed for a large group of people.
So ok, as a kid i was taught that our earth was at the outskirts of our milkyway in the sagittarius arm ( see picture ). And when i read about the wow! signal some years later it was said that it came from the Orion constallation.
So big was my surprise that the wow! signal is now from the sagittarius arm and our milkyway is now in the Orion spur in the middle of the milkyway galaxy...
So it seems we didnt just moved 20000 lightyears to the middle of the milkyway galaxy but we are also sending and receiving our own messages?
Are we the aliens?
And who else remembers the wow! signal from Orion or being in the sagittarius arm?
go to /x/ lil nigga
we only do hard science here
sounds hot. but ok will try ^^
(((they)))
What do you, yes (You), think the darkmatter is? Which of the DM theories would you bet your money on?
Personally, I like Self-interacting darkmatter (SIDM) theory.
I like axions and ALPs.
I think WIMPs, should they exist, are below the coherent neutrino scattering "floor".
Wasn't it proved last year by those gravitational wave detectors that it's literally just more black holes than we originally expected?
>>8947705
A fantasy.
Does anyone else find math's cogency and symmetry beautiful?
ye it's pretty neat
good thread op
that highlighted sequence is found in this triangle order in the 3rd diagonal sequence going down and right.
The highlighted sequence is a linear square pattern.
Ok so I want to have the sequence 0,1,0,1,0,1,...
Its generated by this: 1/2 (1 + (-1)^n)
Now I want the Sequence 0,1,2,0,1,2,0,1,2,...
Wolfram Alpha tells me the function to get this is a_n = (n + 2) mod 3
BUT in my program I can't to use MOD or IF(F) because it slows stuff down too much, I want a nice function like I had before. Recursion is no problem. Wat do?
>>8947238
a mod n = a - (n * int(a/n))
>>8947266
Thanks for the answer but casting a division which could result into a float/double into an integer is just as bad using mod. If you want to use division it have to result in an integer. No casting allowed.
>>8947383
Are you allowed to set the first three as 0, 1, 2 and then say: a_n = n-3 ?
Give me a /sci/entific explanation as to why I'm an alcoholic
Genes, you started yo drink early and in excess and you have poor self control.
because you're mentally weak and instead of making effort to stop being an alcoholic you choose to find "scientific reasons" as to why it's out of your control and you can't do anything about it.
Science can't prove anything.
>>8947158
Can God prove science is real?
Checkmate reptilians
>>8947167
Yeah. You keep repeating your "cant know nuffin" mantra. We'll go ahead and achieve biological immortality and colonize the universe without you.
Why does anything exist?
>because nothing is impossible
God created it. Any other answer is a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious.
>>8947089
According to known laws of physics, no "thing" should be able to exist - out of a soup of photons, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should appear, and those should keep on annihilating eachother back into photons, in an eternal back-and-forth.
Why was this symmetry broken is one of the unanswered questions of physics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry
Two coins are thrown.
One of them is guaranteed to be head. What is the probability of both being head?
Two coins are thrown.
You are given one of these coins and it is head. What is the probability of both being head?
>>8946945
In other words, does it matter that you now know that the "first" coin you picked is heads and the and the probability ups to 0.5 given that you do not know whether you were given the first or second coin?
When it is guaranteed to be heads, 1/2.
When you are given the coin afterwards and it has resulted in heads, 1/4.
In the first, you do not need to factor the probability of the first coin landing heads/tails, because it has a set value of heads, hence 1/2.
In the second one, the coin is flipped and only given to you if heads results, hence from all attempts this would be expected to occur in some 1/4 of cases.
>>8946945
1/3
Who is your penfu, /sci/?
whatever i can get
>>8946843
either my pilot frixion, or lamy safari.
>>8946843
ticonderoga
Is this pic true?
Oh my creator of matrix what a hell are we even hoping for if our radio waves only went so far in our own galaxy?
Also when you imagine that the stars we see in the sky are the stars that are actually only in a small circle around our part of galaxy... jesus fuck
Are we really alone? Is this all there is? Empty lifeless universe that wants to kill you?
/are-we-alone/ thread
>be told by mom and dad and school and tv you are reaaaally special and important
>you arent
woah!
>>8946845
what a pathetic little miserable man you are
>>8946827
>even hoping
We are hoping to hear others first, before they hear our radio signals which most likely are the powerful radar signals emitted during WW2.
When they say observation makes light behave as a particle, what do they mean by observation? Things like filters? Or does it include recording it with a camera?
>>8946817
They mean interaction. When you're dealing with particles, you can't just "look" at what they're doing, because they're too small to see. Instead, you have to fire other particles at them and see which way they bounce off, then infer from that what the original particle was doing. Naturally, firing a particle at another particle will change both of them.
>>8946817
To understand this, you need to understand the fundamental philosophical problem of modern quantum physics, the measurement problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/#ApprMeasProb
For the layman, the best source that explains the problem, and the plausible mainstream resolutions, is the following video. It's pretty long, but also very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqC2bVLesQ
>>8946846
>the measuring problem is a philosophical issue
Are you literally retarded?
I thought scientists were supposed to be intelligent? but what i see them doing is pretty dumb
>edit DNA cell
>wait for something to happen
>oh look something is growing
>we dont know whats growing but its a new life form
is this really what they do? they dont even know what the fuck they are giving life to they dont actually have a Plan A or a Plan B its literally throwing shit at the wall and (HOPE) something happens.
>>8946767
What makes you think they're just throwing shit at the wall? Why don't you become a scientist then since you're so, "smart".
>>8946770
Read the article you dumb nigger the scientists responsible were asked questions what the outcome would be and they did not know
>IT could be a disease
>or it could be a cure to a disease
etc
they just answered with hypothetical nonsense
clearly they dont know what the fuck they are doing and they clearly dont have an objective
>Lets just see what happens
dumb ass scientists
The point of the experience was not to create a particular life form, just to test the method of creating life.
Can someone explain why the "consciousness causes collapse" theory is wrong?
Decoherence/interaction can't solve the measurement problem because of the creation of a von Neumann chain. Advocates of decoherence theory admit it cannot solve the measurement problem or derive the Born Rule. For example, E. Joos says, “Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory." G. Bacciagaluppi says, “Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." And, as, G. Grübl showed in "The quantum measurement problem enhanced," initial state environmental effects cannot explain the occurrence of definite experimental outcomes. Even in "Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence," Zurek refers to the observer being involved in the ultimate collapse. And of course you can have interaction free measurements. Like The "Renninger Negative Result Experiment."
Is Henry Stapp not correct when he states the following? "The observer in quantum theory does more than just read the recordings. He also chooses which question will be put to Nature: which aspect of nature his inquiry will probe. I call this important function of the observer ‘The Heisenberg Choice’, to contrast it with the ‘Dirac Choice’, which is the random choice on the part of Nature that Dirac emphasized."
>>8946721
AFAIK, your reasonable choices to solve the measurement problem are:
Everett, aka manyworlds, which depends on decoherence.
Bohmian mechanics.
Spontaneous collapse theories, like GRW.
I don't take seriously that conscious observers play any special role in physics, and neither do most physicists.
>>8946723
>I don't take seriously that conscious observers play any special role in physics, and neither do most physicists.
Why? Is it "metaphysical prejudice" (as Stapp puts it)? Or do you think there something inherently wrong with the theory?
>>8946729
Everything that I know about reality, based on overwhelming evidence, is that materialism is true, and consciousness is a result of physical processes. We can argue about that if you want, but that's my position, which means that I'm going to look for alternative explanations before throwing out materialism altogether.
What are some good arguements AGAINST the theory of evolution?
... Why are you here?
If you compute the minimum rate of the appearance of new mutant genes needed to produce humans from bacteria in four billion years you will see that the rate is way too high. It is completely unphysical. The data model in pic related is from here:
>The Truth About Evolution
>http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0132
Z is the average number of generations between the appearance of mutant genes that are both: A) a boon to fitness, and B) also propagate into the entire population of the animal so all future species members have that gene. Intuition shows it does not happen in every eight generations of mice and this can be verified by experiment. How could one mouse become the grandparent of all mice every eight generations of mice? Same thing for worms. Same thing for...
>>8946670
Does anything else you know develop by an evolutionary tree? No. It's going to be DAG, biologists are just too stupid to realize it yet even knowing about HGT.