Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 850. page

no and none

>>8677009
yes. The implications are that we can monitor brain activity using EXTREMELY SENSITIVE equipment such as SQUIDs. Like so sensitive that they have to be shielded from earth's magnetic field.

>>8677025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography

I'm considering it, but I'm probably gonna do a major and a minor. Idk which is one I should major in though

>>8675636
>tfw did a pure math degree
>tfw had 6 programming jobs during my undergrad, total, 5000 hours
>tfw I cuck the CS grads out of their jobs without ever taking a single programming class

Feels sublime tbqh lads

File: tmp_2240-14852138557451238703394.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>8675636
Double majoring math and geoscience. What are some research topics in geology (aside from geophysics) that require a background in math? I would like my math thesis and geology thesis to overlap as much as possible. I was thinking finite element modeling of some geological phenom.

>>8670797
CS does not use the scientific method so it is fake, but not in the same way economics is fake.

Economics doesn't use the scientific method because every economist has a political agenda to push. Computer scientists don't use the scientific method because they barely understand what methods are. No joke, see how many people fail Intro to Java.

>>8670797
>>8670808

Economics yes but econometrics is still a science.

>>8678810
why doesn't your shit university help you with placement?

>>8678810
You're fucked. Rev up that resume and get a mcjob.

If it makes you feel better, OP, I dropped out of college back in late 2015 and have been living in my parents basement ever since. I have no friends and I've been working the same shitty mcjob for 3 years. Your life can't get worse than mine.

>>8678502
TI

i had the casio and the stylus interface is shit

Just to note, the calculators in the picture are the Casio FX-CP400, the HP Prime, and the TI-nspire CX (I would obviously get a CAS version)

graphing calculators are worthless past high school.
i would recommend the ti 36 x pro scientific calculator, the wolfram alpha app on your phone, and matlab free trial

>>8678055
just accept the fact that your mom is an idiot and try not to become like her

>>8678055
Fucking pseudoscience that denigrates negative-mass energy in physics

>>8678064
Litterally why the fuck is it always slightly older middle aged moms who believe this shit?

Can you proof?

you are wrong.

debate me?

>>8677702
>>8677703
Aubrey de Grey promised me.

It does.

It does if it's an Einstein-Bose condensate.

It does even if its water. You have been trolled

>>8675369
Did you read replies to your last thread?

>>8675372
didn't have a last thread.

>>8675369
I take your word as a Gentleman -it's odd, a thread with essentially the exact same question was just up.

A 2 1/2 - 3 inch refractor is what I started with, and I was very happy with it.

But you don't NEED a telescope to get started. If you have not done so, spend some naked-eye time learning your way around the sky, then with some good light gathering binoculars(magnification is not key here, big objective lenses to gather lots of light is what you want.) and see what you can see.

There is some value in learning your way around -- though especially with the drives and software you get nowadays, you can skip right t "punch a button, scope points at object." and just sightsee.

Note -- some folks will say get a reflector instead of a refractor - you can get a bigger aperture and thus more light gathering for the same money, and avoid chromatic aberration to boot. And that is hard to argue. I just have a soft-spot for a nice refractor.

What's your experience level and budget?

You can't ask the book questions and get a response.

>>8674716
What about using the internet for questions?

>>8674721
Then you have to wait, instead of having someone whose job is to answer them for you. I mean, look at OP. It took 22 minutes to get a reply.

>>8674426
Acidheads are annoying twits.

>>8674441
Good discussion. Reasonable.

>produced by humans

"no"

It's worth researching.

>>8676500
>when we are currently creating new life forms in our own labs?

Ex nihilo?

>Plus there is no mutation that accounts for chromosome loss or addition and subsequent reproduction...

The fact that you're ignorant of them doesn't mean such processes don't exist.

Stay dumb.

>>8676502
1. We have no proof that life here came from nothing.

2. I've been searching years. If someone is aware of how this works I'd love to know. This is my point, the more I actually know, the less likely Darwin's BS makes any sense.

I'd honestly LOVE to see an explanation for chromosome shift and subsequent reproductive ability.

Please enlighten me, or add this into your worldview.

File: iGen3_16_17_Figure-L.jpg (129KB, 1406x663px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1406x663px

Literally OP

File: pepe 1486225107307.png (312KB, 601x595px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 601x595px

>>8674341
>taking ancient history class
>"did you know africa is the largest in the world? asia just looks bigger than africa because racists intentionally distorted the map."
>do a 10 second google inquiry
>asia has 140% the surface area as africa
Humanities is shit.

>>8674349
largest continent*

>women
>STEM
>2017

>>8678144
Considering you think the universe is a trillion years old you're probably high right now but the evidence is simply that there's no reason to think they would be changing.

Even in the oldest galaxies we can see, everything is consistent with assuming the same constants we have now.

>>8678235
We gauge the age of galaxies based on the assumptions the physical constants are the same though.

For example, we spot their distance by their redshift. But if electromagnetic interaction was weaker in the past, the hydrogen energy levels would be squeezed, and the light would naturally be more redshifted than current. In that case, galaxies are actually closer than what we are calculating.

>>8678144
>none
>we dont.

our physical models dont have changing constants and they predicted the CMBR so there's that I guess.

still not a guarantee in the slightest.

>>8677741
Shitty false flag is shitty.

>>>/pol/

File: Hey stormfront.jpg (154KB, 500x678px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 500x678px

>>>/pol/ bigboy

>>8677794
>>8677749
yawn, you guys don't do very well when the real proof is staring you in the face.
It's so much easier when you're using "climate models" from "peer reviewed journals" that say exactly what you want them to say.

Pathetic