Welcome to /sci/ This is a board to discuss everything related to maths and science, such as ongoing and upcoming research/events, new discoveries and general questions. Simple questions that could be easily searched online or typed into a graphical calculator will be marked off topic. Questions that don't have an obvious answer or require some thought will be on topic. Linking interesting articles (not old) for discussion is welcome.
How was the universe formed?
>>111 thx for this one, I like to watch these kind of lectures
>how is verse formed?? >how lie group get symetric? They need to do way renorm quanta> who pattern can't stabilize back, like proton in sol who decay above avg rate. iam truly sorry for your beta particle emisons
>Check out what I made please. https://masterchan.org/sci/thread/314
It came out of her ass
>>338 some morphing required
>implying your IQ even comes close to his
>>295 "Check out my inferiority complex, it's okay because anonymously O'm super smart" the post.
>>266 A person that thinks a single number can properly represent the intellect of a human brain can't be all that smart.
>>350 A single number? Are you implying that a multitude of numbers would do the trick?
>>460 The score is a ready recogner for others to go by
So what do you guys think about messing around with infinite sums?
Why do electrons behave like bosons when pairedd up and fermions when on their own?
Electrons-people Bosons-bitches Fermions-free thinkers
sry tho someone answer this
Ive heard two difff' stories about the Higgs, Bsn. I ask the question "where do higgs get there mass? fro other Higgs ?" I was told they dont have mass and the someone else told me "no one know where they get it" both were "reputable sources ", Scientists maybe more full of shit then foxnews
I have this really weird theory but I feel like I must say i'm 14 and iv been thinking about this for about 5 to 6 years now but I don't know who to tell. Now I don't think random is possible nor is infinity. Due to random must be infinite and infinite must be random because it goes on for ever and when you say something is random that means it could be any value because infinite does not have any value. Now I want you to ask your self when was the beginning of time? Well that's pretty simple, right? there was not beginning or there's always a beginning. so this must mean that there is only one thing in our universe that's infinite. Time... Or time is not real, rather just our perception of the records around us. Truthfully I don't know. If you can figure this out.. go ahead. My head hurts but I think like this all day and all night so gg.
>>318 Oh boy, step back and listen. Random is not real. Why? Because everything in this observable universe arises from something below, for example the movement of the planets arises from gravity wich is constant, so we can calculate it.The throw of a ball is also calculatable. there is nothing that is not calculatable. Because its also physics there is one exception. The allpha decay and quantum processing resut. These are things we cannot calculate because they are "random", but both of this things have their intervals. So it is a finite nuber, and because it is finite it is posiblle to calculate it or to find a pattern. We just dont know wich pattern yet
Is this a joke or are you all high af fam?
>>322 no, why?
>>323 You are all just spamming a bunch of metaphysical nonsense that sounds like it belongs in a Deepak Chopra book. This is /sci/. Construct a falsifiable hypothesis, do some rigorous mathematics, reference someone who does, or go away.
Correct and irrefutable. It is the (opposite) of logical, and the opposite of rational. The representation of infinity in our universe is the space (or just space) between matter, and dark matter, which is the opposite of matter, and no rules apply to it. Globalists are trying to use dark matter to bring into existence many things, new particles, old gods, etc. If something exists, it is logical. This is not to say that it is because it is, but rather that what you find logical is actually what exists. You have no power over it other than you have the power to create. So the power to create and control logic as well as rules is the true power because you control other people's influence of what is logical and therefor their power. Hence "god" always being a creator.
Guys I have a few questions. 1: If i'm a 3d person, and i stick my dick in an anime character, what would happen? Would it be possible? Would i just get really bad papercuts? 2: If I was a 2d person, and i stick my dick in an anime character, then i would have to be from a sideways angle so i actually have a dick and it's not just my shirt but looks like a dick. If that's possible to fuck an anime character sideways as a 2d person, then would I always have to be looked at from a sideways angle? Or would I would just change my art style to change positions?
Can you find the kinetic energy passed on to particles through heat? All heat is is just vibration. Lets forget all practicalities of actually doing this for a moment. Ke = 1/2mv^2 So you can find the mass of a particle, but finding its velocity would be a bit more difficult. If it's vibrating, it has a frequency. Using v = f/λ you could find the velocity, but would the wavelength just be the distance between oscillations or maybe would the particle create some kind of simple harmonic motion stuff which would make it oscillate in a certain pattern where you could find the wavelength from? If it just straight up dosnt have a wavelength then I suppose you could find the time period through the frequency and the distance of a whole oscillation and just do v = d/t ? I'm asking because honestly I dont know if either of those methods to find the velocity would work. If they did though, then finding the kinetic energy transferred by heat would be pretty cool.
For a circle, the diameter is given by: d = 2r which means d2 = 4r^2 so if we get the formula for rotating around the x-axis on a graph, π∫y^2 dx, and apply it here: π∫4r^2 dr which equals: 4/3πr^3 which is the equation for the volume of a sphere. But we got this equation from rotating d = 2r around the x-axis, which is the same shape at y = 2x giving us the pic related graph. which if we rotate around the x-axis from say 0 to 5 we get a circular cone shape. So this would mean that the volume for this circular cone shape would have the same volume as a sphere with the same radius. Is that correct, or have I missed something really stupid here?
So there is some potential nobel price work being done right now trying to find the 'quantum limit' of objects. We all know electrons can have wave-like properties and diffract through gratings, but apparently C60 atoms can as well. Bigger and bigger particles are being tested, if the next level of size works then it's likely it will get a nobel price. What do you guys think the 'quantum limit' is? Is there one? I thought it was just different masses required different velocities to diffract, but at large masses the practicality just becomes basically impossible (like requiring a speed of 10x10^-20)
So, I have a question regarding physics and mathematics. Between the two, which would give me more "smart sounding shit." I don't mean learning it to brag, I mean stuff like pure mathematics sounding totally abstract to normal people. I just want to be in a different world basically. Kind of like induced autism? Or like a constant high but without drugs. Pic unrelated
Gravitational waves have been discovered. Will this lead to the discovery of dark matter? How else will this revolutionize astronomy?
This is pretty damn cool, though I've got no idea what this means for science.
>>325 > Gravitational waves have been discovered. Something for which the best known explanation currently is a gravitational wave has been discovered. Not quite the same thing. Scientific method and all that. > Will this lead to the discovery of dark matter? This is relatively tangential to dark matter. That being said, it does suggest that gravity behaves as expected. > How else will this revolutionize astronomy? Actually, this does exactly the opposite. This strongly suggests that gravity behaves as expected.
>>326 It means it pretty much confirms our way of thinking about the universe on a large scale. It also gives us another method to explore space. >>327 >Something for which the best known explanation currently is a gravitational wave has been discovered. Not quite the same thing. Scientific method and all that. Yea that's true. >This is relatively tangential to dark matter. That being said, it does suggest that gravity behaves as expected. Well it's probably the only way we could actually detect dark matter so I think it's pretty important. >Actually, this does exactly the opposite. This strongly suggests that gravity behaves as expected. It has given astronomy a whole new method to look into the universe though.
>>325 so does that mean I can surf on a gravity wave with my nasa surf board ^^ "D
What's the name of the proof that proves π is equal to half the circumference of a circle?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26813-epic-cosmic-radio-burst-finally-seen-in-real-time.html#.VLza1qy9LCQ >Random huge burst of radio waves, no afterglow, shit tones of energy, no explantion thus far So what do we think it is? Im gonna go out on a limb here and say it now: White hole.
>>183 No, it's anti-black hole so to speak. To date, there has never been any white holes observed because it's practically unobservable outside of it's event horizon.
>>184 So, what creates a white hole. That black hole is entrance, white hole is exit seems too sci fi for me to believe.
>>185 >That black hole is entrance, white hole is exit Wat? In any case, that's why the existence of white hole is widely disputed. It only exists on our calculation within general relativity and only if the parameters are perfect.
I would say unexplained phenomena, not aliens.
>>187 this, it's probably a natural reaction
I'm at the desperate end of a long search for free thought that isn't met by dogmatic bullshit every single day. Spirituality needs to be re-introduced into the world of science, the notion that consciousness is dependent on matter is just wrong, and goes against thousands of years of theology, 2 million in India, to just dismiss the idea that self-aware consciousnesses exist independent of matter. This is a belief that needs to immediately take root into the realm of sciences. At the end of the day all atomic matter is made out of quarks (among other things) which are basically just parts of pure energy. everything is made out of light already regardless of whether you believe it or not, there's a mathematical equation to turn your shoe into a brick of gold and it happens down at the sub atomic level. but my cry for help, is there anyone else that's able to see how the D major scale, the hydrogen atom, and the Seraphim are all connected?
Was there something before the big bang? Recently i heard someone say that "the big bang isnt the start of the universe, its the first moment of it we have recorded" Is that some shit theory or may it be more to it?
>>166 From the idea that time travel would be possible if one could exceed the speed of light, I'll wager that time is somehow defined by the speed of light. If the entirety of the universe is contained in a pre big bang lump of stuff, there is no light, thus there is no time, thus there is no "before" to speak about. For the record, I have no idea what I'm talking about. The above thought hit me when I was high and I haven't had a chance to word it until now. Input from well-read and educated people is welcome.
>>277 I'm not quite sure what you're getting at but time is dependent on your speed. That's the theory of relativity, the faster you go the slower time moves. It wouldnt be the speed of light specifically that defines time. Also if there was no light there is no reason not to have time. It is thought that dark matter does not interact with photons in any way but they are still in the dimension of time.
For further research I present: Plasma theory Cosmology: Myth or Science? Hannes Alfven Life Fellow IEEE Abstract — This paper examines critically the history of cosmology and presents ideas that lay the foundation of the plasma universe. http://alumnus.alumni.caltech.edu/~ckank/fringe/alfven/alfven1.html
...and I forgot these links, enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwMDYNRZUKY Hannes Alfven Hannes Alfvén plasma cosmology http://alumnus.alumni.caltech.edu/~ckank/fringe/alfven/alfven1.html http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology/Elerner_Proposal http://www.plasma-universe.com/Hannes_Alfv%E9n http://www.plasma-universe.com/Magnetohydrodynamics http://tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html http://www.ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/alternate_healing/copenhagenclimatechange/alfven.html http://www.holoscience.com/wp/category/eu-views/ take care
ITT: We propose theoretical methods to create artificial gravity. inb4 rotating centrifuge (not saying you can't propose a design that uses centrifugal force, but we're all familiar with that shit from Elysium by now)
Pedophilic attraction seems to be quite common. Rather than being a pathology could it have been adaptive back in caveman times?
>quite common Do you have the data to back that up? Or are you basing it on the presence of a very small but often vocal minority?
see, op isnt making a statement, he's asking a quesition >Pedophilic attraction seems to be quite common. Rather than being >a pathology could it have been adaptive back in caveman times? seeing as early human's lifespan was extremely short compared to ours, it is probable that the first sexual encounter between a pair of humans was during the final phases of growth of sexual organs, precisely when the endocrine glands first started working. so that would explain pedophilic attraction to early teens but not toddlers etc, I cant see any evolutionary advantage to fucking babies im not a native english speaker so i might have fucked something up here and there, also I didnt bother to spellcheck also also, as far as I remember people used to marry and fuck way earlier than we do now (ie around 13-15) This would imply that sexual attraction to opposite sex what i skimmed through while answering: https://books.google.pl/books?id=4rGOLEOC4mEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>330 holy fuck you are stupid in prehistoric time, there was no notion of "years" and "teens"; as soon as a girl is fertile and a man mate with her, she can conceive, no matter how "old" or "young" her "age" is; physicality is above all however, that doesn't explain the attraction to the state of "childhood", which is the period between being a baby until being able to be of child bearing; though if a girl isn't fertile but looks fertile - is it not dangerous for a man to ignore the fact she indeed looks good enough to mate but actually can't give birth yet - if he choose not to attempt to mate with her is he not stupid for not trying or "making sure"? anyway, early humans were originally only able to live to no more than 50 years (with the most perfect genetic and medical condition) but most archaeological evidence show they were dead by late 20 and early 30 but the 50 years is mere potentiality estimated by scientists (sometimes rather inaccurate) - some camp of biologist believe their system would be completely collapsed by 40 by thinking early human in terms of "years/teens" you've already confined yourself and early human in a measurement standard unavailable to the actual objects in question, and using a modern imperfect standard/abstraction with all the biological legality and trapping that goes with the various industry and institution which always aim to obscure the validity of your inquiry don't listen to an historian or an academic or a scientist about whether the holocaust gas chambers were really as they are ask and listen to crematorium workers
>>330 >>336 in the same way, a group of woman can also hoard a young boy or the older female can also imitate the boy instead of thinking its always a caveman and a young girl, a cave-woman and a young boy pairing is also perfectly possible
How to turn a formula including greek letters into something a calculator can parse? or do I need to pirate Mathematica? I just need to graph a finance equation that uses delta.