well I wanted to ease into it since anytime you make threads like this on /sci/ its usually flamed for being /x/ bullshit but I am legitimately curious what some of you thought. If you look into his stuff and listen to what he has to say obviously its very speculative but I don't really see how its that far fetched and why someone would go to such measures just to tell fallacies about working on extraterrestrial technology
>>8163569 After all of his interviews that I have listened to, I could never help thinking '"this guy does not sound like an engineer, a physicist or any other kind of scientifically trained professional."
Just his language, grammar and vocabulary, he doesn't sound like a highly technical advanced scientist at all. always thought he just sounded like some average blue collar schmuck reciting some ideas he gathered together from reading alot of science fiction and binge watching the Discovery Science channel.
>>8173682 Because it has never been proven but is still lofted up like a goddamn golden bull for all to follow.
Abiogenesis is hailed as the one thing to follow when it comes to the origin of life as if the world of science is a goddamn religion. Usually when you say "uh, lightening hitting a puddle didn't start life on this planet. I don't know what did but it sure as hell wasn't that" /sci/fags tend to get a little pissy and start calling you a christfag and whatnot.
The attitude that 'LaTeX is easy' is perpetrated loudly by people that haven't had to use LaTeX very much. It is only tentatively saved by the comprehensive (sometimes, if you're lucky, even readable) documentation of all its quirks. Left to over 30 years of growth outside of its intended use case, LaTeX proper does nothing you would need it to, and the packages that you use with it are horribly fragmented. Maybe Latex is good at the things it sets out to implement, but those things aren't what I or anyone else uses it for (creating publication-quality documents). So in considering latex we are forced to also consider the environment of libraries in which it exists.
LaTeX brings all the problems you had in the Windows 2000 era of programming into document creation. > misleading compiler messages > dependency hell > choosing a compiler > bad environment > inconsistent syntax > GOTOs > knowing whether or not you have run the compiler enough times to produce a document (!!!) > semantic code is impossible
Every time I want to do anything other than add words to my document, I have to think about whether I want to use Latex's meager facilities, facilities that I had to code, or facilities that someone else invented, then worry about all the quirks in them. If I want to add a table to my document, I need to decide whether it should be: > tabular > tabular* > tabularx > longtable > align > array > eqnarray > matrix Someone told me that one of these is very bad and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, although he didn't tell me why, and I don't remember which one.
It baffles me that thinking about these things is prerequisite to writing a document.
I am not going to stop using Latex, but no one will ever get me to say that it's easy.
>>8171013 > choosing a compiler does anyone use anything beside MikTeX? > bad environment you shut your whore mouth > inconsistent syntax really? I haven't noticed it in my years of using it > GOTOs ur doing it wrong
I only use tabular (inside a table environment making it a float) aligh and eqnarray are for equations...and they are ever so slightly different I used some longtable package, but ikr when. The rest sound like junk unless you convince me otherwise
Floats are gross, but by their nature they kinda have to be.
> does anyone use anything beside MikTeX? Yes, there is also TeXlive and others, but that's not what I'm complaining about. Should I use pdflatex, pdftex, xelatex, xetex, or lualatex then dvi2pdf or ....??? My code previously compiled using pdflatex, but now I need some of the features that only the xetex family has. but it wont compile under xe* compilers. Why not? I don't know.
> bad environment Recently in my lab we... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
To summarize it's a paper about field propulsion, some kind of warp-drive using lasers and magnets, nothing tinfoil here, we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations and that NASA Eagleworks has been openly working on these things for years.
Here's where it gets weird: Right off the bat they start mentioning UFOs claiming to "not be involved in UFO research". Why mention UFOs? it's just a physics paper.... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8169458 Flying wing research has been done as early as 1935 and this is with proof and documented by the Germans,stuff could have been work in progress much earlier. Someone taking on theoretical research on different types of propulsion is nothing new. If you thing there are really UFOs than you should get your head examined. Seriously.
>>8169458 >we all know that it's allowed by Einstein's equations
It isn't, actually; reading through that paper, it's relying on speculative physics that have not been borne out in the last 38 years of physics research. Nobody has developed a working theory unifying electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields that has achieved acceptance. (Kaluza-Klein theory was promising for a while, but no evidence has been found for it and, like other GUT attempts, tends to predict... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8169770 >Why is it not allowed to be a fucking speculative on this board?
Because 100% of the time it "speculate" and "theorise" are just euphemisms for "here's some unsubstantiated crap I thought of while sitting on the shitter". No one does anything other than present some (often) poorly thought out idea, never do people attempt to write down some mathematics and show some implications of their idea.
Alright anons, so right now there aren't a lot of good boards on /sci/. There's a good couple, but other than that this whole place is just nope. I've come to fix that. As of late, something has been on my mind, but I haven't been able to put it into words. Perhaps until now. I'm just going to cut to the chase.
The reverse butterfly affect.
Let's take a look at the butterfly effect. We observe a butterfly in Beijing. Every time it's wings flap, what the weather will be in New York changes. And, this may be true. It's the strangest phenomena, known as the butterfly affect in chaos theory. The absolute smallest differences can throw an entire operation off or change the affect of an event, making the outcome different from another identical event. Chaos theory is a field of physics which focuses on nonlinear equations and probability, and it's this field that applies to things like guessing the weather. Most physical phenomena are measurable and predictable, however not all phenomena can be linearly guessed. Chaos theory not only focused on observing unstable phenomena, but also in predicting the future. Where would a double suspended pendulum be if we dropped it from a certain angle? We can't really know as inputs need to be filled out. Now, the normal butterfly affect and chaos theory focus on predicting the future. What I'm thinking of focuses on reading the past.
Let's observe the Big Bang theory. We all know what it is, so I won't go in depth explaining it. However, when we look at how one would go about developing it, you basically just look at the patterns of stellar and galactic movement and reverse it. When we do this, all we can understand is that everything was once wrapped up really tight in a ball. [Pretyped, way over character limit, will continue.]
>>8173439 cont. However, the difference between studying the Big Bang hypothesis and my idea for the reverse butterfly affect focuses on nonlinear equations. The reason we can't really formulate the nonlinear equations in chaos theory mathematics is because there are open inputs that still need to be filled. However that's just about predicting the future. There's no need to (mathematically) predict the past, as it's already happened. This would mean that the inputs for said nonlinear equations would already... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
You don't understand non-linear equations, you don't understand Chaos theory and surely you don't understand how mathematics work. Your idea is laughable to say the least. Delete this post, you're making a fool of yourself.
>>8173471 Fuck you too anon. Can you at least nitpick instead of just give up? I'm looking for input here. I'm not the average faggot who'll just shut out constructive criticism. I'm looking for exactly why the whole concept sucks and deserves removal from these boards, as you put it.
I'm a chemist and my cousin, younger than me by 12 years, has asked me for a semestral project they could do. For the love of me, I've been doing post-grad work for the past six years that I can't recommend stuff she could do anymore. I don't want to disappoint so I'm asking for ideas for projects.
They will be in a group of 4 iirc. The project can run for about 2-3 months. They have access to a chemical laboratory.
To give an idea of the level of research they can do, they extracted from leaves last year and tested that for anti-bacterial properties.
>>8172966 This is a short project idea but what about the separation of acetic acid from pyro oil/biocrude? (via extraction and/or distillaiton)
They could use some kind of oil (vegetable or other kitchen oil) to simulate the pyro oil and just add vinegar to it.
For example, they can add water and separate aq phase from the organic phase. Then they measure the amount of acetic acid extracted by the pH. (they could obtain the pH by titration or a calibrated pH probe)
They could check the effects of T, P, acetic acid concentration, or something on the fraction of separation.
>>8172966 Extraction of volatile compounds (like limonene) from fruits Extraction and identification of lipids, using TLC Synthesis of aspirin Coating metal with gold/silver/copper through electrolysis Extraction of DNA/RNA Reaction kinetics
Fug me /sci/, I ended up missing a class in the physical science section of my major. I'm not particularly interested in any of these, but I hope you guys can steer me into the most useful/interesting one for a dude who loves comp sci & math.
My options are:
Environmental Science: Relationship of living organisms to the environment, including human impact on the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. Emphasis is placed on understanding of biological and physical science issues currently faced by society.
GEOGRAPHY: Introduction... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>been contemplating the idea of free will for weeks >think I may have finally found something which will get me motivated >studying science will the the key to freeing me from mediocrity and the mundane >realize I know jack shit about science and it's probably a waste of effort >dreams once again reduced to nothing
>>8172148 The beauty of CW complexes is in the attaching maps. So, you look at how the boundary of the disk (so, a 1-sphere) is attached to the wedge of circles. What map S^1 —> (S^1 V S^1) produces a torus when you fill in the boundary you just mapped onto the 1-skeleton?
How do you deal with people who use magical thinking instead of developing a probably explanation for every single fucking thing they say? How do people like Bill Nye and Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss and Christopher Hitchens and Morgan Freedman and Carl Sagan and Neil Degrass Tyson and whoever have so much patience for these people? I don't, I just can't fucking stand them and I want to fucking strangle them because they're so annoying, in fact I lament the fact that I live in a society that doesn't base what it thinks on logic and probability, or just... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8171986 You know what I mean by probability. I'm not a scientist, but you can only give the best possible answer based on what you already know, and you accept that it may not be true if you don't have enough evidence to confirm it. Although when there's a blind spot in a lot of people's understandings, they just fill in the blanks with some other explanation, like consciousness for example. They like to say that consciousness exists outside of this world. WHAT!?!?? NO!!! That's the most retarded thing... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
In the two-slit experiment, one particle is said to pass through both slots, to form the interference pattern. But each particle leaves a point-like mark on the screen, doesn't it? And the interference pattern is formed with time. Wouldn't it be more logical to suggest, that the interference pattern is formed due to some wave-like properties of time? So each particle passes through one slot, but we do not know which one.
>>8171733 >So each particle passes through one slot, but we do not know which one. that's exactly what happens. I don't know why you thought otherwise in the first place.
One photon doesn't create an interference pattern. 10 photons don't create an interference pattern. you need a lot more. But the probability of each single photon of being at a certain position on the screen follows the pattern.
>>8171625 As someone who majored in math and Econ, at best it's soft science, at worst its sociology. It's not a science in the same way that chemistry and bio are, but that doesn't mean it's not fairly rigorous and useful (given its assumptions). Higher level Econ is also intellectually stimulating, which is what drives people away from that. It's a shame, really. I think I saw here on /sci/ or somewhere that someone was asked, "if you're so smart why are you in Econ? Why didn't you do... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I have a master's in physics, and now nearly 3 years on from graduating feel no more well informed than when I started uni. Was just taught to pass exams, and that knowledge has vanished once I left academia and went into work.
I mean it got me a job, but I don't feel like I really learned anything.
>>8170861 I can understand derivatives in terms of velocity / acceleration But i'm having a hard time picturing (or understanding) how inflection points are given when setting the second derivative equal to 0
>>8170880 because the derivative of a generic differentiable function f(x) is the slopes/tangents of f(x)
visualising this: where f(x) has a maxima/minima the slope is zero so f'(x) will be zero at that point
where f(x) is increasing/decreasing the greatest it will have a peak for f'(x)
continuing this logic you can see that when you take the derivative of f'(x) the peaks become zero's on f''(x) which tell you where the slopes of f(x) are the greatest and the neighbouring points... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.