🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 03:01:55 UTC No. 16625551
What can science ever really know if it can't even understand the dynamics of the qualia of a sip of coffee. Not the chemical pathways... the experience.
🧵 Does the midwit meme have any merit? What is /sci/'s IQ?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 02:54:50 UTC No. 16625548
Please take the CAIT here and post the results:
https://cognitivemetrics.com/
Anyways, what do (you) think the average IQ of /sci/ is? Are you all midwits larping as geniuses? What about other boards?
I still can't believe that IQ is normally distributed. For every 110 iq person, there is a 90 iq person. For every 120iq person, there is an 80iq person. For every 150iq person, there is a 50iq person.
Of course this is logical, but 70iq seems so much dumber than 130iq seems smart.
>inb4 iq isn't real copers
lol ok
🧵 1st stage Maths
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:07:47 UTC No. 16625459
-Multivariable Calculus: Stewart and Apostol
-Complex Variables: Spiegel
-Real Analysis: Rudin
-Programming: Python and C
-Discrete Mathematics: Rosen
-Differential Equations: Zill
-Probability and Statistics: Devore
-Linear Algebra: Lay, Strang
Is this list good? Fix what you find wrong, please.
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:38:11 UTC No. 16625443
Scientifically, what is the cutest image that could possibly be produced? Something that is specifically designed to be SO cute that it overloads the part of the brain that responds to cuteness!
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:11:53 UTC No. 16625433
Is this an argument or not?
>It's raining so the ground is wet.
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:55:34 UTC No. 16625426
Suppose you wake up in a world where the only human beings alive are your clones. Since you probably don't want that to happen for real I've just proven that Dawkin's "selfish" gene-centered perspective must be severely lacking. Go cry about it.
🧵 Will giving my infant son trenbolone actually give him a big dick?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:28:33 UTC No. 16625408
That's what I'm assuming based of this article...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/163
🧵 Number advice and lying advice
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:55:41 UTC No. 16625383
Ok so I have discalculia which mean I can't do basic math without struggling. It sucks.
Circumstances made me spend more of my money than I'm allowed. I live with my parents and I can't tell them that.
So i need advice on some calculations...
I have 40,494,21 saved.
My parents think that I have 47,792.
I get 3000 a month.
My plan is to pretend business have been weak and I only got 2000 that month.
Saving me 1000.
How many months do I have to lie to get to the real number?
Is that even possible? Is this a good lie?
My parents pay me 250 to go to the psychologist twice a month, I could stop going to her and start using the money to cover up too but I rather not.
But would do if necessary.
Thanks in advance.
🧵 Thoughts on the possibility of free energy
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:54:06 UTC No. 16625294
Imagine the following: I use a small amount of energy to create a small amount of motion, then I use a purely mechanical method (that requires no energy whatsoever) to turn the small amount of motion I created into a much larger amount of motion.
Your first reaction to that idea is that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But you're wrong.
Let me give you an example: a megaphone (a mechanical one, not an electronic one). The megaphone takes a small amount of sound (aka vibrations) and turns it into a larger amount of sound. In other words, it takes a small amount of motion and turns it into a larger amount of motion without needing any kind of energy.
Another example: a pendulum. You pull on the small weight of the pendulum and move it, then let it go, and the weight will begin to swing back and forth. In other words, you create a small amount of motion, and it turns into a much larger amount of motion.
But a pendulum has another way to get it to move: you can use vibrations. If you apply vibrations with the right timing to the base of the pendulum, it will start to swing on its own.
Now combine those two ideas: a megaphone and a pendulum. The megaphone can turn a minute amount of vibrations into a much larger amount, and these vibrations can be aimed at the base of the pendulum, which will cause it to swing back and forth continuously.
Then you can use the swinging weight of the pendulum to generate electricity, and the amount generated will be much greater than the tiny amount required to produce the vibrations which are causing the pendulum to move.
In other words, you get free electricity.
However, this method isn't efficient or scalable enough to power your own home.
For that, you can use the Hydro-Gravitational Device: https://youtu.be/T6fK8EcFizI
Or this guy, using inertial forces: https://artiesays8.wordpress.com/20
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:39:05 UTC No. 16625289
what's your favorite science or math book?
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:11:14 UTC No. 16625263
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
YOURE TELING ME THE SMELLY EGYPTIANS/ZAWI HAWAS WERE LYING AND WE WUZZING ALL ALONG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZj
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:31:32 UTC No. 16625225
Why do they teach us all of them rather than stick to one?
🧵 standard model btfo
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:20:54 UTC No. 16625217
big bounce enjoyers stay winning! dark energy weakens over time
>Taken alone, DESI’s data are consistent with our standard model of the universe: Lambda CDM (where CDM is cold dark matter and Lambda represents the simplest case of dark energy, where it acts as a cosmological constant). However, when paired with other measurements, there are mounting indications that the impact of dark energy may be weakening over time and that other models may be a better fit.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2025/03/
🧵 Does Kant hold up in the face of modern maths?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:50:17 UTC No. 16625136
Kant considered mathematics to be "synthetic and a-priori". He believed that this class of knowledge is a description of the spacial and temporal structure that we must impose on reality in order to experience it. In this view, mathematics is accessible to us only because the mind has imposed it, not because it is true in the numenal, actual, or material world. Of course, he did not mean to say that we have imposed the language or notation of math onto reality, just that this language and notation was created to describe our impositions.
In his age of newtonian physics and euclidian geometry, this was unproblematic. The maths available were all descriptions of space and time as we experience it; and you can therefore make the type of claims that he does. In the contemporary age, which is one of multi-dimensional topology and non-causal physics, maths has grown to describe a reality far removed from our experience, and therefore, unrelated our impositions of space and causality.
Is this a problem for Kant, or more likely, have I misunderstand his beliefs?
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:20:07 UTC No. 16624992
Hii guys. I’m a high school girl from Brazil in my second year, and math has been super challenging for me lately. Whenever I study at home, I get really overwhelmed and just can’t seem to understand it all. I’m also curious if math is taught the same way in other countries. Does anyone have any helpful study tips to share? I’d really appreciate your advice. Thanks a bunch
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:52:40 UTC No. 16624974
will be ever be able to clean orbital space from scrap junk or have we doomed future generations forever to stay on earth?
orbital space is way bigger than Earth's surface and a piece the size of a screw is enough to kill somebody and destroy whatever thing they want to put into space in 2500
🗑️ 🧵 What Did Sabine Mean By This?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:44:14 UTC No. 16624959
🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:36:41 UTC No. 16624953
Dat Ass - edition
previous >>16622388
🗑️ 🧵 Spiteful Mutant
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:30:59 UTC No. 16624949
🗑️ 🧵 Fish literally DON'T EXIST
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:56:35 UTC No. 16624909
Fish are not an actual clade, which means that we arbitrarily exclude organisms from being called "fish" regardless of their actual ancestry. We just pick and choose what's considered a fish. Humans and salmon actually belong to the same clade (Osteichthyes), but not the same clade as sharks (Chondrichthyes), and both of these are also a different clade from hagfish (Agnatha).
If fish aren't monophyletic, then why the hell can't dolphins and whales be considered fish? They're marine vertebrates with fins that are more closely related to salmon than sharks are, so you have to pick one: either salmon aren't fish, or sharks aren't fish.
🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:31:47 UTC No. 16624886
what if God is hydrogen? that would explain why he is on every corner of the universe and in every living thing. hydrogen wasn't created by stars, it was there since the beginning of the universe, which matches up with what we now about God
I think hydrogen is conscious and it watches over us
🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:21:34 UTC No. 16624824
All life in the universe will be destroyed in 5000 years time. There is no hope of anything like it ever arising again. Life will be normal up until the point the destruction occurs. You can prevent this with 100% certainty, but it will kill you immediately and it will be a bit painful. Do you?
🗑️ 🧵 Fine tuning
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:16:42 UTC No. 16624821
Does fine tuning prove god and/or the the multiverse are real?
Is atheism+no multiverse even remotely possible?
🧵 Can Consciousness be Recreated?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:37:29 UTC No. 16624811
If we assume that everything in the universe can be perfectly surmised as a string of information, then it follows that consciousness and individual awareness is also a string of information.
If we then assume that entropy death is not the final fate of the universe as a whole, and there either exist other universes or our universe is in a cyclic state of expansion and collapse, then we're for all intents of purposes inevitably going to encounter identical strings of information given infinity time.
If we assume that both premises are true, the first of which excludes the existence of souls, the second of which necessitates an infinite string of information, the only logical conclusion for what happens after death is reincarnation.
Are there any limitations for the premises or the conclusion that a scientist could take?