https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki
(More resources in replies)
Back | Go to board
Board: /sci/
"/sci/ - Science & Math" is 4chan's board for the discussion of science and math.
https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki
(More resources in replies)
Previous Thread: >>16597487
This thread exists to ask questions regarding careers associated to STEM.
>Discussion on academia-based career progression
>Discussion on penetrating industry from academia
>Or anything in relation to STEM employment or development within STEM academia!
Resources for protecting yourself from academic marxists:
>https://www.thefire.org/ (US)
>https://www.jccf.ca/ (Canada)
Information resource:
>https://sciencecareergeneral.neocities.org/
>*The Chad author is seeking additional input to diversify the content into containing all STEM fields. Said author regularly views these /scg/ threads.
No anons have answered your question? Perhaps try posting it here:
>https://academia.stackexchange.com/
An archive of some of the previous editions of /scg/:
http://warosu.org/sci/thread/15740454
Nowhere else in the universe does this happen.
[math]\sqrt{a^2+y^2}+\sqrt{(x-a)^2+z^2}[/math]
>Do NOT give advice
>Do NOT feed the nursoids
>Do NOT engage with premeds
And most importantly
>Do NOT respond to psych patients
The basic idea of many worlds is that each time a quantum mechanical event happens, the universe splits so that there's a world where it turns out each of the ways it could have. So, for instance, if a particle can either go left or right, the world splits and there's one world where it goes left and another where it goes right. This may sound ridiculous and gerrymandered, but it allegedly falls straightforwardly out of existing physical equations rather than requiring an epicycle.
Previous thread is: >>16589624
Talk mathematics
the hard one is to get off the planet and colonize the galaxy
while the easy one is to just stay on earth and slip in VR
Infinities are a process though, not defined.
Mathematicians can't cope with describing processes.
The proof goes somewhat like
1=0.393
2=0.587
Until infinity on the left
Then you go plus one or minus one on each number behind the dot on the right to create a new number that hasn't been there, apparently "proving" that there are more real numbers in infinity between 0 and 1 than there are natural infinite numbers.
This is absolutely retarded imo, because it takes a screenshot at the time of calculation where you just created a new number on the right but didn't yet (BUT COULD) create an according new number on the left.
>but you can't just do that!
The numbers are infinite, so yes, for every new number on the right I can also add another number on the left.
The only "bigger" infinities I accept is if we add more dimensions. But this here is just retarded.
I just watched a veritasium video on this and it doesn't seem logically sound. Then again most I know about math is how to do rule of three so mb someone who's math savvy can correct me.
>geography: hurr durr I know the capital of Slovenia
>language learning
>playing OSU
These all should be banned so the youth can focus on nuclear physics instead and contribuite to society
Destroy it (by programmed function in the scanner)
Broadcast the information as a radio signal
Reconstitute yourself at the off-world target station
I accomplished nothing at the end of the day thanks to my goldfish attention span.
>balding
>forehead wrinkles
>eye floaters
wow what a shit mech we all drive
wanna kms
everyone who procrastinates understands that it's completely irrational. so then why is procrastination such a universal struggle?
do other intelligent species procrastinate as well?
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/diazepam.html
Note: Family member is in severe withdrawal. Can’t find doctor to taper.
Previous thread: >>16584917
>what is /sqt/ for?
Questions regarding maths and science. Also homework.
>where do I go for advice?
>>>/sci/scg or >>>/adv/
>where do I go for other questions and requests?
>>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc.
>how do I post math symbols (Latex)?
rentry.org/sci-latex-v1
>a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here?
scholar.google.com
>where can I search for proofs?
proofwiki.org
>where can I look up if the question has already been asked here?
warosu.org/sci
eientei.xyz/sci
>how do I optimize an image losslessly?
trimage.org
pnggauntlet.com
>how do I find the source of an image?
images.google.com
tineye.com
saucenao.com
iqdb.org
>where can I get:
>books?
libgen.rs
annas-archive.org
stitz-zeager.com
openstax.org
activecalculus.org
>articles?
sci-hub.st
>book recs?
sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide
4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
>online courses and lectures?
khanacademy.org
>charts?
imgur.com/a/pHfMGwE
imgur.com/a/ZZDVNk1
>tables, properties and material selection?
www.engineeringtoolbox.com
www.matweb.com
www.chemspider.com
Tips for asking questions here:
>avoid replying to yourself
>ask anonymously
>recheck the Latex before posting
>ignore shitpost replies
>avoid getting into arguments
>do not tell us where is it you came from
>do not mention how [other place] didn't answer your question so you're reposting it here
>if you need to ask for clarification fifteen times in a row, try to make the sequence easy to read through
>I'm not reading your handwriting
>I'm not flipping that sideways picture
>I'm not google translating your spanish
>don't ask to ask
>don't ask for a hint if you want a solution
>xyproblem.info
And what would be the advantage?
And after all this time hasn't life realized the struggle is pointless we're all going to die anyway? So why hasn't biological life on earth just collectively quit?
Consciousness is a bottleneck and the brain processes a vast amount of sensory and cognitive data, much of which never reaches consciousness. But the data IS incorporated into memory circuits and autonomic nervous system responses (one of many examples is subliminal messaging). "Gut feelings" or "intuitive reasoning" can in many cases be considered to be the culmination of a vast array of data that outstrips conscious knowledge and reasoning.
The theory I'm exploring is that 5G and other non-ionizing radiation may become problematic in the presence of certain cofactors — like pollutants that accumulate in the human body as a byproduct of modern civilization. Things like:
Nano-scale heavy metals used in cloud seeding
Microplastics now found in human tissue
An increase in cancer among younger populations
Nano-sized (normally beneficial) vitamins and minerals that could interfere with cellular permeability
These and other factors might act as amplifiers, making it possible for something like 5G — or random EMF spikes — to indirectly contribute to cancer development. Not because the radiation is inherently carcinogenic, but because of how it interacts with these environmental pollutants and biological systems.
I'd genuinely love to see some real discourse around this. If not, feel free to return to shitposting. Personally, I don’t think non-ionizing radiation is inherently carcinogenic — but in the context of widespread pollution and bioaccumulation, it could definitely play a problematic role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPMmLUpluu4
>still no widespread and cheap nanobots
fuck my life
I want to know more about physics, but I don't have time to study a PhD.
discuss the practical implications of this discovery
https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/earths-magnetic-field-2671519495
paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15790
As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person on the planet that uses this medication for this purpose.
Earnestly trying to disseminate knowledge here...I made an account just to get immediately banned from r/astronomy trying to post this lol
Pic unrelated: an unedited 30-second exposure I took of the Orion Nebula with a 3-inch refractor. With all that said: this can now be an astronomy thread.
>its just a 15yo kid doing highschool math
how are indians impressed by this am i missing something or is this just a slightly above average 15yo
I'm an academic in the University Scene.
You've heard of me.
Would any of you be interested in showing the proof that Transgenderism is not only psychological, but it also involves physiological imprints from epigenetic expressions that have been triggered or mutated.
When a portion of the DNA is damaged, redundant DNA takes it's place. The DNA molecule essentially has these file integrity checks.
You see, DNA is like a mechanical computer with computational logic. It is intelligent in a sense. This is how brain adaptation works.
I can divulge much more, I'm about to solve cancer and aging.
Current path:
>majoring in biomedical engineering (biophys focus) and software engineering
>after certification, start working as an assistant prosthetist
>masters for prosthetics and orthotics
>doctorate in neuroscience/neuroengineering
>surely at some point one of the three schools will produce research lab connections???
Those who know more than me, am i on the right path to make picrel real?
>inb4 it will be too hard you're crazy
Thank you but not this, not the question. :)
>inb4 God
scientific reasons
According to modern basedince, he shouldn´t have any muscle left after 382 days. Instead he looked like a perfectly normal man, enjoying a egg. When I was younger, about 19-21, I had this idea that eating a ton of vegetables would make my muscles more compact. So smaller muscles but stronger. It was of course the biggest I´ve ever been, given my age, working out all the time and eating a shit ton of fruits and vegetables. I did get my protein shakes and ate meat, but fruits and vegetables was my real focus diet wise.
Back to Angus. Either fat can indeed become muscle or Angus did have a protein source. What is undeniable is that he did in fact lose all that weight in 382 days and he went regularly to the doctors and all his medical checkups were consistent with him not eating anything, his bloodsugar levels or whatever. So how come he still had muscle left after 382 days? Where did he get the protein to maintain his muscles anons? I´m genuinely curious.
Since then humanity is trying to understand the world, reality, life, even though they had all the answers through beliefs, religion, which was making their existence harmonic, clear, happy and understandable.
then people chose to destroy this harmony and try to dismantle the reality down to particles, formulas, scientific studies, etc.
What have they found up to present time? How did the science improved the life? People realized that they are animals, that the world is a dead chaos, life is meaningless, the values that formed generations are nothing, nothing has sense at all, life is pointless. Thanks to science, that killed the magic of surrounding nature, things, people, because you certainly know from the age of 7 that everything is just an abstract, random mixture of particles.
Now, all of you seeking the answers on the questions you post in all these threads, what exactly are you looking for? Do you think if you'll break down the universe and consciousness down to a simple model that will explain everything, it will make you as happy and complete, at least at a tiniest part, compared to an ordinary christian farmer who lives in a god forgotten place, never read anything other than bible, and still managed to live a life 99.9% of the "civilized, educated" people will never live. Science killed the soul of life.
>Picrel
Very thorough and well-structured introduction to measure theory, typesetting's real nice. The only better text I know is Elstrodt's "Maß und Integrationstheorie" (insane amount of material in almost obsessive generality and lots of interesting historical tidbits), but that one's only available in German.
>Amann-Escher's Analysis 1-2-3
If I had my way this would be the standard undergraduate analysis sequence the world over. Most holistic approach to introductory multivariable analysis you'll find anywhere.
>Ullrich's Complex Made Simple
Where complex analysis finally clicked for me after several unsuccessful attempts.
i have gold ring of 5 gram 14k
I want make ankh
I don't know the thickness yet so I don't have a working volume but after I cast some prototypes I will buy silver to reach volume
two options: 1. just melt the gold into the silver and call it an alloy. it's supposed to be kind of hand sized so that would be a very low ratio of gold to silver. also, although I'd love to call it a "$500 ankh" I think most jewellers would sort of eschew a very low percentage of gold mixed into a silver ankh like that.
b. electroplating. if I dissolve my ring into a gold salt I may be able to attempt electroplating. I should probably practice electroplating with my prototypes first, but ultimately I'm just worried that gold will be lost. Which method do you think is better?
All binary numbers in the form of k map to a power of 2 when the transformation 3k+1 is applied.
This transformation also causes k to acquire two new bits, therefore:
3k+1 = 2^{log_2(k) + 2}
This equals:
3k+1 = 4k
therefore k = 1.
:)
(if you do floor(log2(k)), which is what it should really be, you get that k = all numbers k in the form of 0b1010...1. I know, trivial, but fun)
According to Calhoun, the death phase consisted of two stages: the "first death" and "second death." The former was characterized by the loss of purpose in life beyond mere existence — no desire to mate, raise young or establish a role within society.
I have been reading a 1970's book from Isaac Asimov titled "Guide to Science" Vol1. the physical sciences. The first chapter is mainly about astronomy and how the universe came about. I have a metallurgy background, and always preferred down to earth science in a way. And at first that chapter got me interested in astronomy since it converges with the progress of science. After looking at his explanations about novas and quasars I noticed some of his explanations are wrong (because science at that time was not as advanced as nowadays). Mostly because astronomy is about pointing telescopes and antennas, reading some spectra/looking at some image and doing Math based on the results you get. There's nothing tangible about a Galaxy 900 lightyears away or whatever. I also remembered Sabine's videos about a so-called 'crisis in cosmology'. If anyone here does astronomy, how do you refute what I am saying ? isn't it very stupid overall to devote your time to spectras and images and not do anything tangible with it ? Math is abstract but at least you know you are working on something abstract.
Hope I don't sound like a lunatic.
Pic related: People have some racist connotation to this meme, but for me as a person from a third world country I never saw the racism in this. It was kind of a diss to astronomy in general.
Why is this?
>notice that every relevant paper I cited is written by Chinese people
>no relevant papers from Jack Smith, Donald Johnson or Peter Brown
wow, I knew the US was slipping on its position as the number 1 science producer, but I didn't know it is that bad
This guy reeks of 2009 reddit atheist energy
Because it seems to me the only good explanation of consciousness without spiritual religious stuff is going to involve multiverses and the collapse of the wave function
With that being said do you think its possible to overcome any paradox by the simple addition of an extra dimension given that any statement can be stated in a 2 dimensional hierarchical space and as a consequence any complex polynomial with a contradiction is just misunderstood space the logic has tangled itself a higher dimensional space
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_(computer_science)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
>Or you can just look at the fucking line.
pic unrelated
- When it walks into or out of sunlight, it becomes the other machine;
- When it walks into or out of sunlight, it is *compelled to become* the other machine, which means something different.
And the Type-30 Machine has learned to multiply itself by 2, by 3, and by 5 to transform from initial ideal 1 to become "thirty" (but the Type-30 Machine perceives numbers in base thirty, so it becomes 10 instead.) The Type-30 Machine notices that every multiplication can only be applied to both machines at once.
The Type-30 Machine has learned that for Type-30 Machine #1 to compel to become the other machine is to compel to multiply by 2 and divide by 5 (to become Type-30 Machine #2/5); the Type-30 Machine has learned that for Type-30 Machine #100 to compel to become the other machine is to compel to multiply by 2 and divide by 3, to become Type-30 Machine #200/3.
And Type-30 Machine #10?
Well, we just don't fucking talk about that one.
1. Measuring a single entangled particle will directly effect the spin of the other regardless of distance
2. They're just synchronized so it just "appears" that they're interacting when measured
So which one is true?
I mean, everything seems to "age" with time, shouldn't that also include light?
why do they give it a name so ominous? why are physicists such drama queens?
It argues for free will from a philosophy of science perspective. At the end I present my complete model for the phenotype to unify free will and hereditarianism. These equations are not meant to be solved. It is about trying to describe the underlying reality in contrast to the conventional model of heredity(variance in phenotype is equal to variance explained by genetics plus variance explained by environment).
>What is this all about?
https://rentry.co/cr_general
>/sci/ anon found a way to safely and reliably activate Yamanaka factors, repairing your worn out body and reducing cellular age.
what I wanna know is, does this really do everything we need to fully restore ourselves? how long would that take? does this really address everything? seems like it addresses a lot of the problems people have on this board.
>We just need something that rebuilds the telomeres
Here ya go friend, just activate those Yamanaka factors https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3317569/
>Can't sleep
That’s a core benefit of the stack
>Still can't come up with a reliable solution for baldness
Allegedly its even growing new follicles back
>Protocol
It's a two step process.
Step1:
500mg Curcumin
500mg or so Tributryn
Take about a dropper full of B12.
Wait an hour.
Then, think of this as a balanced dose to start the reaction.
Step 2:
300mg Liposomal Apigenin
Another 500mg of Tributryn
About 500mg of either NAD or some combo of NAD and NMN.
Repeat step 2, 2-4+ times a day.
One week on one week off to avoid T cells exhaustion.
Ultimately this is your immune system first reprogramming itself and then going out to the rest of you. The T cells are able to identify cell wall markers where issues are the most severe and those will need to be targeted first before any specific issue.
Give it a little wiggle room if you don't need as much NAD or Tributryn. NAC is a good add in as well while doing this if you have a history of smoking or lung problems.
Clearing your orbit is a stupid fucking criteria for being a planet. You're telling me if Mars were exactly the same but had large debris around it, it suddenly wouldn't qualify as a planet anymore? How do you even fucking quantify this, at what arbitrary line do we declare a certain amount of debris is too much. Holy shit they were right about Pluto
Is there any rule stopping a volume of less than an trillionth of an angstrom having 4 (or 5, or a million) spacial dimensions for a tiny amount of time and going back to 3 afterwards?
Also studied a bit of analog signal analysis which involved circuit analysis of transient signals, Fourier and Laplace transforms.
However I want to study these again more indepth to refresh and expand my knowledge, as well as have any of the calculus and other math background necessery to understand this at a deeper level, and further topics.
What textbook do you recommend /sci/?
Can anyone give an unironic reason why we would ever need to know how to turn a sphere made up a self phasing material inside out?
It’s wrong.
>but they found that-
No they didn’t.
>look at the evide-
Don’t need to.
Science has spoken.
Lagrangian notation is superior in every way, if you have a single variable function you don't need to specify what variable you're taking the derivative of you just add a little ' on top of the function value and you're set. And when you have a multivariable function you can just (for example when taking derivative with respect to x of f(x,y)) write f_x(x,y). I have never understood why some people want to write so many fucking words when it can be done much more simply. Is it just to look more smart? I don't get it.
then we compare their genes and see that insects end up quite far from the fish forming entirely different branch
Turns out that the "idea space" of language is infinitely expansive, specially considering the context size that those things can handle.
They could be very well making possible for someone to execute some not so ethical process in a hyper accelerated way that the average person or even high IQ people can't even fathom. I don't even want to imagine when the AIs start doing shit like this proactively by themselves away from anyone's eyes.
I wondered recently if the economics of US nuclear energy are distorted by purchasing surplus enriched uranium from Russia for decades? USG closed or privatized much of the domestic nuclear fuel enrichment.
Do you have any thoughts about this?
>none of the girls actually look or dress like this
WHAT THE FUCK
Also giving a robot the kind of a child is a bad idea
Begins to research.
>Let's continue on to a PhD.
PhD.
>Feel that in your mind.
PhD.
>How does it feel to do a PhD?
PhD.
>Is there anything in your mind that wants to quit the PhD?
PhD.
>Do you get pleasure out of doing a PhD?
PhD.
>Are you well suited to doing a PhD?
PhD.
>Is there job security in doing a PhD?
PhD.
>Is there a sense of pride that comes with a PhD?
PhD.
>We're going to check references.
Citations.
>They were all evidenced at a time.
Citations.
>Millions and billions of them.
Citations.
>Did you ever read them?
Citations.
>Did you spend much time doing further research?
Citations.
>Have you ever been cited?
Citations.
>Do they ask you to cite them in return?
Citations.
>When you read a citation, do you check that they have interpreted the source correctly?
Citations.
Peer Reviewed.
>What's it like to receive a peer review?
Peer Reviewed.
>Do they teach you how to take constructive criticism?
Peer Reviewed.
>Do you long to receive a positive peer review?
Peer Reviewed.
>Do you dream about being peer reviewed?
Peer Reviewed.
>Have they left a note for you that you have ignored?
Peer Reviewed.
>What's it like to read your final draft?
Peer Reviewed.
What's it like to publish your study?
Peer Reviewed.
>Do you feel there is evidence that you are missing?
Peer Reviewed.
>Do you like to connect points of evidence?
Peer Reviewed.
>What happens when your reasoning is flawed?
Peer Reviewed.
>Have they made you feel stupid?
Peer Reviewed.
>Did you cite peer reviewer #2 when they asked you to?
Citations, Peer Reviewed within Citations.
>Why don't you say that three times?
Peer reviewed within citations.
Peer reviewed within citations.
Peer reviewed within citations.
For example if the three laws were established and I had a gynoid and I want her to be my dominatrix. I hope this is the right board to ask this.
>to that end, it is best to reproduce with the most intelligent and wealthy women
>my own intelligence and wealth are not high
>but reproduction by force is an option
Game-theoretically speaking, how does one avoid the obvious conclusion?
Its the same for composite particles like protons, the internal particles are considered linked and subject to collective rules, but not the particles of two random protons on two different planets. They are just disconnected.
How does this work formally? When do multiple particles become "a system"?
When they become entangled?
What do you call billions of entangled particles? A condensate?
This was 40 years ago.
What are the scientific implications of there not being a theory of physics with predictive power such as Heim?
>cepstrum
These are actual terms