/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16181512
>Are "superhabitable" planets a real possibility
Well, we live on one, so yes. We can easily imagine a planet that is just barely habitable compared to Earth.

>>16181533
wrong, astronomy gets easier with increasing distance, as you can see The Big Picture

>>16181541
I don't think you know what superhabitable is meant in the context, we define them as planets that are explicitly better-suited for life than here on Earth

>>16181512
How about hyperhabitable?

>HAY GUISE, IS MUH RETARDED STAR TREK FANTASY LIFE REAL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

>>16181558
Well, even if those, say an ice giant planet and a red dwarf, collide. There would be a temperature gradient through the water planet. At the junction we would find a hot gas, looking further there would be water and after that there would be ice. If all pressure were athmospheric jadda jadda ... the points along the temperature gradient between which we would find liquid water would be 100 C and 0C. If heat conduction was perfect in ice, water and steam, we would have a situation where there is no gradient, the planet would heat up in its entirity and instantaneously change phase at those points. Of course inertia and gravity would have to be 0 too, else we wpuld end up with superheated stuff until it had time to expand jaddajadda..

>>16181498
>>16181582
two posters who either failed to understand OPs question or, worse, what they are actually posting. Unless it's a very convoluted waynof informing OP that at ambient pressure there is no such thing as 100 C (majority) ice or -1 C (majority) steam.

>>16181587
>Unless it's a very convoluted waynof informing OP that at ambient pressure there is no such thing as 100 C (majority) ice or -1 C (majority) steam.
How is it convoluted? Look at the chart, if it's not there, then it's not there.

>>16181591
Because its way more likely confusing OP further.

>>16181454
Cool right wing xitter opinions kid, you're a based evolapilled yungchud.

>>16181750
>*apply your stratagem*
>*no records of ADHD symptoms from your childhood*
>get blacklisted for life
Great method, Albert Einstein.

>>16182000
I was diagnosed at 35 and stimulants obviously helped a wide range of symptoms, some I would not associate with ADHD. There is a ton of individuals diagnosed very late in life, especially lately. People find out they have it in their fifties.
I was a perfectly calm child, just biting my nails, not investing time into any interests and thinking about random shit a lot.

I think any psychiatrist an inch above an absolute fucking semi-retarded, hack fraud level of competence understands ADHD can be missed in childhood. So OP can successfully lie about it.

It's easy enough to just make

>>16181430
You can buy it on the darkweb but it's expensive as hell, you're better off buying speed and micro-dosing it.

what is the point of any of this?
>be in this room
>know this person

>>16181813
Good, but not MIT Material.
Maybe One Day.

-Eggman-

>>16181792
I am way beyond college age, or
>unfunny memes based on cartoons dedicated to children
age

>>16181823
Then How Would You Like a Research Position?

I Can't Guarantee It.

But! I Can Certainly Influence Their Decision, and Do HIGHLY Advise that You Contact Them, Whenever You Want.

-Professor Eggman-

>>16181821
sorry I forgot the picture
it lives in North Norway in snow

>>16181846
That's Beautiful.

Wonder Where They Were, On the Ark?

https://youtu.be/ihMMw0rnKz4?si=iu09JwIwiywXK1ST

-E.G.G.M.A.N.-

>>16181405
>>>/x/

>>16181432
This Is a PURElY Scientific Question, With "Para"normal Implications.

-E.G.G.M.A.N.

https://www.youtube.com/live/X58Z0raazRI?si=VEyhM0-TNBI8LUPE

-Eggman-

>>16181349

Anything trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, I guess. Try and you get stuff like plank-sized black holes being spontaneously created, the self-energy corrections blow up to infinity. A quantized space-time of general relativity is non-renormalizable. Attempting to measure a length less than the plank length end up spawning plank-sized black holes.

>>16181562
That may be because it's the "pixel size" of the universe. The answer may be computational and discrete, the stuff Wolfram is working on.

>>16181468
LMAO, that is called cracking not decrypting.

How many books, courses and years would I need to learn all this stuff?

>>16181626
Enough to get a PhD in math and several years of research on top of that given that much of the stuff near the bottom is highly specialized.

Nobody likes a sore thumb, that's true.

Not many people know, this but

Some common research suggests that endothermic bacterial cell binders are not easily displaced by ,common, soaping and activity agents as

The binding reagent will stay preferentially with a thermal source, or will not react preferentially with an agent when the common binding strength is endothermic

Similar to bath mould in the common sense, some bacterial agents have preferential binding and growth mediums and are not easily displaced by common soaps and activity agents

Such as those which the common man could associate with say
"Deep-urinary tract infection" or kidney-urine binding agent
Which can often strain blood responses and activity

Such as with bath mould, what is appropriate is an endothermic reactive agent for displacement or activity. Urinary agents such as ethyromycin or dihydro-ergotamine and -arguabally some diuretic agents would be more effective in lifting such bacterial infections

Although such things have yet to be Proven. It is the common view that these things may not yet be fully understood

Sic. f.Aus.X

>>16181312
>How much do scientists really know?
No field of knowledge is complete, and there's a veil of ignorance regarding how much we don't know.

>>16181312
truth is limited
fiction has infinite possibilities

>>16181277
fags always be claiming one can't x meds and booze because they fell for the cautionary tale that has a generic subject. Because folls can't be trusted with nuance or abstraction. Better be safe than sorry right ?
So: If no one can name the mechanism by which the combination harms you more than the compounded effects of each individually or at least provide data then theres no reason beyond caution to believe you shouldn't.

>>16181277
It won't do anything.
But you may get drunk quicker.
Also nausea may be a problem.

>>16181277
Doesn't matter, take those antidepressants right now. They are good for goys.

>>16181277
Dodge the anti depressants buy better booze

>>16181288
Maybe he is a junky who gave up and wants to mix alcohol with antidepressants.
But I'd go towards moron.

At least AI can produce a longer reply than "okay".

>>16181261
Women can also create long reply, but only when asked by chad.

>women bad!
good one chud, now back to the goon cave you go

>>16181284
>now back to the goon cave you go
Argumentum ad incelium

>>16181242
its most likely about digestability
hollywood is 'wrong' so often about such trivial things that you must come to the conclusoon it never was about being right, but about the picture, the story, the dialogue and so on... shocking I know.

>>16181242
In short they don't really need to, its just needs to look like what they're doing is complicated in the context of the film.
Its like that 4koma meme where someone is thinking with a bunch of highschool level math super imposed over each of the pannels

>Teacher: How do you know he's not tricking you, using reverse psychology by offering you another choice.
>Student: It doesn't matter, it's simple probability. 33% is the answer.
Except it does matter and completely changes everything. The probability is 1/3 only in the model where the presenter ALWAYS opens a door with a goat no matter what you choose.
However, if he's actually trying to trick you sometimes, for example in the model where he always opens a goat when you pick a car, but otherwise doesn't let you choose again, you NEVER want to switch. In this model, the probability of winning a car if you switch is 0%, and 100% probability of winning a car if you stay.
So if there's a possibility that the host is trying to trick you, the probability is no longer 33% but a complex combination of 33% and 100%, which could be whatever. The model is underspecified.

>>16181280
Watch the video. He was talking to the chat and was barely even looking at the questions.

>>16181289
16:1 ratio. It's a sausage fest.
Imagine willingly going to a makeup or hairstyling club as a heterosexual male.

Encouraging women to join chess is a good thing. Most of those losers have a hard time getting pussy as it is.

>>16181779
Think about it. Governments heavily promote chess, particularly America and Russia in order to create military strategists. And who likes to go to war? Men.

>>16181289
because the difference between white men and white women is bigger than the difference between white men and chinese men

>>16181855
Meant to reply to this>>16181289

>>16181190
that 0.999... = 1

that gravity is caused by spacetime curvature

>>16181194
look up "Max Tegmark's four levels of multiverses", specifically level 1. it's in wikipedia.

>>16181190
I mean if reality is infinite and beyond our understanding why could that not be theoretically true? There could be an infinite amount of universe beyond our own for all we know.

>>16181845
It could be true, but some people say it's necessarily true - that if something is infinite, it must hold an infinite number of permutations of every possible thing. But then you can have infinite sequences like 1,2,1,1,1,1,1.... where there is only one 2 and no 3's. And, for example, if you had an infinite number of chairs you would need an infinitely spacious room to hold them, but that room wouldn't necessarily contain a table.

>>16182024
>>16181190
If our universe were actually infinite and its properties were consistent all the way around, then it’s pretty hard to argue that there are NOT infinite planets with water, infinite planets with water that have life, infinite planets with water and intelligent life etc. etc. and even infinite planets where you made this exact post. We don’t really understand infinity because we’ve never experienced it or interacted with it, so we can’t really talk about it

Become a highschool teacher and do it in your free time

>>16181186
Commit crimes, read math in prison.

>>16181231
>>16181232
Teach highschool level math to convicts in the penitentiary with nothing *but* free time.

>>16181186
Solved. Score a hit on TV and change hearts and minds for the rest of your life.

>>16181186
>how do I find a lifestyle where I have no obligations but math
The tradtional route would be to get a PhD and then get an academic position, but getting a PhD takes longer than it did even a few decades ago and there aren't all that many academic jobs anyway. Thus the best way would be to find what available non-academic jobs use math and the most often and then get whatever qualifications you would need.

>>16181232
Get off 4chan Ted, you're dead.

>>16181186
>how do I find a lifestyle where I have no obligations but math?
Being free from any financial obligations.
How do you get there? Study the problem with math and publish your findings.
Many of us here would be interested in the results.

>>16181172
What a retarded chart.
Anyways, relational QM.

>Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being relational, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system. This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint, and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists. It is inspired by the key idea behind special relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.
>
>The essential idea behind RQM is that different observers may give different accurate accounts of the same system. For example, to one observer, a system is in a single, "collapsed" eigenstate. To a second observer, the same system is in a superposition of two or more states and the first observer is in a correlated superposition of two or more states. RQM argues that this is a complete picture of the world because the notion of "state" is always relative to some observer. There is no privileged, "real" account.

>>16181172
Look at all that "lawful" shit, this nigga is high as fuck again!

My favorite interpretation is
>Shut up and calculate!

>omg, my brain, it feels so big!!!
>its full of so much schizo kike jargon and fancy basedence polysyllables
>oh no
>i can't hold it in any longer
>i'm…
>i'm gonna…
>i'm gonna QUANTUUUUUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!

My bet is on hidden variables. Let's be honest, half of these interpetations sounds like a fairy tale and the world behaves deterministic AF in makro scales.

>>16181090
spaceflight is a key transhumanist topic.
immortality, space travel, body modification and artificial intelligence are the four cornerstones of transhumanism

>>16182088
https://x.com/Dr_ThomasZ/status/1791860143052693769

>>16182085
>>16182088
>>16182091
Common NASA W

Caring about hubble is reddit tier. It's an ancient pos. Design a monolithic 9m telescope for starship if you care about astronomy.

>>16182100
seems like the opposite

>>16181043
LMAO, such amateurs.

Psycopathy is antisocial. Doubt one could manage, or even want to have a community.

https://youtu.be/cpEkXk6u_b4

>>16181117
LMAO, you don't understand shit.

>>16181043

>>16180974
Doxycycline

>>16180974
you sure do seem to like talking about yourself on social media, pizza face

>>16180981
As only thing or with something else?

>>16180987
What are you on about nigger

>>16180974
Hit the gym at a sustainable pace so you don't give up, coupled with careful nutrition to build up muscle. Aim for three years of continuous work on those muscles.

>>16180987
Kek
Does 4chan count as social media though

>>16180946
Next time post this horseshit on x or pol.

>>16180952
So you're trying to tell us that you can't dispute it, but you're unwilling to admit to that explicitly

>>16180946
Much of those claims are simply untrue perhaps as many as 100%, screenshots, twitter together with obsession for pol posting.

Consider yourself thusly blown out

>>16181196
Proof that these are untrue? Sounds to me like you're coping.

>>16181332
I used the same proof they used to prove them wrong, see the OP source.