Current status http://status.fireden.net/ Hidden site now up at http://ydt6jy2ng3s3xg2e.onion/

Threads by latest replies - Page 10

(56 replies)

PSA: A list of basic facts

No.10487702 ViewReplyLast 50OriginalReport
>The Earth is round (oblate spheroids are round)
>The Moon landings are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>'The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Newtonian Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Special and General Relativity are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>The Standard Model of particle physics is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Darwinian evolution is a correct and incomplete description of reality
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans
>Vaccines are correct and incomplete descriptions of reality
>"I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. It only shows that you don't know what you're talking about
>Anyone claiming to have an alternative theory to established science should be able to explain why established science seems to give correct answers *and* be able to give a concrete prediction that can be checked by experiment, where it should outperform current scientific theory

For the know-it-alls who will undoubtedly start arguing about "correct and incomplete": By "correct" we mean that the theory correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments and does not differ appreciably from reality within the theory's domain of validity. "Incomplete" means that the theory's domain of validity does not encompass the entire universe. If you want to argue this, first read this popsci article > http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
51 posts and 5 images omitted
(55 replies)
No.10495269 ViewReplyOriginalReport
If mathematics is just whatever axiomatic system we're using at the time, what does it even mean for something to be "mathematically true"? Doesn't it all depend on the axioms we're choosing? What even is mathematics?
50 posts and 2 images omitted
(111 replies)
No.10489821 ViewReplyLast 50OriginalReport
How does little Singapore have two top 10 tech universities? Do they even invent stuff?

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1109273558365163520
106 posts and 12 images omitted
(10 replies)
No.10497941 ViewReplyOriginalReport
This is my teacher Sal
5 posts omitted
(8 replies)
No.10498024 ViewReplyOriginalReport
">biology"
" >not science or math"

pic related is the type of person who says this kind of shit
3 posts omitted
(10 replies)
No.10497180 ViewReplyOriginalReport
>think they can base all of human reasoning on sets
>but can't even grasp the set of all sets
>can work with all manner of exotic sizes of cardinal numbers
>but can't even figure out if or not
So are set theorists basically the court jesters of the mathematical world? Why are they even allowed to exist?
5 posts and 1 image omitted
(6 replies)

Why do we not use MSBRs they’re the most efficient things on the fucking planet

No.10498072 ViewReplyOriginalReport
1 post omitted
(20 replies)
No.10497908 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Any med students here?
I started kickboxing recently and after my first class, i got punched quite a few times in the face.
Left with a mild headache, but it quickly went away after went home and relaxed.

My question is, am I doing irreversible damage to my brain by casually engaging in this sport? Am I making myself dumb by accident?
15 posts and 1 image omitted
(8 replies)

Opposite(?) of Russel’s paradox

No.10495492 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Hey galaxybrains, help a STEMlet out here, would ya?
Ever since I was little I’ve been thinking about something that’s very adjacent to Russel’s paradox but I haven’t ever found a name for it or any writing on it. I’m not even sure if it really counts as a paradox but it’s interesting to me anyways
Does the set of all sets that DO contain themselves contain itself?
Is the word “autological” autological?
Formally put, if
R = { x | x E x }, is R E R?
(That’s the closest I can get to the subset symbol on mobile)

Whereas Russel’s paradox involves statements that can’t be resolved, this involves statements that it seems like you could call either true or false. Is there a name for this? Is there anywhere I can read more about it? Thanks friends
3 posts omitted
(13 replies)
No.10497787 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Well /sci/?
8 posts omitted