[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/sci/ Science & Math

Threads added between 2014/01/26 04:00 and 2014/01/26 10:00

7 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Human Eye Close up.jpg]
Howcome people don't have eye colors such as yellow, red, white, teal, purple, orange, navy blue ? Is it possible to modify this with genetic engineering and keep these new eye colors through further generations ?
16 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Marshosaurus.jpg]
Are any of you paleontologists who actively work in the field/excavations? How would a random undergrad physics major freshman who hasn't taken any courses in geobiology, geohistory or geology go about joining someone like you for the summer? Also is there a database that contains filtered information on theropods? You know, something organized like name/weight/dimensions/foot-size/tooth-size. Just some concise database? This doesn't have to only include theropods but I have an interest in formulating more refined theories about foot-tooth-weight ratios
6 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: bored1.jpg]
Why do we get bored? Do our brains simply decide to receive less stimulating information if it isn't new information? Also... Do animals (specifically pets) get bored? How can lying around for most of the day be stimulating?
31 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Chilevolcanoerpution.jpg]
So, what was before the beginning of the universe? Is the "universe" a perpetual cycle? Was it the beginning of anything that ever happened in existence? Or have events before the creation of the universe that we simply can't conceive actually happened on a physical levels that are not able to be understood? What was before that? Perhaps when, however the universe occurred before that there was just nothing, nothing existed at all, how did existence even come to be? Maybe there was simply nothing and nothing, I don't know how to properly describe it but imagine as if all physics and everything just didn't exist. There was just blackness, not even a space for blackness to occur, not even any structure to make blackness be a thing. Then suddenly, for no reason at all, the universe was created. Holy fuck, running how we are experiencing things through your mind is just an experience I cannot ever replicate. How do you feel?
3 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: image.jpg]
Hey Geologists of /sci/, when Yellowstone erupts, what will occur. A huge ka-boom or a long series of deflating like eruptions ala Stromboli? Pic unrelated.
24 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: hawking said.jpg]
well ya know hawking says there are no black holes so he's pretty smart, so you have to like believe it.
38 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: putinka.jpg]
Can I get vodka by mixing ethanol and water? If no - why?
6 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: finance.jpg]
Any financefags out there? What are your goals? Banking? Corporate Fin? Risk Management? Trading? Asset Management? Structured Finance? Academia? Lets come together and enjoy the fact that we actually have a healthy employment market unlike sciencebabies. Economists allowed as well.
3 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: tumblr_ml17iq0kvT1roprhno(...).jpg]
how much and how can humans think like computers if they really try, and would this make us more effective/happy/productive?
1 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1389166028171.jpg]
Hi guys, im not getting this proof: Let f be continuos on a unbounded closed set S(subset of R^n). 1.If f(x) goes to infinity as |x| goes to infinity, then f has an absolute minimum but no absolute maximum on S. 2. If f(x) goes to 0 as |x| goes to infinity, and there is a point x_0(element of S) where f(x_0)>0, then f has an absolute maximum on S. Now the proof of part 2 says if (fx_0)>0, then define V={x:f(x)>=f(x_0)} Then V is closed and bounded, By EVT, f has a maximum on V, say at a(element of V). But then f(a) is max of f on S as f(x)<f(x_0)=<f(a) for all x(elemnt of Snot V), The part im not getting is we define V to be the set of all x s.t f(x) is larger than f(x_0),and then we show that there is a maximum of V at a. Why do we ask for a maximum if the set is that of all things larger than f(x_0)? is it because f(x) goes to zero?
15 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 45234364.jpg]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4#t=184 It didn't take much effort for this guy to build what he did. What if building something like Stonehenge was way more trivial than we thought? What if Stonehenge had no real purpose beyond early civil engineering course work. "Let's se how precise we can align this stuff. Using the stars oughta do. Saves us the surveying since the point of the class is the construction techniques. It's not a graduate thesis."
7 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Space.png]
-2^2=-4 prove me wrong here's my proof: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-2%5E2&t=crmtb01 https://www.google.com/search?q=-2%5E2&oq=-2%5E2&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i65l3.1740j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
1 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1390271317455.png]
Do you think IT is a future-proof job? I was talking with the head of the computer science department at my school when I was enrolling (I was torn between IT and CS, chose CS) and his opinion was that IT careers in general have reached their peak, he argued that in the future many current IT jobs will disappear because of automation as well as centralized IT services that Oracle, IBM, Google, Amazon, etc. offer. More and more companies will not need their own IT departments. What are your opinions on the future of IT? pic obviously not related
12 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Pacific-Rim-Robot-Arm_1.jpg]
Has technology always progressed forward? In human history, was there an event that stopped or regressed the advancement of science, like a cataclysm?

The Astronomy Picture of the Day

0 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: sunspotloops_trace_898.jpg]
Sunspot Loops in Ultraviolet It was a quiet day on the Sun. The above image shows, however, that even during off days the Sun's surface is a busy place. Shown in ultraviolet light, the relatively cool dark regions have temperatures of thousands of degrees Celsius. Large sunspot group AR 9169 from the last solar cycle is visible as the bright area near the horizon. The bright glowing gas flowing around the sunspots has a temperature of over one million degrees Celsius. The reason for the high temperatures is unknown but thought to be related to the rapidly changing magnetic field loops that channel solar plasma. Large sunspot group AR 9169 moved across the Sun during 2000 September and decayed in a few weeks. Tomorrow's picture: north to south crossing
5 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1521331_10153637171790567(...).jpg]
sanuja.com/blog/photomicrographs-of-minerals http://sanuja.com/blog/rock-classification Why is it that universities teach so shit and token blogs on the internet like this teach so well? I failed my geology course because I couldn't understand this kind of shit since our teachers gave it to us in shitty sketches and stuff... does anyone have an equivelant thingy for plant pathology by any chance? it's a long shot but whatever
3 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Post-90027-1205171981.jpg]
Sup /sci/, /tg/ here. I have a science fiction/psychology question for you. In the tabletop wargame "Warhammer 40,000" the large post-human defenders of Humanity or "Space Marines" are completely immune to fear. They simply do not experience the psychological phenomena. Neither for that matter do Paladins in Dungeons and Dragons. Now one person is arguing that this makes them inhuman and unworthy of admiration. That because they don't experience fear they shouldn't be called "Brave" or "Heroic" because their deeds are about the same as office work. This person also says that because they don't experience fear, they shouldn't be able to understand proper risk evaluation. The second person is arguing that bravery/fortitude in the old definitions was fearlessness, and that removing fear through willpower was the original goal of being brave in the first place [at least in the west]. Therefore their deeds should be considered brave. He also argues that they can use logic and the like to determine proper risk evaluation, and therefore is more apt to survive due to superior action. The question I pose to you is, who is correct, if anyone? If neither, who is closer to the truth?

[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. 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.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.192334 seconds.