/science/ - Scientific discourse

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1426535476005.jpg (29.72 KB, 800x436, 200:109, Systematic reviews.jpg)

Meta/General Universcilis ## Board Owner 03/16/15 (Mon) 19:51:16 No.22[Reply]

Discussions related to the board itself; rules, management, questions, ideas, etc.

You may also submit banners here if you wish.

7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

Post last edited at 03/21/15 (Sat) 13:21:28

Professor 07/13/15 (Mon) 19:27:17 No.147

>>146

see >>72

File: 1425783185231.jpg (884.68 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Universcilis.jpg)

Welcome to /science/ Universcilis ## Board Owner 03/08/15 (Sun) 02:53:05 No.11[Reply]

Rules:

Besides the obvious, rule 4 is worthy of note in order to avoid pointless flamewars:

>To avoid mindless tendentious drivel, try to source controversial claims.

https://8ch.net/science/rules.html

About:

Science, broadly construed:

https://8ch.net/science/about.html

Useful links and resources:

Links to journals, news sites, math resources, recommended literature and more:

https://8ch.net/science/resources.html

Get RSS updates on new posts (since this is a slow board):

https://8ch.net/science/index.rss

Post last edited at 05/25/15 (Mon) 01:44:57

File: 1426846650130.jpg (37.48 KB, 357x359, 357:359, tesseract.jpg)

Dimensions Professor 03/20/15 (Fri) 10:17:30 No.35 [Reply]

Is there good literature/documentaries to comprehend dimensions beyond the third?

Professor 03/20/15 (Fri) 21:19:36 No.41

Probably not quite what you were looking for, but Linear Algebra can be used to extrapolate mathematics beyond the third dimensional. The best resource I can recommend is Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/linear-algebra

Professor 03/21/15 (Sat) 20:43:06 No.46

File: 1426970586820.png (32.48 KB, 658x522, 329:261, ill_intro.png)

Have you read Flatland?
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201

Professor 03/23/15 (Mon) 21:22:06 No.50

>>35
http://www.videacesky.cz/navody-dokumenty-pokusy/4d-ctvrta-dimenze
Watch this. It's in English but interesting explanation of a 4D projection

Professor 05/17/15 (Sun) 01:53:34 No.100

>>50

Thank you, I already knew this one.

>>46

Never finished it.

Professor 02/22/16 (Mon) 08:04:42 No.172

10 dimensions explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gotl9vRGs

Question #1 Q93 05/29/15 (Fri) 22:47:36 No.122 [Reply]

What part of science do you wish to see proven wrong, /science/?

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

Professor 06/13/15 (Sat) 13:46:35 No.129

>>128

Assuming that means you want to see economics proven wrong, it would entail proving mathematics wrong.

I doubt you can actually do that.

Economics today seems prone to manipulation and short-sighted investments with little focus on sustainability and human well being. Definitely needs an overhaul if nothing else.

Professor 06/16/15 (Tue) 09:03:59 No.134

>>129

Nah, you just have to show that the current models have no real connection to reality. Just because it's mathematically sound doesn't mean it's actually describing reality.

Professor 06/16/15 (Tue) 14:15:48 No.135

>>134

>just have to show that the current models have no connection to reality

Easier said than done. Usually when something is proven in mathematics, it's proven once and forever (unless you made a mistake).

Professor 06/26/15 (Fri) 02:18:53 No.138

OP doesn't understand science whatsoever. You don't prove the scientific theory wrong, but you could prove a particular theory wrong.

Professor 02/22/16 (Mon) 07:46:57 No.171

>The Standard Model or Dark Energy/Matter could change our perception of reality if it turned out we were wrong about those subjects.

Nobody's been "right" about dark matter. There has never been any evidence found for it. I would love to see it "proven" wrong. The only reason scientists want it to be right is because it will help them deny a need for a god (although their argument in this respect is a fallacy in itself.)

File: 1455587324477.png (64.12 KB, 2240x1314, 1120:657, Google_aliens_real.png)

Happy Anonymous day /sci/ Professor 02/16/16 (Tue) 01:48:44 No.170 [Reply]

Hi, I've been researching Mental Health and Mercury and was wowed at what I found.

I have some data for you: http://pastedown.ctrl-c.us/#vGoZCYdD0bnqqjq0LwKzGEj6CsM.markdown

——————————

ok thats the spiel

reality this is biohacking by evil ass niggers from old and evil space faggot land

>aliens

the fucking article:

vaxx fraud:

>mercury was known to toxic since 500BC + 3 Sources

>its an electric / radio conductor, to short circuit brain axxons

>its gods blood/earthsblood, it literally runs at 7Hz while your cycle speed is 720hz and your brain is probably 70,000 hz

>they put fucking bill gates of windows vista in charge of vaccines 3.2billiion people.

>also the vaccines were given to all those women in the Zika outbreak due to a 2014 law [not in the article]

psychiatry fraud:

>father of american institute of american psychiatry and neurology drove around and gave icepick lobotomies

>since then theyve done a number of horrible bizzare surgeries

>not one cure yet

>100-150 million cases of mental illness in the USA (1/2 to 1/3 the population)

>all maybe caused by the mercury [+ sources that have sources]

>but also they never tested the environment for alien biohacking aka MKUltra

I dont know what to do with this data.

The newspapers wont touch (I literally emailed them and about 15 .gov people)

Maybe you can get your professor to read it?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1438997349987-0.jpg (3.15 MB, 3072x2304, 4:3, P1020253.JPG)

File: 1438997350047-1.jpg (3.18 MB, 3072x2304, 4:3, P1020254.JPG)

Professor 08/08/15 (Sat) 01:29:09 No.152 [Reply]

OK fags. /b/tard here.

Prepare to science for me.

Have this nice aluminum cake pan for use as an outdoor kittywater repository.

Started using it in late Spring.

Some months later noticed these smallish pits in the interior.

Does anyone know if this is normal for this type of aluminum exposed constantly to water and much direct sunlight?

If these pits are not the result of "normal", expected oxydation/breakdown, then my thoughts for an explanation would be:

a. Contact with some type of noxious or corrosive particles that blew into the water and settled there (WTF could that be in a residential suburb FFS?).

b. Damage from cosmic rays.

WHAT SAY YOU, /SCIENCE/?

Professor 02/13/16 (Sat) 09:46:00 No.169

That is oxydation. If that was an iron pan. The iron would turn red when it oxidized.

If that was a copper pan, the oxidation would be blue. Aluminum oxidation is white. Cosmic rays, or noxious particles don't have anything to do with that.

File: 1447090896493.jpg (74.26 KB, 600x463, 600:463, Eskimo Indian Family.jpg)

Human evolution has ended. Professor 11/09/15 (Mon) 17:41:35 No.161 [Reply]

Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection and the species is not going to change.

sure you might get surface variations, and cultural changes.. Muslims flood into Europe rape the shit out of everyone and the recessive gene for blonde hair disappears from the population.

But the species isn't gong to change all that much.

Consider this:

Eskimos adapted to the Artic by learning how to make Parkas and Igloos. There was no natural selection for them to grow fur because of the human ability to make tools

Take those things away and the Eskimo freezes to death just the same as a Pacific islander would.

And because of sexual selection, even if a successful useful mutation happened it wouldn't get passed on.

An Eskimo is born with blubber and fur, so he can swim in the icy ocean and walk around naked in the snow for hours.

But he is also a repugnant freak that no woman will touch and is driven away from the village. No children for the next step in Eskimo evolution so it's a genetic dead end.

Eskimos transcended environmental pressure as natural selection and they did it without a written language or metal tools.

Professor 11/09/15 (Mon) 19:18:17 No.162

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/09/17/what-the-inuit-can-tell-us-about-omega-3-fats-and-paleo-diets/

Professor 11/10/15 (Tue) 07:13:36 No.163

>>162

yeah sure,, they have some metabolic variation but they aren't going to break off into another species.

Professor 11/10/15 (Tue) 18:00:04 No.164

>>162

"Those genetic mutations, found in nearly 100 percent of the Inuit, are found in a mere 2 percent of Europeans and 15 percent of Han Chinese,"

Those genes are not exclusive to the Inuit.. and occur in other populations.. could they be the genetic legacy from a common ancestor shared by all humanity instead of a recent adaptation?

I'm not even sure how natural or sexual selection would favor this trait in the Eskimos.

Sure having a lower risk of heart disease in middle age is great for the individual, but it means nothing for the species.

And dropping dead of a heart attack at 40 while very distressing for the individual and his/her friends and family is not an evolutionary disadvantage.

Forty years is ample time to procreate and pass on genes.. which I thought was the entire process driving evolution..

Professor 12/31/15 (Thu) 10:47:33 No.165

>>161

you're assuming that those with more blubber wouldn't be favored by the females based upon your own bias of the ideal man. If the body of the inuit could adapt to it's enviorment, wouldn't the "ideal man" change aswell? Also, since evolution happens slowly, relative to our life time, it's not like one minute theres "normal" looking people and then "repugnant freak"s roaming about. My point is, the "sexual selection" could also change aswell.

Professor 02/09/16 (Tue) 07:24:26 No.168

Damn, the mom is cute.

Particle questions Professor 02/01/16 (Mon) 17:04:29 No.167 [Reply]

First question: Can a single, lone proton be considered an unstable hydrogen ion?

Second question: If opposites attract, then, in theory, could a negative ion suck a proton in, thus changing what element it is? This is assuming, of course, that there is only one negative ion and a single proton floating around.

File: 1429811044936.png (89.77 KB, 894x768, 149:128, 894px-Water_molecule_3D.sv….png)

Pick a phase Professor 04/23/15 (Thu) 17:44:04 No.90 [Reply]

If you were to get a sinlge molecule of something, water for example, would phase would it be said to be in - solid, liquid gas etc.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

Professor 05/17/15 (Sun) 13:54:28 No.101

It has none. Phase is how strictly packed molecules are, which obviously is impossible if there is only one. That's like asking if a room is cramped if you're the only one inside.

Miaw 05/18/15 (Mon) 23:45:49 No.102

>>90

Liquid

Professor 07/02/15 (Thu) 16:48:26 No.142

Assuming this is possible, it'd be gaseous.

Physical states depend on cohesion and interaction with neighboring molecules.

Liquid state: a molecule slides around with its neighbors, kinda like holding hands and running around.

Solid state: a molecule sticks to its neighbors, kinda like being taped to eachother.

Professor 07/25/15 (Sat) 17:47:34 No.148

OP YOU COCKSUCKER, NEUTRONS CAN HAVE A PHASE, JUST LOOK AT NEUTRON STARS AND THAT SUPER-FLUID SHIT BRO???

Professor 12/31/15 (Thu) 10:50:34 No.166

this question has actually been my line of research for 12 years now. I've studied this concept in 7 different universities and I've come to the conclusion that the answer is simply the letter Q.

Scientific breakthroughs in hit movies Professor 10/06/15 (Tue) 10:05:58 No.156 [Reply]

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

Written by

Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber

Based on the novel by

John Green

May 1, 2012

FIRST DRAFT

HAZEL GRACE LANCASTER (16) lies in the grass, staring up at

the stars. We're CLOSE ON her FACE and we hear:

HAZEL (V.O.)

You have a choice in this world, I

believe, about how to tell sad

stories.

CUT TO a SERIES OF QUICK IMAGES:

- Hazel and the BOY we will come to know as AUGUSTUS "GUS"

WATERS (17) at an outdoor restaurant in some magical place.

[They look very much like the perfect Hollywood couple.]

HAZEL (V.O.)

On the one hand, you can sugar coat

- the way they do in movies and

romance novels.

- "PerfectPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Professor 10/06/15 (Tue) 10:06:23 No.157

HAZEL (V.O.)

Depression's not a side effect of

cancer…

- HAZEL'S LIVING ROOM. She sits watching game shows in the

middle of the afternoon. Her Mom brings her a sandwich. A

glass of water. And then a whole host of prescription meds.

Hazel eyes them with indifference.

HAZEL (V.O.)

… it's a side effect of dying.

- A STARBUCKS. Hazel sits alone reading a dog-eared, heavily

underlined copy of a novel ("An Imperial Affliction" by Peter

Van Houten). She only looks up when distracted by a squeal of

delight. A YOUNG GUY has lifted a YOUNG GIRL over his

shoulder playfully. He spins her around. Hazel watches a beat

- goes back to the book.

HAZEL (V.O.)

Which is what was happening to me.

And we CUT BACK TO:

INT DOCTOR'S OFFICE - SAME

Frannie continues to talk to the doctor. Hazel continues to

dangle her feet.

FRANNIE

… some days she won't even get

out of bed.

The Doctor scratches his beard, thinking.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Professor 10/06/15 (Tue) 10:06:37 No.158

PATRICK

… we are gathered here today -

literally - in the heart of Jesus.

ANGLE on Hazel who just shakes her head. This is the lamest

thing she could be doing right now.

PATRICK

Who would like to share their story

with the group?

The basement is filled with SICK PEOPLE. Hazel among them.

Most are under the age of 18. QUICK CUTS:

5.

SPEAKER #1

Jillian. 15. Lymphoma.

SPEAKER #2

Angel. 17. Ewing sarcoma.

PATRICK

Patrick. 34. Testicular. It started

a few years ago, when I was…

As Hazel watches, bored, and Patrick continues, we hear:

HAZEL (V.O.)

I'll spare you the gory details of

Patrick's ball cancer. Basically,

they found it in his nuts, cut most

of it out, he almost died, but he

didn't die, and now here he is -

divorced, friendless, addicted to

video games, exploiting his

cancertastic past in the heart of

Jesus - "literally" - to show us

that one day - if we're lucky - we

could be just like him.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Professor 10/06/15 (Tue) 10:06:48 No.159

FRANNIE

I was just thinking… you should

call your friends, see what they're

up to.

HAZEL

(DISINTERESTED)

That's ok.

Frannie and Michael look at one another, don't say anything.

MICHAEL

Wanna see a movie?

Hazel looks up from the book. Sees her parents. Gets an idea.

HAZEL

Why don't you guys go to a movie?

(off their look)

(MORE)

7.

HAZEL (CONT'D)

You haven't been out in a while.

Go. Have fun. Take the night off.

Frannie and Michael look at one another again.

MICHAEL

This is a really good show.

Hazel sighs. And just like that, everyone goes back to what

they were doing. CUT TO:

QUICK SEQUENCE, which plays over:

HAZEL (V.O.)

And that was my life.

- Hazel watching TV, book in hand.

- Hazel in another doctor's office.

- Hazel popping pills.

HAZEL (V.O.)

Reality shows. Doctor's

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Professor 10/06/15 (Tue) 10:07:16 No.160

v

File: 1427507797293.webm (7.7 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1427501324354.webm)

/science/ webm thread Professor 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:56:37 No.58 [Reply]

Because why not.

5 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

Professor 03/28/15 (Sat) 02:49:59 No.65

File: 1427510995261.webm (7.59 MB, 800x450, 16:9, 1427508454371.webm)

Professor 03/28/15 (Sat) 15:44:06 No.66

Why not indeed

Professor 04/19/15 (Sun) 22:26:53 No.89

File: 1429482413552.mp4 (5.16 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Aluminum & Iodine.mp4)

Professor 05/06/15 (Wed) 21:45:15 No.96

File: 1430948715606.webm (7.78 MB, 853x480, 853:480, 10 Unexplained Scientific….webm)

Badly encoded popsci clip incoming.

Professor 09/17/15 (Thu) 13:14:07 No.155

File: 1442495648875.webm (2.05 MB, 540x360, 3:2, 1442491287476.webm)

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Spirit "science" Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 08:01:26 No.154 [Reply]

Hey /science/, do you want to feel angry? Then watch THIS

Professor 07/07/15 (Tue) 09:56:30 No.144 [Reply]

Why are the types of gene segments that together code for the variable region of the light and heavy chain named V, J and V, D, J, respectively? I think J is named as such, because it joins V(D) with C. I know that CR1, CDR2 and CDR3 are parts of V, but CDR3 includes the whole D, if the chain is heavy, and J. So, why the names?

Professor 07/07/15 (Tue) 10:07:04 No.145

File: 1436263624698.png (339.28 KB, 1097x1054, 1097:1054, antibody.png)

Also, I assume this pic is wrong, atleast it does not agree with the source, cited on the Wikipedia page for CDR.

File: 1426418083903.jpg (39.67 KB, 336x225, 112:75, 564678.jpg)

Science on the effects of music Professor 03/15/15 (Sun) 11:14:43 No.19 [Reply]

http://scienceblog.com/77379/listening-to-classical-music-modulates-genes-that-are-responsible-for-brain-functions/

Why is it that such studies always look at classical music? Specifically Mozart. It's becoming a cliche, and might obfuscate some results, for example related to what type of music you like.

Is there a study on how metal music improves concentration and other things, separating the results into groups which like the type of music from those who don't? Because I think whether you like it or not probably has a lot to say.

Besides that this study here is a little weird. In its title we have "music modulates genes", suggesting they are able to connect the effects to genes, although from what I can ascertain there's only talk of functions which are associated with certain genes. I suppose if no other study has looked at it that way it might be of some interest; "a shared evolutionary background of sound perception".

Professor 07/01/15 (Wed) 01:13:59 No.141

bump for interest

Professor 07/04/15 (Sat) 14:21:43 No.143

Here's a vaguely related recent article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-100-year-debate-about-the-eardrum-comes-to-an-end/

It's more about morphology, but it might also dispel the notion of a shared evolutionary background of sound perception in that it might be more likely convergent evolution.

File: 1427400466319.jpg (423.21 KB, 1200x1295, 240:259, mawaru penguindrum-takakur….jpg)

Scientific Rigor Professor 03/26/15 (Thu) 20:07:46 No.54 [Reply]

http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
Do you know any similar essays?

Professor 03/27/15 (Fri) 20:37:05 No.57

I got a "request forbidden" on the Harvard link, but the first one with Richard Feynman was a nice read.

I'm not sure about any essays, but I always liked this excerpt from The God Delusion (say what you will about Richard Dawkins, his love for science is clear for all to see):
>I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh, a number of years, and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I have been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal, of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.

That's one of the things I very much like about science, the implicit presumption that what you believe to be true (or might be true), is quite possibly false; the idea of falsefiability or a null hypothesis, and genuine intellectual curiosity about the truth behind a certain phenomenon at the expense of what you yourself might prefer to believe.

The nature of scientific rigor is in that sense honesty in practice, with regards to others as well as yourself.

Professor 05/20/15 (Wed) 20:07:05 No.109

http://www.skeptic.com/insight/carl-sagan-and-the-dangers-of-skepticism/

>I believe that scientists should spend more time in discussing these issues…. There are many cases where the belief system is so absurd that scientists dismiss it instantly but never commit their arguments to print. I believe this is a mistake.

>[…] supporters of superstitions and pseudoscience are human beings with real beliefs, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. … If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

Professor 05/22/15 (Fri) 14:27:37 No.111

File: 1432304857494.jpg (46.98 KB, 1023x613, 1023:613, 1432303919221.jpg)

>>109

Professor 05/22/15 (Fri) 22:44:25 No.112

>>111

>first trips

>this quote

Damn.

Although bullshit can just be made up on the spot, unless it's clever or intricate (there has been some energy put into making it believable) it shouldn't be hard to dismiss it by pointing out simple inconsistencies and/or demand data to support whatever assertions are made.

I'd maintain the energy spent is roughly equal then.

Professor 06/29/15 (Mon) 22:44:41 No.140

Science is not born of consensus, and even less is it found in peer review. Rather it is found in skepticism about third hand facts and disbelief in the authority of experts. Trust but verify, which in the context of science means trust but replicate, which of course really means don’t trust. Consensus is the madness of crowds. We are prone to believe stuff because everyone else believes it, which is at best a vicious cycle leading to madness, and at worst prone to being unduly influenced by the insane, and manipulated by the evil. The insane don’t shift, as they are insane, and the evil don’t shift, because they are lying about what they believe. The evil and the insane tend to dominate the consensus.