/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6404669
>It's the most accurate way to describe the physics behind quantum processes.
Hahaha, oh wow, my fucking sides. Are you in high school or are you trolling?

>Just like Newtonian Physics is the most accurate way to describe normal matter.
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>6127395

>>6119299
>thinks you can buy a house with $30k/year
>thinks you can live well with $30k/year
>thinks he can attract a pretty female with $30k/year
>thinks you can afford a nice car on top of a nice house with $30k
>thinks he can send his kids to a good school with $30k

>>6058743

>>5950853
>I believe in aliens and all, there's plenty of evidence

>>5939860

>>5888966

>>5772405

>>5321311
>>5321314
>>5321318

>>5274563

>>5071171
I think it's you who can't into arguments. I'm guessing you are referring to Drake's equation, well then let's take a look at it.

There are a number of variables in it that we have some pretty good estimates for, examples:

>R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
>fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
>ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

The rest are just some bullshit numbers Drake pulled out of his ass:

>fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
> fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
>fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
>L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

The only kind of evidence for the second set of variables is wild speculation based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. us).

Drake was quite a good astronomer and I don't disagree with the notion that there must be life out there somewhere. This equation, though, is bullshit.

>>4898336

there is a difference its just negligible or unobservable (do to inaccurate tools ie: truck scale) in your examples

>>4889980
I usually despise this picture but it applies very well here.

>no, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, yes but not because of humans
Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

>>4762300
>Gives philosophy lecture
>"Y'all belong in /x/"

>>4674810
>>4674816
I'm not even sure if the incoherence of your posts is put on or real.

>>4628151
I'm not trying to be pejorative here, but I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or actually that scientifically illiterate.

>very basic models like ptolemy's heliocentric model do a reasonable job of predicting the world, even though they are dead wrong.

Except it didn't match the predictions made when solar bodies were observed through telescopes. Hence galileo, copernicus, and kepler.

I mean.. geocentrism certainly made predictions... but the evidence also has to support those predictions. The evidence supported the heliocentric model, which is why that's the accepted model.
>nothing separates those kinds of things from newtonian physics, or whatever we're currently using.

Okay... you've got to be trolling.

>data is no recourse to anything.

.... How else do we confirm or discard any scientific hypothesis without observable, measurable, data?

(cont)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FxJkQ3mJ3I
Is this guy trolling, somebody help me out.

>evolution
>controversial theory
>if you believe evolution to be a true theory
>not a troll thread

ITT fallacies. Fallacies everywhere.
Pic related to everyone in this thread.

>mfw

>>4348566

>>4322382
>implying basic arithmetics "in memory" isn't just memorizing multiplication table for one digit numbers... and few rules to play with two digit numbers

op! answer it!
8 x 7
! now now! now! i want my answer! now!
done it?
12*8!!!!!

>>4284894
for once i agree with carl
this is ridiculously easy maths