/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14951372
>Posting more tautological claims
So the thing you claimed there was no evidence for is now a tautology? Then why do you need evidence for it? LOL

>>14853751
>Work is speed over distance

>>14834941
>Actually, all of space expands, including the space between molecules, and the space between a neutron/proton and the electrons orbitting it. ALL space expands, dumbass.
What part of "space expands, galaxies do not" do you not understand? Where does that say space doesn't expand?

>This has a noted effect on time dilation
No, it's only noticeable between very distant objects that are not pulled together by gravity. There's no cosmological time dilation between molecules. Quack.

>as well as radiometric decay.
No.

>The only argument that contemporary science has against this
The argument is "gravity exists." Good luck defeating it.

>claiming the 1% acceleration of radiometric decay
Which you have yet to provide any evidence for.

>You're not even parrotting the official retort, dumbfuck. You're literally just responding with words pulled directly out of your ass.
LOL, major projection.

>Look it up
I did, the only thing remotely close to your nonsense is on something called Creation Wiki. lmao

>>14811374
Ah, it says peer-reviewed at the top. Well that settles it.

>>14794110
>spams copy and pasted blog posts
>cries and plays victim when his spam gets deleted

>>14629152
>haha no it doesn't, there are plenty of studies showing oil is abiogenic
lmao, this just keeps getting better and better. None of your studies prove anything of the sort, fossil fuels have biogenic markers, and abiogenic oil is pathological science. Dumb schizo.

>>14607393
>You can tell it is fake because we could fix it in a month or two with a few million
We've got some kind of genius here

>>14584334
>>On the verge of human biological immortality
You actually fell for his con? LMAO

>>14584082
>the guy who does nothing but troll this thread is accusing others of being immature

>>14549691
>Newtonian physics doesn't give a fuck about "matter".
Describing how matter interacts with matter sounds a lot like giving a fuck about matter, moronic schizo.

>For all Newtonian physics cares, "matter" isn't real
LOL. You're an idiot. If Newtonian physics was not about real matter, then it would just be math.

>and all the objects it deals with are of the mind.
It sure is weird that Newtonian physics is about the mind when it doesn't mention the mind at all and only mentions matter. What a revolutionary concept you've discovered. Physics can describe anything I want as long as it doesn't mention them at all. Physics is not about matter, it's about leprechauns.

>>12726791
>That energy is going to be released as heat sometime
Right, which is the opposite of heat being sequestered. Just keep digging a deeper hole, you'll get out eventually.

I also find it funny how you accuse me of being pedantic yet continue to defend your incorrect terminology while ignoring the actual point, which is that plants and every other cooling feedback doesn't counter global warming caused by CO2.

>No, I showed how feedback loops leads to behavior that won't be easily predicted long-term
No, you showed the exact opposite, feedback loops creating easily predictable behavior in the long term. Wow, you're stupid.

>By the way, extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is as much as hallmark of chaotic behavior as topological transitivity.
Yes, it's a necessary but insufficient condition as you showed. I already explained this to you several times and now you're repeating it back to me as if you just looked up how chaos theory works. A bit late for that.

>Each trial of the system would be able to end at entirely different end behaviors
You could not, with certainty, predict which outcome happens.
It's not about certainty. Fucking hell. Just stop posting.

>I'm not the one claiming to know the climate in a century.
You're the only one who won't provide evidence for his claims.

Good night retard, I'm done schooling you for tonight.

>>12685458
Failure doesn't refer to the theory failing a test, it refers to the conspiracy failing to maintain secrecy. Learn how to read.

>>12527715
>"theory" means "guess" moron.
It's the opposite. A theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly validated through empirical testing. Why are you on the science board if you can't even get basic terminology correct? It's funny how you schizos all make the same mistake about a theory "being just a guess" no matter what you're denying. Are you a creationist flat earther as well?

>>12484004
>science has been politicized in the past
>therefore any I don't like is politicized
>oh and by the way, me rejecting science for political reasons is not politicization
This endless stream of /pol/ fueled conspiracy garbage is getting exceedingly tiresome. It's just so fucking boring, monotonous, and unimaginative. At least put some fucking effort into your trolling you lazy cunts. Trolling is supposed to be an art, but all you fuckers do is flood this board with bottom of the barrel regurgitated and steaming horse shit. It's not even entertaining. No wonder m00t created that containment board. But unfortunately all it did was create a safe space for you mongoloids to get each other all riled up so that you build up the courage to shit all over the other boards too. Just fucking die in a nice, warm, and cozy house fire already. At least that would give us some respite from the cancer that you're spreading.

>>12480311

>>12415776
Hh and hH can be considered to be the same. but then HH has different probability than TH or HT.

>>12403815
>everyone is retarded except for me REEEEEEEEEEEE
Uhuh. You lose.

>>12381098
>Tell that to everyone at the Venus Project who is banking on it and designing around it.
>we haven't even began to really inhabit the ocean land
>A governor robot.
>cold fusion.

>>12373692
>The last dozen cops I asked if I was in Antarctica all gave me an unambiguous, unqualified, "Yes," and not one said, "What the fuck are you talking about? Show me your ID."

>you can't use the modern definition of the reals to object to my solution because Riemann didn't have that definition when he came up with the problem
>by the way the Riemann hypothesis is false because of this definition I made up that Riemann didn't have when he came up with the problem

>>12302756
>Making the implication that there's only one species of it and that it's only adapted to one type of temperature
No, your made up assumptions isn't an implication of what they wrote. You're grasping at straws because you didn't even read what you cited.

>Funny how you ignored this part. Disingenuous much?
This is really rich. I didn't ignore it. The sentence directly after what you quoted explains that this is not the major effect of warmer temperatures:

>In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development; however, there was no effect on leaf area or vegetative biomass compared to normal temperatures. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development

The one selectively quoting and being disingenuous is you. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it.

>>12155903
Someone's mad

>>12114874
>they used to direct their energy towards religious pursuits where they couldn't do much harm.

>>12099228