Years ago, I watched a program that was talking about how wind speeds varied from planet to planet in our solar system. Eventually it saw a correlation between distance from the sun, and wind speeds.
Surprisingly, the further you got from the sun, the faster wind speeds became. My memory gets a little vague from here on out.
Basically, the program moved on to trying to model these speeds, and was succesful, but when it went to model earth in the same way, it showed that we should be having waaaay huger winds than we do experience.
At the end of the program, they showed that the solution to the progblem was that earth had it's ice caps, which for some reason I don't remember really cut down on our wind speeds.
i'd love to watch this program again if someone knows what it's called or where to find it.
Does anyone remember this one?
sounds like bullshit. mars has polar ice caps, too.
Well I looked up Venus's weather for the hell of it and apparently the winds on Venus will circle the planet 4 to 5 times in a single Earth day, whereas Earth's winds move at barely 10% to 20% of its rotational speed.
Lets contrast the atmospheric compositions of the two planets:
-Venus:
Surface pressure 93 bar (9.3 MPa) or 9300 kPa
Composition ~96.5% Carbon dioxide
~3.5% Nitrogen
0.015% Sulfur dioxide
0.007% Argon
0.002% Water vapor
0.001 7% Carbon monoxide
0.001 2% Helium
Not sure if this has something to do with but temperature and pressure differences between atmospheric layers maybe affect the wind speed, considering how tornados and such are formed here.
Why do people lose it? What makes them sane players in our world of affairs and the next day and looney toons the next? I'm sure we've all seen the raving bum on the street. How'd he get to be that way? Why did the Virginia Tech killer shoot up his classmates? It can't just be stress because millions of people face stress without going crazy.
Ecstasy, and this thread.
frustration.
Lack of tunnel vision.
YOU ARE ALL BLIND.
remove the "go" and you have your answer
Do some pcp, your friends will tell you it will be ok, just get a little slippery. Next thing you know your walking up and down your street breaking fences and scaring cats.
Human beings are psycho by nature...
Restarting two-year-old threads makes me go CRAZY.
People go insane because they can get what they long in that reality
> People go insane because they can get what they long in that reality
Yes, but has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Real Life and the reality no matter what a person does, it generally means nothing.
I have been contemplating the universe..
I have come to a fork in the road for many of my thoughts..
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite
Each choice dictating the direction of further contemplation on any given thought
For example: Finite: If the universe started out from an impossibly hot, impossibly tiny singularity, (such as in the Big Bang Theory), then.. What did that singularity exist in? what was around it, what co-existed with that singularity? how was it considered hot if nothing around it existed with any varying temperature with which to compare?
These examples represent one blade of grass in the entire milky way, as far as how many questions there are with the two-headed fork
But if the Universe is infinite, these questions don't exist and an equally massive list of new ones pop up..
My high school science teacher used to say something like "the universe is finite, but unlimited". He explained it in a way that made sense but I can't remenber well...
"An intriguing question is whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an important open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if one travelled in a straight line through the universe perhaps one would eventually revisit one's starting point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Well it depends on if you believe that predestination exists..
If so then everything that can happen is happening. Has already happened, and will continue to happen forever. Predestination means that every possible outcome of any-thing is has and will happen at the same time and will continually happen somewhere forever.
>>10
Yes, the analogy of the surface of the earth is exactly correct -- The surface of the earth is a finite 2-dimensional surface, but unbounded. General Relativity requires that the universe must have those same characteristics -- and some of the early physicists (there are papers online from them, google "relativity 3-sphere") proved that any qualifying geometry of the universe must necessarily be the "3-sphere". This is like the surface of a sphere, except instead of a sphere in 3 dimensions, you have a sphere in 4 dimensions. The surface of that sphere is 3-dimensional. It has the same properties of the 2-sphere that it is unbounded and finite. It also has some other interesting properties, including that the center of this sphere is entirely arbitrary. Every point can equally be considered the center.
Just like with the familiar 2-sphere, a straight line in any direction will eventually return to its origin, but we will never be able to look out in space with a telescope and see the earth, because the 3-sphere of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. As a result, the visible universe is only a small portion of the universe that we will never be able to see beyond. In GR, it can be described exactly like a black hole. A black hole can be described as a region where space itself is getting pulled into the singularity faster than the speed of light, so no information can ever reach us from that region. The area outside the visible universe is mathematically the same -- anything that far out, and that part of space is moving away from our part of space faster than the speed of light.
Why considering universe as infinite makes question about placement and what is outside not important? As it really doesn't matter if space is finite or infinite for this question as we really can't see beyond it, it makes this question more of a philosophical nature.
And even if space is finite and has boundaries, for me there is no "what is beyond the edge" question and not even because we can't reach it (as few people already mentioned). Why? Because beyond edge nothing exists. Absolute nothingness, no black or white space, just nothing. No time, no space, as those exist within edge. Universe is not placed anywhere, as it defines space and placement itself.
But probably it still doesn't have any boundaries anyway but if it is infinite or finite...
Well, what was the starting mass of space? ;)
>>13
What is the start of space?
I like to think the Universe has a finite boundary thats ever growing and a infite mass, it just a theory, with nothing to back it up.I see it as the big bang not as a explosion, more as infite mass of building blocks drifting apart, well not drifting apart , but space stretching and the parts gaining space away from each other, and those parts eventualy creating hydrogen atoms, forming into stars, then galaxys.all at the same time. So the universe is finite only in the sense of what we can observe , but infinite in reality.
You can't say nothing "exists" outside the edge or boundary of the universe because, because you're saying there is actually something that "exists" outside of the universe, which is nothing. So what you're really saying is that nothing is actually something because you're giving it the characteristic of existence. I think an infinite eternal universe is a lot easier to wrap my brain around than a finite one with nothing outside of it.
>>8
Universe would actually have to be expanding at a rate above the speed of light to not collapse under the influence of gravity. This means there is a lot of 'empty space'. But the uncertainty principle makes the existence of empty space impossible. So in this space new matter is created, eventually new galaxies form with new stars and possibly new forms of life.
>>9
Maybe he explained it like a globe or a sphere. It has finite area, but it's unlimited (there's no boundary to the surface of a sphere). Of course the finite but unlimited idea has to be applied to the 4-dimensional space-time construction.
That's the way I like to see the universe, and unlike what I actually think (I'm an agnost), this has as a consequence there is no god necessary to start our universe. Why? Because there is no start of our universe, so nobody could have started it.
There is no way we can measure the amount of mass in our complete universe. We can only roughly measure the amount of mass in the observable universe (which is higher than the actual mass, because we can't observe black matter).
Also to the question of 'beyond the boundary'. This is no question ever to be thought of, because the universe expands faster than the speed of light, so we wouldn't be able to keep up or even get closer to the border than we are at this moment.
So I was looking at my university's psychology course materials today and I realised that null hypothesis testing is abused to the point of meaninglessness by social scientists and that's one of the reasons why psychologists aren't real scientists.
PROVE ME WRONG
This reminds me of Thomas Kunt. So, Psychology is a multiparadigmatic science, it has as many approaches as people who study it.
Btw, science is not about getting to the truth of the truth (leave that to the mathematics). That's imposible! Science studys the world, the reality, the present, but all this stuffs are eventually changing, they are not sTatic. So, what may be true now, it may not be true tomorrow.
I just don't get why, of all of the so-called social sciences, psychology becomes everyone's easy target. Is it because of the yuppies blindly taking psychology classes at your university?
To me, the biggest wanna-be right now is economics. There is a Nobel prize for it (and for Peace and Literature, which everyone knows are jokes). Institutions such as MIT have picked up economics while largely disregarding other social sciences.
So, discuss economics.
> I just don't get why, of all of the so-called social sciences, psychology becomes everyone's easy target.
psychology is the only one that anyone pretends is a real science.
>>48
I took a Philosophy of Science course recently. It took about thirteen weeks to say, essentially, that there is no firm defining trait of "sciences". Rather, various fields of inquiry are "scientific" to varying degrees, and being called a "science" simply requires that a field of inquiry be "scientific" to a sufficient degree. Naturally, different people consider different degrees to be sufficient...
>>67
It occurs to me that I probably ought to outline those criteria...
According to the course text Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher, these criteria are independent testability, unification, and fecundity, and he uses Newtonian Mechanics as an example of a highly scientific field of inquiry.
Independent Testability requires that any auxiliary hypothesis introduced to rescue a core hypothesis from refutation must be testable in some experiment other than the one that forced its introduction. In the case of Newtonian Celestial Mechanics, astronomers noticed that the orbit of the planet Uranus didn't fit Newton's equations unless they assumed that another, more remote planet with a particular mass and orbit also existed. This auxiliary hypothesis was tested independently of Newton's theory by looking through telescopes at where the undiscovered planet was expected to be, and that's how Neptune was discovered. (This avoids misapplication of Popper's falsifiability criterion and ensures proper use of auxiliary hypotheses.)
Unification requires that a small, core set of problem-solving systems exist that can be applied to solve a wide range of related problems. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, can solve any question about motion by finding the forces acting on the system, use those forces and the laws of dynamics to construct the equations of motion, and solve those equations. (The professor also recommended, as a quick-and-dirty test for unity, finding a set of textbooks for a field of study and weighing them. Heavier libraries describe less unified theories.)
The only reason you slag psychiatry - which by the way does NOT LACK RIGOUR!?! - is probably because you are a failed medic/wannabe psychiatrist or you failed to get into medical school or some other related chip on your shoulder
Physical sciences scoff psychology saying it not a science.
The only people that really say psychology is a science are psychologists themselves.
People who say that psychology is a fake science are generally people who 1) have never done psychological research or understand it, or 2) don't like the diagnosis they've been given.
IRL I've ran into people claiming that psychology isn't a science. Every time I've asked them about it they in fact knew nothing about psychology. I can only assume this is true of people bickering about it in this thread. Psychology is one of those things that has a lot of "mythology" surrounding it so most people dont really know much about it (but it seems like everyone has something to say about it).
Go read a book about something in psychology and reconsider your opinion. Hell I got interested in psychology after reading about it in some of richard dawkin's books (The Selfish Gene, namely). Look up the evolutionary basis behind human morality. It's actually very interesting stuff.
>don't like the diagnosis they've been given.
A good 90% of psychology has nothing to do with mental disorders. Sadly this is the only thing most people associated with it.
>To me, the biggest wanna-be right now is economics. There is a Nobel prize for it
Economics doesn't have a Nobel prize. That's just the prize given to those who don't stand a chance at winning the Mathematics award.
So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
So you say you know some things of programming? You're not the only one :P Give me other proper reason to have 1024bit processor. Unless of course you want to have matrix multiplications done by it.
Of course you can have precise calculations as accurate as you want even on 8-bit computer but if you want them to be as fast as possible you'd go for processors doing them with one command, ie. with 64-bit word you can have more precise calculations done in same time as with 32-bit but being more accurate. And other thing is memory but even then, you can have huge memory available even on 8-bit system - it will be tricky of course.
"Turing-completeness is not sufficient to simulate thought". I think that even people who don't know what Turing test is, would say that :P But then, tell my what thought is? And what about consiousness? What do you think is needed to use term "thinking machines"?
If machine will think (analyse, combine facts etc) about itself, about world surrounding it, will even have some avatar and will say "I know that I am. It is me. I do things that alter world and I regard myself as unique entity, though I can be copied". What then? Will you look into it's database/code and then tell that it is just a simulation? Then what?
Instead of having greater bit sizes we should work on clock speed and core temperatures. I would like to have a nice 6.0 GHz processor without the need for Liquid Nitrogen. Plus 1024 bit Machine Code would be such a bitch to debug, or even write an assembler for. I have enough problems attempting to read 32, 64 and 128 bit instructions.
they have 128 bit programs now?
I thought we were still stuck at 64.
Why do we have to discrimnate based on simulation terms? Is it a murder to have a simulated entity? No, wait I know what it is ... some people have way too much ego, and are afraid to acknoledge, share, talk or even consider the presence of other types of entities.
And what's with the convicing part? it's like you're having an obsession about convictions, reminds me of religion.
256-bit? 1024-bit?
256-bit OS would allow you to address up to 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,690,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of RAM. (Rounded; That's 115 quattuorvigintillion)
... and a 1024-bit OS would allow up to 179,769,313,486,231,590,772,930,519,078,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of RAM. (Obviously rounded; That is 179 uncentillion)
I don't see us needing that kind of computing power within our lifetime. Even the next step up to 128-bit would increase potential to 281,474,977,000,000 yottabytes.
That's more than a google! The 1024 bits would be for the CPU, not the OS
*googol
No, Microsoft are developing Windows 8 which is supposed to come out 1st July 2011. There are rumors that there will be a 128 bit version
>>38
you do realize how long it took for there to be a 64-bit version of windows after 64-bit hardware was widely available, right? i wouldn't expect to see a 128-bit version of windows until at least 2015, if at all.
we have 2054 bit processor here in drdo india;) its a super compuetr;)
Earthquake prediction society of top of Japan
HP ttp://www1.odn.ne.jp/cam22440/
Kiii━━━━━━━━━━∧━∧━━━━━━━━━━ iiiin
（(ﾟ)Å(ﾟ)）
（ ）
｜ ｜ |
（_＿）＿）
Ｇｉ━━━━━━━━━━∧━∧━━━━━━━━━━ n
（(ﾟ)Å(ﾟ)）
（ ）
｜ ｜ |
（_＿）＿）
Holy crap! The earthquake was so strong it knocked his ears off!
Emergency experience this morning again. A strong tinnitus pressure and it exists about the severe earthquake sign.
I was watching this video of an informal explanation/interprentation of string theory, and while it is not as sophisticated or accurate as a formal description of it, but it is appealing to those who want to get an idea about what things are discussed.
I understood both all dimensions and the term metaphor of folding a dimension, with the folded newspaper which made one appear from one point to another in the dimension below. To say that all this actually exists is an assumption, and nothing we can prove for a fact. It might not be the answer to the question "What is there?", however it is certainly the answer to another question, "What could be there?", what is possible to imagine that it could be there. In short, it describes our mental imaginative hard limit. (the soft limit is much lower)
My question is, does it answer "What could be there?", like I presupposed, or "What could be imagined by humans?"?
In other words, does human imagination have barriers? Is there something that can't be imagined by humans? If there is, is it understood by other beings, possible or not, possible in the human mental realm or not? If not, what teriffying feeling it is to realize we were in a cage all along! The bounds of our imagination.
> In other words, does human imagination have barriers? Is there something that can't be imagined by humans?
What's the largest quantity you can picture in your mind?
Can you imagine a thousand bowling pins, or will you just think of a pile of them?
How about one-hundred doves? Can you think of just twenty-five coins, or will you think of five sets of five coins?
At what point does a group of objects become just an abstract number?
I believe starting with basic ideas like this is the best way to understand your/our mental limits.
> If there is, is it understood by other beings, possible or not, possible in the human mental realm or not?
Science fiction has explored this idea (since fiction is all we have). A good example are the extra-dimensional beings from Slaughterhouse Five that abduct the main (human) character at some point in his life and put him in a Zoo. They try to explain the human's perception of reality to Zoo visitors as being stuck on a rail, always going forward, with blinders on his eyes and his head is restrained so can't look around, etc, etc.
щ(`Д´щ)
Post cool algebra problems to solve. List difficulty. Use the link provided to compute them if you have to.
Unrelated but according to WolframAlpha x/0 equals infinity.
IF YOU DON'T START POSTING IN THIS THREAD SOON YOU WILL DIE!!
▲
▲ ▲
Prove that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.
In layman's terms explain the meaning of the P=NP problem
In fact, explaining the problem to you in layman's terms is more difficult than solving the problem itself.
>>2
lol dont be like that
I know its something to do with polynomial time
In essence, the question P = NP? asks: if 'yes'-answers to a 'yes'-or-'no'-question can be verified "quickly" (in polynomial time) can the answers themselves also be computed quickly?
Consider the subset-sum problem, an example of a problem which is "easy" to verify but whose answer is believed (but not proven) to be "difficult" to compute. Given a set of integers, does some nonempty subset of them sum to 0? For instance, does a subset of the set {−2, −3, 15, 14, 7, −10} add up to 0? The answer "yes, because {−2, −3, −10, 15} add up to zero", can be quickly verified with three additions. However, finding such a subset in the first place could take more time. The information needed to verify a positive answer is also called a certificate. Given the right certificates "yes" answers to our problem can be verified in polynomial time, so this problem is in NP.
An answer to the P = NP question would determine whether problems like the subset-sum problem are as "easy" to compute as to verify. If it turned out P does not equal NP, it would mean that some NP problems are substantially "harder" to compute than to verify.
The restriction to yes/no problems is unimportant; the resulting question when more complicated answers are allowed (whether FP = FNP) is equivalent.
p=np when p=0 or n=1
Have a look at this here website:
http://proofthatgodexists.org/
Step through the 'quiz', see what happens. I'd be interested in seeing the 4-ch'ers responses.
i fail at life
retarded.
I believe in a god simply because the alternative is too depressing. What if life was just a meaningless accident? If that's true, then the universe is just there - it's not there for us. The what's the point of even having a universe at all? It's all just meaningless, pointless suffering.
I prefer to think that God gives life context. It's like... If you think of god as a parent, and kids as all life, and the universe as a jungle gym.
The kids can play and be happy and be sad and make their games, and they can do so safely because their parent is right over there watching everything. (S)he won't interfere in the games, but when the games are all over, (s)he'll take you home, put bandaids on your bruises, and encourage you to go play tomorrow.
Without a parent there... The whole scene just becomes more sad.
>>593
Well, it is a meaningless accident. Life with it.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Universals are a fine thought experiment, but equating universals to god is unfounded. A universal has a perspective: math measures unchanging facts, science measures facts that may change or be reinterpreted, and morality is variable however ethics (as a universal) is for the good of as many individual freedoms as possible (a perspective in itself).
But the quiz forces one conclusion, stating that God exists as a universal without a perspective. Not even one of human suffering. Pathetic, weak attempt at a faith-based topic that is inherently a faith-based topic. http://proofthatgodexists.org/ is fail.
If you want to believe in an all mighty, omniscient Creator because you fear there being an end to your existence, that's fine, but when you try to pass off faith and absence of answers as proof of existence for such a higher power, that's when you have failed. You can't go into a store to return an item without a receipt, no matter how much you believe you had bought it only a few days ago, the cashier still needs proof of purchase.
Well, you all can go F...K OFF
Well, you all can go F...K OFF
Proof that God Exists
When you assume there are some gods, nothing is contradictory to it.
Therefore God exists.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Proof that God does not Exist
When you assume there are not any gods, nothing is contradictory to it.
Therefore God does not exist.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.