how is F=ma not a vacuous tautology?you need a mass to determine forcebut without force you can't determine massthis is circular logic
>>16977010You forgot "+AI"
>>16977010you can remove force from newtonian physics. but it's a good construct with intuitive sense. good luck creating a physics theory without any higher constructs other than x and t.
It's just a simple observation based on reality, lol.
>>16977019ConsiderF/a = mLet a = 0
>>16977010"You owe $50.16 interest this month" is based on a tautology. Some tautologies are useful. Utility disproves vacuousness.
New research shows China leads research in 90% of crucial technologies & ignoring this means we're living in a delusional bubble, where we still think the West is the Sci-Tech leader.I think a lot of people are in denial, or just can't accept that China is already the world's leading nation for science and technology. I can't blame them for their ignorance. Most English-language media studiously avoid mentioning it. Time and time again, I see topics like AI, space & robotics covered, with only developments in Western countries talked of, as if China doesn't exist. Despite the fact that it's now the leader in so many fields.The problem with complacency and ignorance is that it gives you a really distorted map of reality. You can't understand how the 21st century is developing without factoring in China, and ignoring China means you're being delusional.Source:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04048-7https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/aspis-critical-technology-tracker-2025-updates-and-10-new-technologies/
>>16967028
>>16975657Partially true but there's not choice. West is dead. The top people of the world (whites, indians, arabs, latins, etc), We, have to start to help them. China is the new medium for the flourishment of human spirit. Chinese are virginal, naive they are a blank slate for the best wisdom of western thought. Westerners all know plato or newton or locke but don't give a shit. They are postmodernists, cynics. They don't believe in progress, in true. They hate themselves. Useless
>>16959946Try and work for Chinese scientists, and see how many (not all) of them just game the system instead of actually using journals for the intended purpose. Once one of them becomes the editor of a top journal, see how fast he can get his friends published lmao
>>16959946Bing Bong
000111222333444555666777888999
This just looks depressing.
>>16977412Wrong.
>>16977418space programs are one of the easiest things to cut funding to because there's no immediate public benefit or detriment to it other than more government money to be spent elsewhere. as a percentage of GDP, funding on lessens over time. number numerically get bigger only because inflation and gdp growth.
>>16977419Pure entitlement. They are receiving ~60% of their peak budget when they actually got to the moon for 60 years on average. Your fake measurement is fake.
>>16957935>wE LoSt The tEcHnOLoGyRetarded zoomer begone!
>>16958609we hate Carl Sagan around here
Moon far side
>>16976009it's chorizo
>>16950507Is that an anus
>>16951173
>>16951206the view at :05 in that webm shows the same side shown in OP. Just rotate the image.they are the same.
>>16951433shut up bitch, space is cool. stop being a jaded faggot.
What good will all this chess playing do you when I can bench more than you?
>>16977272True. Chess grandmasters are no different in their intellectual achievements than professional Call of Duty players, and both are complete nerds who deserved to be bullied at every opportunity.
>>16977272He makes money by playing chess while you have to pay money to exercise, so he wins.
>>16977272a chess piece weighs a few grams, your bench game is useless in cornering the king
>>16977272What good will all that benchpressing do when you are in a zugzwang?
>>16977272Did you make yourself to slow and bulky to catch a skimpering mouse?All that athleteCouldnt catch a mathlete
I am not impressed by the "rockets" employed by HAMAS, which are essentially unguided solid-fuel pieces of shit.The V-2 type of design is far more interesting as a concept. Surely someone reasonably competent could modernize the primitive guidance system via a cheap ARM microcontroller, no? Propellant is really the main issue, as LOX was volatile even back then and probably can't be smuggled by towelheads or some fat autistic neonazi easily. I don't know what I'm talking about though, sorry.
Just FYI talking about how to make guided missiles(with intent to make a weapon), especially those with throttle control (ie. liquid fuel), is illegal.Even if you accidentally talk about something that is currently classified and under ITAR you are running afoul the law.For the authorities watching this thread: Everything I post is for comedic satire, I do not have any interest in weapons, especially guided long range varieties.
What should I study if I wanna figure out interdimensional portal travel
Hypothetically, if you can travel backwards in time, you could create a new timeline while leaving the previous intact. However, idk how you’d then travel between previously created timelines.If I understand correctly, time travel has been figured out, but is currently impossible due to energy constraints.
I think Jesus stops/stalls you from progressing in this according to a comment i saw on youtube
>>16962229DMT
look inward, not out
It hurts your head and gives you a lot of drugs
I don't get Rokos Basilisk, it's retarded
>>16976324Midwit philosophy that asserts a first order game theory solution without any connection to reality.The straight of hormuz is a great example of where philosophy fails. You have international law about freedom of navigation and oil producers who want to sell bit can't and buyers who can't. What do we see? Only Iran and US are doing anything. Every other nation is passive, despite the large economic costs to them. Game theory might assert they do something, but reality is that they continue their history of passivity and aren't willing to expend any resources to eventually build up the capability to do something. Meanwhile Iran and Russia are willing to build direct pipelines to China. Gulf states and their buyers aren't willing to build pipelines or oil railroads to safer ports, in part because they hope the interruption will end soon.>>16976347The vast majority of parties aren't going to bother with creating a cult for a hypothetical threat. They will focus on more pressing real issues.The "intelligent aliens hide because theythey'll murder each other on detection because the other aliens might murder them" is the same gay false choice.
>>16976975>people in the real world aren't perfectly rational actorswoah...
>>16976324people treat it like its some classic fancy philosophical problem but roko was just the username of the guy who posted it on the internet, it was a literal shitpostnothing wrong with that of course. all the best philosophical concepts come from the internet, but the reason you see it in media these days is because people aren't aware of this. it sounds stupid on its face but they imagine it has some academic prestige.
>Subscribe to Roko's Basilisk>Accidentally create AM instead>Suffer
>Upon reading the post, Yudkowsky reacted harshly, calling Roko an "idiot". He rejected the idea, arguing that a friendly superintelligent artificial intelligence would have no incentive to carry out the punishment after its own creation. However, in the original post, Roko reported someone having nightmares about the thought experiment. Yudkowsky did not want that to happen to other users who might obsess over the idea. He was also worried there might be some variant on Roko's argument that worked, which could be a serious information hazard.What an overreaction
>>16909042In what country and how many brown immigrants were included in the surveys?
>>16965303Nigerian IQ reported as 60-70. Black man does not believe it so administers the test himself... result 60-70 IQ.Liberal White person screams,"NO!!! The Black man is incapable of administering the test properly"
>>16909042adopted?
>>16909042If you have 15% more nigger, you get 15% less intelligence.
>>16911696The US government has a pristine track record on morality; this should go well.
How would you solve low fertility rates using science?I start:-remove many women from workplace so they get bored at home and have babies out of boredom-ban goyphones (mobile phones), social media, TV and soap operas, or ban them just for females, so that they are bored at home and want babies out of boredom-limit or ban contraception. Banning might give result of having too many babies. Contraception could also be legal only for couples that already have at least two kids-limit education of women, only send some women (with high potential) to education, most women should be uneducated, at least before they produce two or more babies. Females should first have kids, when they are young, then after this they could study and work (if at all)-ban owning of cats and dogs, females own them instead of kids, they treat them as kids-lower age of marriage and marry young girls, at their puberty or even earlier. The younger the marriage and first pregnancy, the more kids a woman can have-make that at some hours during Saturday or Sunday, the electricity, TV, internet will stop working. This will make people have sex and possibly get pregnant-make that big houses are cheap and make people live in houses in the suburbs or countryside. When people see empty spaces (in the house and outside), they want to fill them with something, for example with children-have people own houses/apartments or rent from the state, because when people rent from private capitalists, they don't have stability, they fear they can be evicted at any time-tax benefits for people with children. Lower property taxes and rent (they need bigger apartments and houses), lower income taxes. Direct payments of money to people with children can be considered but they are not great, they can attract the wrong people to have children, the "bottom" people1/2
>>16976970>t. club of Rome member
>>16963284My wife was stay at home for a couple years cause she couldn't find a job when she moved into the country.Still got no kids. It's way too risky. Stagnating wages, a weird ass economy, no job security, less hiring, more firing, AI. It's simple: Can't afford a damn kid, risk is too high. Would just end up in generational debt, so might as well stop it here.
>>16976970Honestly rather be dumb as a dog than being intelligent enough to understand all the fuckery happening around us.
>>16977313>Stagnating wagesTechnically you can get nominal pay raises while actually losing income so for many that stagnation is actually worse. If one's career has been stalled or they decided to stick you in a dead-end then that adds to the nightmare. I work in a public sector job (non-US) and federal government is trying to fuck over the fed workers and the union by working on a "hey these guys are living too cushy" angle to the masses, MP's and politicians aren't getting a freeze though.
>>16963284There is not even need to sterilize these people to get rid of them permanently. Its a self-correcting problem.
i really really like generalizing anything that comes to my mind, what i mean by that is like finding some rules and shortcuts in solving simple everyday tasks, maybe some datatables and rules to create such. I dont really know how to sum it all up but like,it is really fun to make anything work as math,with simple and understandable rules, where one comes out of another.
>>16976610i hope i dont but what is so wrong with them? is it your personal dislike?
>>16976612It's kind of just a meme, we like to dunk on them from time to time. String theory is elegant and simple but untestable so it can ideologically trap pattern obsessed people who want to understand the basics of reality.>t. me
>>16976618okay,i get it,your comment kindamakes me wanna learn string theory
Generalization is a academic disease. Experts are supposed to know everything in their field. Not knowing at what point a theorem fail to be valid is considered a negligence. But that for the experts. The beauty and pleasure of mathematics is far away from all this
generalization is what you gotta do to make sense of life anonwe all do itjust remember to update your generalizationsand don't have an autism melty when an exception occurs
Can /sci/ help me with a problem. I understand and got correct question 2 but question 3 I would have guessed 50kg. I would have thought that due to the rope being pulled in the same direction as the load it becomes a supporting rope, therefore 300/6 rather than 300/5 to get 50kg of equivalent force to lift the weight. Can anyone help explain why the answer is 60kg?
>>16969865rate my machine
>>16975059heh, a good one
>>16969264One pulley merely reverses direction.2 pulleys = 50%.Count the verticals not including the free rope. Divide your pulling rope by the verticals.300/4 = 75300/5 = 60It doesn't matter if the pulleys or free end are flipped top or bottom.
>>16969865>It depends on the angles of the ropesNegligible when the ropes are sufficiently vertical and the pulleys are further than one wheel diameter away.
>>16977099so what you are saying is, it depends on the angles of the ropes.
is this ok?
Ah hay look another Ai psychosis thread.
>>16976790>Detail the mathematics.Rubber bands. It´ll do as explanatory model.
>>16976756OK in what way? OK for what purpose? Did you use le AI to generate this image?
>>16977026i was like>yeah chatgpt i have this concept, these ideas these constraints, please help me make sense of it in a mathematical way, seems like a cool idea and visualize it"and thats basically it"makes sense in my mind maybe it makes sense in symbols"
>>16977030>"makes sense in my mind maybe it makes sense in symbols"OK, so does it make sense in symbols?
hey lads what do ye think o’ this jus’ ad a pint or two, wrote this down on the bar table brain’s swimmin’ but the maths is flowin’ so picture two time‑dependent sequences o’ functions, right: fn(t) an’ gn(t). now Oi mash ’em together in an alternating sum like>S(t)=∑n=1∞(fn(t)−gn(t))> (don’t worry if it looks fancy, lad, Oi spilled Guinness on half o’ it anyway) define the imbalance term>hn(t)=fn(t)−gn(t)> which is basically “how much one side’s givin’ the other a wallop”. now here’s the kicker: if the magnitude o’ the imbalance is feckin’ unbounded, likeComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>16975674you cannot divide by S since S = zero
>>16975687nobody divided by S.S is just sittin’ there mindin’ its own business.Ye hallucinated a denominator.
>>16975687i checked over it, looked for an S/S like a lad whos trying to find a full guiness bottle in the empty ones in my drawer, had to last thursdayi can fokkin read m8thers no S/S or x/S or S/X in tea m8.gobshiteif there was anything wrong id see it, i see nothing wrong with it aight m8?i look like some guy to you who write down something that he sees something wrong with?
>>16975674Actually, by rearranging the terms, you can make the right side of equation (1) converge to any number you want. Let's say you want it to converge to C. Just keep adding the odd terms until it exceeds C. (It will eventually exceed C because the harmonic series diverges.) After that, just keep adding the even terms until it's less than C. Then add odd terms again to raise it about C. Then add the even terms again to lower it below C. Etc.You can always do this to any series that does not converges absolutely. "Converges absolutely" means that the series converges if you sum the absolute value of each term. If it doesn't converge absolutely, then you'll always be able to rearrange the terms to produce any result C you want.In OP's example, if you take the absolute value of each term, you get the harmonic series, and it's known that the harmonic series does not converge.For example, take the geometric series (SUM x^n as n = 0 to infinity): If x = -0.9, then the series converges absolutely, but if x = -1.1, then the series does not converge absolutely. Therefore, the terms (-0.9)^n cannot be rearranged to converge to anything other than 10/19. But the terms (-1.1)^n can be rearranged to sum to anything you want.
This problem requires the derivation or proof of r(R) and beta(alpha). The extremal values, however, can be calculated numerically. Overall, it seems to me to be a rather complex task.
>>16973765Function: beta = ArcCot[ ( ((Cot[alpha] + 1 - Sqrt[(Cot[alpha] + 7)(Cot[alpha] - 1)]) / 2)^2 + 3 ) / 4 ]Domain: [-ArcCot(7), pi/4]This function exhibits a non-removable jump discontinuity at alpha = 0 due to the behavior of the nested cotangent terms.Key Properties:Left Boundary: Starts at alpha = -ArcCot(7), where beta = ArcCot(3).Left Limit at Zero: As alpha approaches 0 from the negative side, beta approaches 0.Right Limit at Zero: As alpha approaches 0 from the positive side, beta approaches pi/4.Global Peak: Reaches an exact analytical maximum in the right quadrant at alpha = ArcCot(2), where beta = ArcCot(3/4).Right Boundary: Ends at alpha = pi/4, where beta = pi/4.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>16975583
>>16973765
>>16976404regarding the attached image:Plot[{ArcTan[(1 + a)/(2 – a + a^2)], ArcTan[4/(a^2 + 3)], ArcTan[–1/7], ArcTan[(1 – a)/(2 + a + a^2)]}, {a, –6, 6}]>[f_2 is f_1 mirrored about the vertical axis]Yes, since f_2(a) = f_1(–a).>f_1 + f_2 = gI can prove it without using the variable a.Proof:m() = measure()α = m(angle FEG) = f_1Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.