Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

/science/ board



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3650 - buttfacemugee (20 hours ago) [-]
What is the creature that exists due to people putting a lot of thought into it
User avatar #3641 - connorjay (12/19/2014) [-]
So, I need some inspiration.

I do Psychology (Probably on the wrong board (HURDURR)), and I am currently looking into PhD's, as I would love to continue learning quite frankly.

However, I have literally no ideas on subject to look in to.
So how fucked am I?
User avatar #3637 - highkingtorygg (12/19/2014) [-]
If someone was encased in a skintight suit of a material that is completely not malleable, then dropped from a few hundred feet, how would they be damaged?
#3645 to #3637 - smudgiemuffins ONLINE (12/19/2014) [-]
So, think about what "damage" in the context of a human is. Broken bones. Ruptured organs. That sort of thing. What causes damage? The obvious as is "force," and, yes, that is somewhat correct. But what a force does is accelerate something. What breaks a bone or ruptures an organ is that one half of the object is accelerated while the rest stays in place, pulling them apart. This happens when whatever force I push on some part of an object with is greater than the little atomic bonds that makes that thing a solid object. I tried to make a diagram that shows that. Only the middle part is being pushed, and hard enough that the atomic bonds can't keep the whole thing as a solid object.

So now we've got this guy in this suit. An entirely random guess that someone with more knowledge of anatomy would have to confirm, I think bones generally survive pretty extreme forces if you don't land in such a way as to hyper-extend a joint. So one of two things can happen. The suit breaks, thus absorbing some of the energy of the fall into breaking the suit rather than your bones and you're in a better position. The second, the suit does not break and your bones are not forced to hit in an unfavorable way. Again, someone with anatomy knowledge would have to confirm that.

What would be problematic, suit or no suit, is that your organs is not one big solid mass like your skeleton is. Even if the fall to the ground isn't bad enough to break a bone, your organs wont stop when your skeleton does. So the organs in your thoracic cavity might fly down into your pelvis because they still have the momentum from the fall when your skeleton has stopped.

Hope that helps.
User avatar #3638 to #3637 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
coca cola
User avatar #3635 - zehutit (12/18/2014) [-]
You guys know about numbers and shit right? If theres anyone here who feels that knows enough about the business of stocks/shares (buying and selling) and would feel up to answering some questions to a noob I would appreciate it very much
User avatar #3639 to #3635 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
Calculate risk from probability equations.
Profit/Loss=Selling price-cost price
How to invest:
1.Low risk, High yield investments
2.High risk, low yield investments
3.Low yield, high risk investments
4.High yield, low risk investments
User avatar #3632 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
any math majors here?
User avatar #3644 to #3632 - phoenixforger (12/19/2014) [-]
Freshmen Math Minor. If that counts.
#3631 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
if i have 45 apples and eat 43, how many apples do I have left?
a. All of them
b. impossible to tell
c. 2
d. define "apple"
e. you never really had anything, the apples don't exist, you don't exist
User avatar #3643 to #3631 - nimba (12/19/2014) [-]
prove it
User avatar #3640 to #3631 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
Quantum fags: None and all
Maths masterrace: 2
Biologist pleb: Ah the Malus Domestica
Physicist: Plane of reference not mentioned, statement irrelevant
Engineer: Psst we can do 0 apples eaten if you want
Now, these aren't accurate but close.
#3633 to #3628 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
existence itself is an illusion
why can't we just not exist? what makes us exist? maybe we don't really exist?
this more philosophy than real science
User avatar #3621 - marinepenguin ONLINE (12/18/2014) [-]

This makes me feel neat inside. I wonder how possible this could actually be?
#3617 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
I'd like to do something similar to an AMA on the topic of aerospace engineering (as I am an aerospace engineer).

Post any questions that you have about aircraft or spacecraft.

(attached is a cool wallpaper size picture of the STS)
User avatar #3649 to #3617 - themastertroller (20 hours ago) [-]
being an aerospace engineer is my future career goal, going into university next year.
User avatar #3634 to #3617 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
I heard some aerospace engineers take complex number analysis. How is that used in engineering?
User avatar #3636 to #3634 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
Yeah, the class is usually called "Numerical Methods for Engineers". It's good to know for the programming experience, and also for analyzing ODE's and system's of ODE's. It's pretty common for most engineers, not just aero, to take a class that covers numerical methods.
User avatar #3622 to #3617 - marinepenguin ONLINE (12/18/2014) [-]
I'm considering trying to become an aerospace engineer. How were the studies? How long did it take to get to become an one? What is your job?
User avatar #3624 to #3622 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
The studies are difficult, no doubt about that, but if you are interested in the field then you'll be able to get through them. Most college's offer 4 year programs, but it took me 5.
User avatar #3625 to #3624 - marinepenguin ONLINE (12/18/2014) [-]
Do you actually enjoy your job?

And I'm actually studying to be an engineer for sure, I'm just not sure exactly what I wanted to do specifically. Aeronautics and space travel has always been a huge interest of mine so I have been doing research on it recently.
User avatar #3626 to #3625 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
I got into it for the same reason you are considering it, I had a great interest in planes and spacecraft. Take an intro course in aero-engineering and see how you like it.
User avatar #3627 to #3626 - marinepenguin ONLINE (12/18/2014) [-]
I'll have to do that then. I'm close to completely an engineering program at my 2 year college that would put me as a 3rd year engineering student at a nearby 4 year school. Once I'm going there I'll look into those sorts of classes.
User avatar #3619 to #3617 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
You being an engineer, how many dicks have you sucked so far?
User avatar #3629 to #3619 - magnuskasparov (12/18/2014) [-]
why do people say that engineers are gay? i've seen this on /sci/ and I can't figure out why other than they might be jealous of the money the earn compared to a pure math degree
User avatar #3642 to #3629 - kebabs (12/19/2014) [-]
It's just an old joke.
User avatar #3623 to #3619 - xsnowshark (12/18/2014) [-]
User avatar #3616 - plumpbooty (12/18/2014) [-]
Reminder that "le humun brian is hordwierd 2 do X" is pseudoscience because it completely eschews the responsibility of presenting causes and processes.
User avatar #3611 - ribocoon (12/17/2014) [-]
Is it okay if I use salmon for my fishion reactor?
#3610 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
Here's a thought. I'd like to teach anyone and everyone who has questions about BRAIN THINGS. Neurophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, and more recently, systems neuroscience, are fields in which I am steadily gaining mastery.

You see, I need to keep my mind sharp while I wait to hear back from the labs I've applied to work in. In the long term, I plan to have a doctorate in some form of neuroscience, and I've been reading mountains of research papers since undergrad ended.

That said, I'll try and make posts here more often, and shall visit daily to answer questions addressed to me.
#3614 to #3610 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
What exactly is the self under physicalism/materialism?
User avatar #3615 to #3614 - coronus (12/18/2014) [-]
To the best of my knowledge, those fall under philosophy. Thus, I neither know nor have much interest in exploring them any further than I already have. They are well meaning, but ultimately ill-informed concepts.
User avatar #3608 to #3603 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
Neural feedback is an outdated conceptualization of ... anything motivational, really. Maybe it was in the 70's when B.F. Skinner was starting his career, but even he realized that strict behavioralism and mechanistic explanations aren't even half the story of humanity's conscious experience.

It's closely related to classical conditioning, which fails to explain the majority of learning, culture, language or behavior in humans. Hell, you can't even explain the self motivated behavior of dogs, cows, or most other social animals with feedback and conditioning mechanisms.

Take language, for example. Children learn the majority of the words they know without reward, and parental coaching contributes minimally to syntax and grammar learning.

If one were to take a few courses on say, evolution and cognition, human perception, or learning and memory, one would find that our situation is far less simple, and far less bleak.

If anyone has specific questions related to current understandings of human learning, motivation, and thought, I can answer them fairly well. My first research job was with a German evolutionary psychologist. He taught most of his classes related to human cognition with an eye for the past.

Having consumed the equivalent of perhaps 200+ research papers on the subject, I can tell you without hesitation that trying to explain why reality is an illusion using neural feedback is pompous pseudo-intellectual drivel, written by a "psychologist" who obviously isn't keeping up with the science of their work.
User avatar #3602 - xsnowshark (12/16/2014) [-]
This board leaves a lot to be desired...
User avatar #3620 to #3602 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
It lacks maths.
User avatar #3609 to #3602 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]

I come every few days, and there's usually one or two things I can actually discuss. I'm thinking about posting more, though, since I've roped myself in to a critical writing course on Systems Neuroscience.

Perhaps I'll post a bit on the intricacies of sensation and perception, since I've got a paper on multi-modal processing to write, and over 100 research papers, on various neuroscience topics to read before the next semester starts.
User avatar #3599 - grogovic (12/16/2014) [-]
NFL sent a rocket to the moon, or was it NASCAR?
#3600 to #3599 - anonymous (12/16/2014) [-]
User avatar #3601 to #3600 - grogovic (12/16/2014) [-]
User avatar #3592 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
My parents both have blue eyes and I have green eyes. Am I a genetic freak?
#3630 to #3592 - anonymous (12/18/2014) [-]
you;re adopted
User avatar #3595 to #3592 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
blue eyes can turn into green eyes after the fact. You probably have a blue eye genotype but your phenotype may be different because of post-sexual modification or differences in your gene expression but these can be difficult to predict without a genetic test.
Also these things can be subjective - are both your parents definitely blue eyed and are you definitely green eyed or is it possible that your eyes are merely on the greenish end of the blue spectrum?
User avatar #3596 to #3595 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
Theirs are dark blue and mine are grey-green. What would case this alteration?
User avatar #3597 to #3596 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
I don't particularly think it's that upon a little bit of reading. There are a number of genes and alleles which contribute to the spectrum of eye colours. Your parents are double recessive for the genes that produces melanin on the iris, which guarantees for recessive eye colours like yours to be produced, those colours dictated by the genotype of other genes. Your parents may have had a genotype in the other genes like Gg x Gg - G means blue and g means green. If G is dominant to g then they will present with blue eyes in the absence of melanin. However there is a 0.25 probability that their progeny can be double recessive for this gene - which could explain you having a supposed genotype gg.
So I guess if you consider a 1 in 4 chance occurring to be freakish then I suppose you could be considered a freak in that regard, though I wouldn't really.
User avatar #3598 to #3597 - beatmasterz (12/16/2014) [-]
#3591 - tigronn has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3594 to #3591 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
Dream interpretation

I think this should probably go on the religion board, this woo is closer to that than science.
#3584 - luigipimp (12/15/2014) [-]
i like sleep cause its like time travel to breakfast
User avatar #3606 to #3584 - iridium (12/17/2014) [-]
Are you 12 or something? You can eat breakfast literally whenever you want.
#3613 to #3606 - luigipimp (12/17/2014) [-]
you can have breakfast foods whenever you want but it wouldnt be breakfast
User avatar #3612 to #3606 - ribocoon (12/17/2014) [-]
I ate some oatmeal and leftover mcdonalds at 2 in the morning last night
Adulthood is the best
#3583 - luigipimp has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #3593 to #3582 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
You don't exist
because of all these things you're made of

It's buying in to compositional fallacy in the most bizarre way - 'how can you be real if parts of you are made of neurons?' How can H2O extinguish fires when hydrogen and oxygen are both notably flammable? The properties of the sum of parts can be different to the isolated properties of the constituent parts.
User avatar #3586 to #3582 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was gay as fuck.
#3589 to #3586 - anonymous (12/16/2014) [-]
How so? Do you have any objections?
User avatar #3590 to #3589 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was really stupid.
>I am just a meat slab
Shit was irrelevant and who ever made it is probably a faggot thinking "w0w i am so original woah i should be a theorotical scientist". Unless it's an article containing actual facts and experiments conducted telling me I am not real and in a dream world or I am in a computer, I am not believing any shit saying I am not real. I mean where are the calculations, where are the experiments, what's the proof?
Why do people even waste their time writing bullshit like that.
>I am just a byproduct of evolutionary accident
>everything you perceive, believe, or hold dear, is just the attempts by a few kilos of fat, connected to some basic sensory organs, to model reality.
w0w i am not real though i can perceive, believe, touch, smell, it's all just some organs rite amirite
fuck you you're not right, it even says that even if we see, it's not real, we've got a whole optics section in physics telling us how light behaves.
man i thought psychologists were supposed to be specific of human behaviour and not make these stupid posts.
User avatar #3607 to #3590 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
It's kind of sad, actually. Even beetles have a capacity for choice, and they have a handful of neurons in the entirety of their body. Besides the fact that our ability to look at ourselves in an introspective manner and change disproves the idea that our behavior is pre-programmed, or that we are capable and willing to engage in behaviors and thought experiments (like the above) that pose no benefit to anything or anyone ... a short rant.

The idea that our reality is just a construct is idiotic at its base, since all our senses are set up to receive real time data. The only time our reality is a construct is when something is seriously neurologically wrong, like schizophrenia or phantom limb syndrome.

Beyond that, our higher social constructs are at worst the emergent property of evolved sociality, but, much like our craving for foods that store well as fat, the base Social facets of humanity were far surpassed by our true mental abilities,and outpaced by the growth of culture, even before the Assyrians identified themselves as a singular group of people.

We are not merely a sum of our parts, and evolution does not produce accidents, nor does anything in the universe operate on some chaotic principle of randomness. In fact, any good scientist will tell you that the colloquial definition of random is, in reality, nonexistent.

A good example of a species that fit the description of programmed interaction and sociability is the ant. They exemplify the bare minimum of social order needed to survive, fight, and exist as a group. A few steps higher you get certain species of macaque, who have elements of proto-culture. In their case, each population is separated by the way they use simple tools and process food; behaviors that are partly taught and partly self discovered.

Nearly every higher function of humanity, save navigation and certain facets of memory, remains singular in all the animal kingdom.
User avatar #3618 to #3607 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
Psychologist: Hey man you're pre-programmed, here read the things I have written in this article. You're just a bunch of organs.
Person: K. Does your article contribute to anything at all?
Psychologist: No. Let's just get sad about the fact that we're just organs doing their functions instead of focusing on important things.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)