Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25555
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 01, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Science, it works bitches.

Alright dudes/dudettes here's the shake down.

The following rules are in addition to standard fora etiquette.

Rule the first:
If it's doesn't have anything to do with Science, and especially if it doesn't have anything to do with the original idea behind the thread (if it goes off-topic but is still about science we can split it so that's not a huge deal, but you should be starting new threads on your own initiative) it will most likely be <strongbad>DELETED</strongbad>

Rule the second:
Only a small amount of pseudo-science is permitted, mostly to debunk it, and if we feel everything has been said we'll probably lock it (if you're still convinced after 3 pages that 0.999... is not equal to 1 it gets boring)

Rule the third:
Keep things civil. Sticks on the ice boys and girls. If you don't agree with someone on a particular theory/question do not attack them. Attack their math all you like, but for the most part we want to see people working together to help reach a common goal. Things like, what happens at the singularity of a black hole are not things anyone is close to determining for sure so we're going to have differing opinions, but that's no reason to get nasty. Flames will definitely be deleted, as it's easier to delete a post than edit out the flameness you run the risk of a perfectly good argument being deleted because you wanted to make someone feel like an idiot.

If you have the words "idiot" or "arrogant" in your post, reconsider it.

Rule the fourth:
While these are the forums for a humour comic, don't get carried away with silliness. The mudkip thing was kinda funny, but as you can see it only encourages offtopic discussion which is a bit annoying. There's always General for that sorta thing. We herd they leik mudkips.

Rule the fifth - Homework and things that look like homework:
If the question you're asking is homework, say so, and let us know what work you've already done on the problem. If it's the sort of question that looks like homework but isn't, tell us that as well. If you don't, you may not find our answers particularly helpful. In fact, we may very well purposely write overly complicated and/or impractical solutions. (See this thread for an example.)
Seriously, we don't mind offering homework help to people who are honest in requesting it, and who have clearly done some work on their own before getting stuck. But we are not here to do your homework for you, so please don't just copy math or science questions directly from your problem set and expect us to kindly do all your work for you. Also, any person who abuses this and posts little other than homework questions will start to wear on our patience.
2008-12-22 Update: If you've figured out a homework problem, let us know. It means people no longer need to continue giving hints. (And if it's not a problem I expect to involve much discussion, it means I can go ahead and lock the thread.)

2009/10/21 Update: Rule/suggestion the sixth - Please make thread titles somewhat indicative of the content therein
I don't expect the title to give all the details of the content of the thread; that's what the OP is for. But I would like to be able to skim through the forum and know whether I've looked at or posted in a thread simply by reading the title. So things like "Interesting question" or "What if..." are not helpful. I've been editing these threads to change the subject line, but it would be helpful if you did the same. "Interesting question about a mirrored sphere" or "What if pi were 4?" would be much, much more useful to everyone.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Thu May 03, 2007 7:00 am UTC

Rule suggestion: If possible (ie not a crossover) all threads should begin with a declaration of the particular field at the start of the title, for example

[PHYSICS] Particle Acceleration
[CHEMISTRY] Interesting Carbon Structures!
[BIOLOGY] The Human Eye vs the Octopus Eye

Just to help people get to only the threads they want, without making the frontpage of the fora over nine thousand feet long.

EDIT:

Or even shortening to P, C and B for crossovers, for example (maybe)

[P&C] Bucky Ball collisions at .5c!
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30394
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu May 03, 2007 2:06 pm UTC

Aren't all chemistry topics technically chemistry and physics? And all biology topics technically biology, chemistry, and physics?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Thu May 03, 2007 4:21 pm UTC

But it would help declare the intent of the discussion - If people want to talk about how the human eye has developed upside down (or backwards, or soemthing) versus the octopus eye, they want to talk about that, not have a large discussion about how much carbon is in an eye versus a different piece of flesh.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
cmacis
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex
Contact:

Postby cmacis » Thu May 03, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.
li te'o te'a vei pai pi'i ka'o ve'o su'i pa du li no
Mathematician is a function mapping tea onto theorems. Sadly this function is irreversible.
QED is Latin for small empty box.
Ceci n’est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30394
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Thu May 03, 2007 5:45 pm UTC

But it would help declare the intent of the discussion - If people want to talk about how the human eye has developed upside down (or backwards, or soemthing) versus the octopus eye, they want to talk about that, not have a large discussion about how much carbon is in an eye versus a different piece of flesh.


I know, LE4d. I'm just being a dick. It happens.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Thu May 03, 2007 5:46 pm UTC

Or at least stop people putting things in science that doesn't belong in science.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
You, sir, name?
Posts: 6971
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
Location: Chako Paul City
Contact:

Postby You, sir, name? » Thu May 03, 2007 7:23 pm UTC

cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25555
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Thu May 03, 2007 8:09 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


No, that would be silly and circular.

Mathematicians just know they are mathematicians, and that they therefore have no need to delude themselves into thinking they're something "better". (As if such a concept isn't self-contradictory on its face.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Postby bbctol » Thu May 03, 2007 8:09 pm UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.

User avatar
The LuigiManiac
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am UTC
Location: Trapped in a hypothetical situation somewhere in Ontario...help?

Postby The LuigiManiac » Thu May 03, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

bbctol wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:
cmacis wrote:Just remember:

biologists think they are biochemists
biochemists think they are physical chemists
physical chemists think they are physicists
physicists think they are God...



and God? He thinks he's a mathematician.


What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.


So then, do D&Ders think they are biologists?
Spoiler:
THE CAKE IS A 3.141592653589...!

User avatar
cmacis
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex
Contact:

Postby cmacis » Thu May 03, 2007 8:16 pm UTC

If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.

Why would there need to be anything above maths? Even God wants to be a mathematician.
li te'o te'a vei pai pi'i ka'o ve'o su'i pa du li no

Mathematician is a function mapping tea onto theorems. Sadly this function is irreversible.

QED is Latin for small empty box.

Ceci n’est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby skeptical scientist » Thu May 03, 2007 9:54 pm UTC

bbctol wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:What the heck do mathematicians think they are, biologists?


Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.

Guilty as charged.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30394
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri May 04, 2007 12:16 am UTC

If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.


Or barbarians!
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Fri May 04, 2007 11:17 am UTC

Belial wrote:
If I understand D&D properly, they think they are wizards.


Or barbarians!


Pfft. Everyone knows Sorcerors is where it's at.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30394
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri May 04, 2007 2:46 pm UTC

Actually, judging by my play history, it's all about jungle druids with Raptor companions and all of the mounted combat feats.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Thu May 10, 2007 12:07 pm UTC

*Surrenders like a Frenchman*
<bakemaster> Only German Sausage can prevent forest fires
<felstaff> Hype is like a giant disappointment ray aimed squarely at the finished article.
<watson> Treat me like a criminal, Holmes!
TMT4L

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Postby Woxor » Thu May 10, 2007 3:27 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Mathematicians just know they are mathematicians, and that they therefore have no need to delude themselves into thinking they're something "better". (As if such a concept isn't self-contradictory on its face.)

Mathematicians find the axioms "I am a mathematician" and "I am not a mathematician" to be interesting in their own rights, with one being consistent if and only if the other is consistent, but of course most of them assume the former for most of their work.

miles01110
Posts: 611
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:39 pm UTC

Postby miles01110 » Thu May 10, 2007 3:32 pm UTC

bbctol wrote:Mathemiticians think they are D&Ders.


Nah, mathematicians think they are "cool." Oops, let one slip...

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 pm UTC

I would like to point out that it was in fact SpitValve who derailed my scientifically accurate and relevant mudkip on a scale on a spring.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Thu May 10, 2007 4:02 pm UTC

He herd u liek mudkips, and, well...what else is a man to do?
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gordon
Dr. Banana
Dr. Banana
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:51 am UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Gordon » Thu May 10, 2007 7:13 pm UTC

We've been trying to ween SV off the 'kip (as it's called on the streets) for some time, we're just looking to you all for support.
Meaux_Pas wrote:
RealGrouchy wrote:I still remember the time when Gordon left. I still wake up in the middle of the night crying and screaming his name.
I do that too, but for an entirely different reason.
RealGrouchy wrote:
Gordon wrote:How long have I been asleep?!
Our daughter is in high school now.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25555
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:37 am UTC

Added a request to let us know if you've solved HW problems.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby PhatPhungus » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:21 am UTC

Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?
__________
_____
__
_

sje46
Posts: 4729
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby sje46 » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:29 pm UTC

PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby PhatPhungus » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:08 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.
__________
_____
__
_

sje46
Posts: 4729
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby sje46 » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:59 am UTC

PhatPhungus wrote:
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.

I knew this actually, ha.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby PhatPhungus » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:01 am UTC

sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:
sje46 wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:Can I make a thread for the discussion of making things explode, or would that go better in FaiD?

Go to totse.


It's been down for over a month. Way to be insensitive.

Edit: Down as in gone forever.

I knew this actually, ha.


So now you're intentionally insensitive?
__________
_____
__
_

Mynd Ara
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby Mynd Ara » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:04 am UTC

are social sciences not included?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25555
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2008/12/22

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:09 am UTC

Pretty sure there's already a thread on the social sciences. So yes, they're included.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

xkcddckx
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:13 pm UTC

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby xkcddckx » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

is it just me, or does this thread topic remind anyone else of Bill Nye the Science Guy?

induswebi
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:44 am UTC

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby induswebi » Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:47 am UTC

I'm surprised there's not a (easily searchable) thread on this, since awesome teacher quotes seem to pop up a lot here. Anyhow, I think it's pretty clear what this is about, so I shall lead off with a funny story that happened today.

crates
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:42 pm UTC
Location: Essex, ON, Canada
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby crates » Tue May 31, 2011 1:49 pm UTC

I think there's a danger in thinking that science is actually more intelligent than it actually is. Remember that for 2000 years even every major scientific idea we've had turns out later to be inaccurate. Yes religion is stupid but a little humility goes a long, long way.

...and I quote.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid."
Last edited by crates on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25555
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 31, 2011 3:17 pm UTC

For 1500 of those 2000 years, no one was really doing science. And for the past 500, it's not so much that ideas have been proved wrong as they've been refined and improved upon.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Science Rules - Updated 2009/10/21

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:For 1500 of those 2000 years, no one was really doing science. And for the past 500, it's not so much that ideas have been proved wrong as they've been refined and improved upon.


*cough* luminiferous aether *cough*

Methinks the point is valid - the *successful* ideas have been refined and improved upon, but even the greatest scientific minds (or essentially the whole scientific community, in this example) have had some flat-out dead wrong ideas.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests