/sci/ - Science & Math

tl;dr

>>1733423
I Approve this post.

>>1733423

Just show us whatever bullshit idea you have with magnets so we can laugh at you.

Didn't I just read this.. In another thread? I hate to be that guy, but even /sci/ isn't a place to actually discuss anything. Anon is used for one thing, trolling. Take away the ability to identify/retaliate and all you get is a fucked up little child 95% of the time.

The things you do when no one is watching are what define you as a person. Everyone here would do well to think on that.

That said, OP ftw. Fuck the pessimists.

>>1733423
sci is only pessimistic when someone has a dumbfuck idea (meaning all of them)

Yes another post that bitches about /sci/

I hate these the most. At least the troll post are entertaining.

SAGE!

Science isn't disneyland. If you're crying about people not liking your ideas you're better off studying economics or something.

"Your fucking retarded, that idea will never work"

>Your fucking retarded

My fucking retarded what?

>Hey /sci/ check out my idea for perpetual motion
>/sci/: I doubt your design, prove to me that this set up will work and perhaps I will lend you my credibility.
>WHY U HATE ON ME /SCI???!!

I approve

Hell, the responses in this thread are a perfect example of exactly what he's talking about.

Total refusal to accept the possibility or relevance of the OP's assertion in any way/shape/form/fashion.

what do you want? Do you want me to consider someones idea even tho everything I learned in university tells me the idea came from someone that does not even have a rudimentary understanding about what he is talking about and sound as if he is a science fiction write?

>>1733473
ter

Bunnies for OP. 4chan, being 4chan, you need to expect the worst. If you post your ideas in /sci/ you need to be mentally prepared that some of your 'peer reviewers' are just trolling you. I wouldn't diss a seriously good idea. But poorly thought out ideas are fair targets for sarcasm assault. The world can do without more 'cold fusion' media debacles. These incidents would only undermine the credibility of science.

You OBVIOUSLY haven't seen the childish ideas that can't even get past the common sense barrier, let along ideas that require science and engineering to work out

>>1733473
Well, yeah. I mean, /sci/ is really only useful for thought experiments. And by considering it, you might just be able to put elements of that idea into use with other ideas.

Further, elevating those people, and explaining exactly why they are wrong is a hell of a lot better than, essentially, egging their cars.

I don't know if you have noticed, but science isn't really winning the good fight. Theres still massive distrust and raised eyebrows to us, and I think a big part of that is PR.

Why would you shrug of the ignorant when you can elevate them?

Ok, I understand guys, but why do I have to remind you not butthurt or a troll?

I have not put up some retarded idea and had it smashed, im pissed off that I still see OTHERS doing it.

OP, I couldn't of said it better myself.

Intelligence, on my 4chan?!

BLASPHEMY!!

>>1733423
this thread is illogical and breaks 99% of all the law of physics. Go fuck yourself OP

>>1733423
> Your fucking retarded, that idea will never work
> Your fucking retarded
> Your

Try studying some grammar. It's easier than science.

I refuse to blow sunshine up the ass of some retarded 12 year old. /x/ is the board for bullshit fantasy /v/ and /lit/ are good boards for your great science fiction story. In case you hadn't noticed there are trolls here; don't be too surprised when you get insulted about your fucked up planetX is a neutron star theory, or other any bullshit idea that pops into your tiny brain.
Having said that I often see thoughtful replys to crazy ideas.

>>1733608
And that is why Science is better off without you.

"If at first, the idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it." -- Albert Einstein

read the first bit and this is my response:

We say shit won't work because, and I want to make this quite clear, IT WON'T WORK. People post stupid ideas with no understanding of the material they're dealing with and you get butthurt because we don't want to launch in to a detailed explanation of why exactly it won't work.

>>1733632
Disregarded your ideas, clung to my own

Why don't you just talk to a mirror and save yourself some time?

I think you just need to deal with it

don't like /sci/? Why the fuck are you here?

>>1733439


This. Science isn't Disneyland.

There's a great difference between an ambitious concept, and plain impossible. One has to realize that you can't compare modern day scientific knowledge with the old days when people actually claimed that the human body cannot bear speeds over 35m/h. We are lucky enough to live out the dawn of technology; the time when man has actually set foot on another world, and sent ambassadors (the Voyager missions) outside the very solar system itself. Picture related, glorious.

This is the age when we know about nature more than ever. The age, when we have studied these known things to the greatest possible extent. Although there is more to discover, oh so much more, we've established the actually plausible quite well.

For instance, time travel. A violation of the conservation of mass, and other theories too. While we have no way of knowing whether in the future science has developed some freakish manner of bending the very laws of nature, it's unlikely.

As far as I'm concerned, science all but denies the possibility of the most ludicrous theories, such as telekinesis.

If we can't rely on the science to establish 'possible' and 'impossible' what else do we have to turn to?

>>1733514
Says the sandnigger.

tl;dr

>freavar presents

Blunt remarks are the hallmark of a good scientist. Take your bullshit theory IRL to a university physicist and see how long it takes to have the door slammed in your face.

>>1733630
This is literally the most ridiculous and inane Einstein quote I've seen on this board.

Waaahh, when I break the laws of physics /sci/ tells me i'm wrong ;_;

>>1733670
Blunt remarks are hallmark of a good scientist...? I think you're confusing unhelpful elitism with scientific competence.

http://www.mycoted.com/Creativity_Quotes

thanks OP, i won't let these assholes take my dreams away from me. pic related

OP. /sci/ is just full of Wernstroms.

holy shit....CAPTCHA: Odgen. frensal

>>1733655

well said bro

Science is supposed to be open, intellectual, and aware of its limitations, but some of the egos it produces rival the Dark Ages church.

People shit their "superior" knowledge all over the place like exorcists did before them. The illusion of absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely.

>>1733895
You can think of science as a language.
Imagine someone comes up to you and starts shouting gibberish, you tell them you don't understand and walk away, after many confrontations with people shouting gibberish at you, you tell them to piss off. Then their friend approaches you and says they were talking in toungues and tells you that you are an ignorant arrogant asshole for not paying attention. OP is being that friend.

> We do science and math here, did you know that? Your pessimism in the field of optimism and creativity is unwelcome, undesirable and disruptive to the cause.

No it is not. Lern 2 Science Theory. Scientists will always defend the status quo because that has been achieved through tested methods and is reliable.

If a radical idea completely opposes the previously established knowledge, scientists are not supposed to embrace that idea.
Instead it is YOUR job to create a repeatable experiment which can (partially) prove that your hypothesis stands.

If your hypothesis survives peer review and your results can be reproduced, you can be damn sure that your theory will be defended like the stuff people defended before you.

>>1733956
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy

>>1733975
all data is equal whether it be status quo or not. Real skepticism should acknowledge this if not then there is no telling it apart from dogmatic belief and belief, as I understand it, is quite antithetical to the philosophy of the skeptic.

>>1734058
also if the skeptic does choose to misconstrue their position with a new dialectic of dogma they only compromise the themselves and the people to whom they share information with by supporting the familiar as opposed to the progressive which is antithetical to scientific understanding and actually, most of all, is rather fascist in nature.

Confirming troll thread.

I an idea is retarded then we won't be able to make it somehow fly just because of OPTIMISM!

Idiots, every single one of you.

>>1734077
optimism also doesn't build ballistics.

keep the politically inspired bullshit coming

>>1734058
>all data is equal whether it be status quo or not

Exactly. Data. Which is gathered in re-produceable experiments. Awarding any nice hypothesis the same credibility as tested (not blindly believed in) theories is not skepticism but idiocy.