Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/07/18 in all areas

  1. I believe children are better served....pardon the pun...with an all fruit and no veggie diet rather than the other way around. My nephew is a fruitarian and he does triathlons and set swimming and track records in school. Any vitamin deficiency your kids incur from eating a diet bereft of veggies can easily be rectified by taking some of those specialized kids gummi vitamins that are specifically cocktailed for veggie hating children. Besides...so poor is the nutrition state of most store bought veggies these days! Mostly from the depletionbof nutrition the played about soils they're grown in. Veggies are mainly now only good for fiber. Anything else they have..or used to have...you can glean from fruits.
    1 point
  2. Oh no! We got those in the wrong order. I'll file a bug report on our scheduling code...
    1 point
  3. This is the way I was thinking, and I don't have alligators. Tell you the truth, I think an alligator would be more potentially fatal to me on dry land than a bull moose, but it would scare me more to know the moose was in the vicinity. Is it the height? I'd be looking down on the alligator, but the moose would be looking down on me. Waaaaay down. Many folks tend to think of the nastiest places to meet up when they think of large predators (cornered by a lion, surrounded by a pack of dogs, in the water with a gator or shark, between mama bear and her cub, etc), but our high intelligence allows us to avoid many dangers just by staying away from encounters like that, or by taking major precautions. We can also tend to invest some of our human traits in animals, imagining them to be tenacious, unrelenting, vengeful critters. Very few animals besides humans are willing to die for anything, and none are willing to do so on principal alone.
    1 point
  4. It’s a fluke but you actually got that right. Unfortunately the rest of what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.
    1 point
  5. That would be quite a feat, as rattlesnakes are native to the Americas. You know, the continent where you generally do not find elephants. Even then, adult rattlesnakes have fangs up to ~15 mm which would not even pierce most of the elephant's skin, especially around the legs. The most venomous ones have fangs about half that size. But even if we assume a direct injection in a vunerable of the most lethal rattlesnake venom, we would need ~0.03 mg/kg to reach LD50 (i.e. concentration where 50% of injected mice die). For subcutaneous injection (which arguably would be more likely) we would go an order of magnitude higher. Of course these are only approximations, as the scale is massively different from the models for LD measurements, but it is the closest we can get. If we take the smallest elephants (African forest elephant, Loxodonta cyclotis) at a weight of ~2,700 kg, we would need 81 mg to reach LD50. The total amount milked from e.g. the Mohave rattlesnake amounts to ~150 mg, so even if completely extracted we could at most inject two elephants with levels close to LD50 (and statistically one may die). Alternatively, a single lethal dosage for one elephant might be reached (though a bit difficult to tell as the these are not linear functions). However, you specified per bite. Although the snake can adjust the dosage, the average bite delivers ~8% of the total stored venom, so that would bring us to ~12 mg. Enough to kill a human, but quite lower than the estimated LD50 for elephants. Even worse, you specified baby rattle snakes, which have a much shorter fang and also far less venom, meaning that even fully milked they are likely unable to kill even a single elephant from the smallest available species (even with intravenous injection). So even under the most charitable assumptions it is fair to assume that the proposed "research" is quite inadequate. Not to mention that I have no idea what the purpose of the argument is.
    1 point
  6. Hubble still doing work http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1809/
    1 point
  7. So if any life is present on WASP-107b we can assume they speak in high pitch voices.
    1 point
  8. Yes, I know. Let me know when you hit half a million. Citation?
    1 point
  9. To be honest, I wouldn't call them complex. Adamantane, and the tetramethyl derivative in the stamp, is a product found in crude oil, if that helps. It is a caged hydrocarbon of the diamondoid family. I will look up the other compound tomorrow. I'm sure it has some significance beyond it simply having aromatic rings and ether groups. You could also attempt to contact the artists themselves. I'm sure they would know.
    1 point
  10. Citation needed. His favorability has been around 40-41% for months, and these polls typically have statistical uncertainties of a few percent. Plus, some polls have a poorer track record because of biases that are not removed. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
    1 point
  11. I don't know about that being the best way. It really depends on context / what information you want to relay. Detailed structural characteristics are probably not useful to most non-scientists, who likely wouldn't know how to interpret the jargon.
    1 point
  12. Yes, the ball and stick model. I am not sure that molecule specifically is used for anything in particular, but adamantane and its derivatives have many uses, from drug compounds (amantadine, eg), to catalyst systems, to making dendrimers. My group has published reviews on the first two. The vertical molecule looks like PET, yes. I couldn't call the horizontal molecule a polymer. It also can't be given an exact name as part of the molecule is undefined (the -OR group). It is some sort of biphenyl compound, containing several ether linkages.
    1 point
  13. I don't know exactly what it is by looking at it, but my immediate thought is that it does give the appearance of something that might be used as a liquid crystal. I would have to check SciFinder to know for sure. The other molecule on there is 1,3,5,7-tetramethyladamantane, if you were interested.
    1 point
  14. Huh? Welcome to the 16th century. It might come as a surprise to you, but for several hundred years we have known that, in fact, the Earth orbits the Sun. Then you need to demonstrate, quantitatively that your idea predicts the observed motions of galaxies in clusters and the velocity curves in galaxies. Can you do that? You also need to show how it explains all the other evidence for dark matter (gravitational lensing, large structure formation, etc.) Without this, all you have is a worthless idea. There are thousands of those. So far no theory that modifies gravity matches the evidence. You need to demonstrate that yours does before anyone will take it seriously. I think you need to provide a reference. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about: maybe you misunderstood what you read or you could just be making it up. Nope.
    1 point
  15. Actually, its alcohol withdrawal that kills them. it's because they're alcoholics. without alcohol
    1 point
  16. You can't discount evidence just because it doesn't support your belief. Papers were put forward by several groups anyways. Whole slew of people were looking into it. Have you looked at the n-body problem any? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
    1 point
  17. Let's put it this way: the Relativistic Doppler shift only depend on the relative velocity difference between the source at the time of emission and the receiver at the time of reception. For example, if the source is moving at 0.5 c relative to you at the time of emission, but you accelerate up to 0.5 in that same direction just before the light reaches you, you will measure no Doppler shift because relative velocity difference between you at reception and the source at transmission is 0. However, with cosmological red-shift we are dealing with the geometric expansion of space between the time of emission and reception. This stretches the light waves. So lets; say there was zero expansion of the universe at the moment of emission, then during some period between emission and reception there is some expansion. the light wave will share this expansion. Now the expansion stops before reception so that it is zero again. However, this does not mean that the light wave reverts to it original length. For that to happen, there would have to been a contraction of the universe. This means that you the observer will measure the red-shift caused by this period of expansion even though it no longer exists a the time of reception. So to put it simply, Relativistic Doppler shift only depends on the relative velocity difference between emission and reception ( You could change your velocity to many times while the light it traveling towards you, but the only thing that counts is your velocity at the moment of reception.) Cosmological red-shift is dependent on what occurs during the entire period that the light is traveling and not just the conditions at the "end points".
    1 point
  18. Everyone forgets about the poor Neanderthals.
    1 point
  19. And again, a small difference is still a difference. I can get my Nitrogen for free, so there is no added expense or effort on my part. The TPMS sensors in the valve stems came out once I started running Continental run flats. And the comment about you getting over yourself ( for which I should apologize, but won't ) is certainly not related to your knowledge/intelligence, but rather your condescending arrogance. In the time that I've been a member here, you've managed to nit-pick fights/arguments with quite a few of the members I consider most reasonable and level headed. Maybe telling others that they should not be posting on a science site is the wrong approach for passing on your knowledge.
    1 point
  20. Alrighty then, it's settled.
    1 point
  21. If you mean anthropogenic global warming, then there are myriad tons of opinion in support of it and near to no persuasive evidence in support of it. What is certain is that Earth has been through catastrophic cooling repeatedly and the consistent, significant warming which followed the most recent glacial period has been so beneficial that human progress has unprecedented, though there have been well-document iterations prior to the most recent. Given that, which do you prefer, the warming I've just described or a return to huge glaciers on top of your heads?--some oscillation around some pleasant medium being an option akin to fantasy?
    1 point
  22. Not just religious - specifically Christian. I was having my morning coffee a few weeks ago and noticed the TV was set to a Muslim show. Instead of preaching, the Imam put down the Quran and gave his audience a (very good) lecture on global warming.
    1 point
  23. I think you may agree with me that it is more than important. It is essential. If one does not follow that route then one is not entitled to call oneself a scientist.
    1 point
  24. If you say so... Lets not play silly buggers. Sounds kinda religious...
    -1 points
  25. I edited the post to remove the redundancy just moments before you posted your response. However as to the second question, I'm pretty sure a ten year old with reasonably average intelligence could answer the question, unequivocally.
    -1 points
  26. The granular coordinate system made from this geometric process forms a unified field, that is, an aether that waves through all particles. Unlike observable or experimentally measurable fields in mainstream affine gauge theories, this aether field coordinate system remains three dimensional beneath the Planck length where additional energy can be stored, masquerading as virtual particle states. This geometric process built upon iterations of a Koch snowflake can be graphed & carried out for an angstrom divided by a Planck length of iterations by exascale computers, or memristers if you don't wish to waste enormous amounts of energy on these micro world sheets. This aether field should produce particles whose trajectories match that of those randomly generated by any modern mainstream field theory only these will be sphere-like particles in which the aether waves, with this aether being a scattering of these particles mirroring the virtual particle state. Tesla's model of gravity adds energy, as does other models of gravitational electromagnetism, and sonoluminousense. This one defines the underlying mechanisms. Replace the words time dilation with time contraction, and vice versa. The speed of light slows by the rate at which time contracts, and speeds up by the at which it dilates ratrate
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.