Leaderboard

Not sure if my question fits here, but hi, i'm a student currently taking up a project on producing bacterial cellulose from rotten fruit waste. Does anyone have advice on how to prove that the cellulose formed by the Acetobacter Xylinum is indeed bacterial cellulose? My team has difficulty finding an easy method to prove this point. HPLC column is not available for us. Many thanks in advance.

"Virtually all Senate Democrats running in Trump states who voted against Brett Kavanaugh were defeated" Why let facts spoil a good headline?

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? You like to use sarcasm a lot and I'm not sure if this is it or not. Basically, write it out in crayon for me. Preferably with pictures of animals too. Something simple.

that's my point - 'the enemy'? You are all citizens of the same country - we all share the same world.... we should be talking about solutions to problems not pointing out enemies amongst your own to demonise and vilify imo unless they are an actual threat. It is sad... and I mean the 'boo hoo' type of sad.... it is shameful and disheartening that the world is so backward that we find and make enemies everywhere rather than work together for the common good of mankind. for example - If Clinton was guilty - why isn't she locked up now? If she was innocent - where is the outrage at false accusations and campaign cheating (by lying about crimes committed that didn't happen)? - it is just normalised and expected.... which leads to the shame of the people that fall for such disgusting debating tactics imo.

Agreed. It's one of the downsides of a two party system. Once the two parties have been established everyone thinks they know what both parties want, so the parties can then proceed to attack their opponent and instill as much fear as possible into the voters without ever having to even touch on policy. The last three elections, 2014, 2016, 2018 were won(and lost) in my opinion not because one side was massively more popular, but because the other side simply convinced their voters that if the enemy won it was all over.

Because they listen to and believe the toxic rambling lies of the opposition campaign?

As far as I'm concerned, this is another case of the USA having ludicrous law in place. How can a 13 year old child be considered to have given civil or criminal consent? It's making a joke of the law. He can't legally consent for criminal purposes, but he can for civil purposes. The law is a joke. If you are going to say that a 16 year old girl is under age for sex, then she can't consent either. If the legislators think that 13 and 16 year olds can be held responsible, then they should be lowering the age of consent. At present, the message is "you can't consent, unless it is going to cost us money, in which case, you did consent". Ludicrous.

He's not making it up; it is actually part of physics, and you are merely unaware of it. This is neither bullying nor harassment, and as you are obviously not a physicist, it is preventing nothing from being done. If you weren't so confident about things you don't know, you might actually be learning something.

They don't prevent it. The Uranium or Plutonium pieces are separated into subcritical masses. It's only after they are combined that you have neutron multiplication to larger numbers. Same with the initiator. The alpha source and the beryllium are not kept next to each other. Geometry ensures they produce an insignificant neutron flux before the bomb is set off.

Sum of rest-masses of Helium-4 and free neutron is smaller than sum of rest-masses of Tritium and Deuterium. So they can fuse together. They just need to overcome Coulomb's Barrier. Yes. Very fast moving particle will hit surrounding it medium, decelerate, and give away part of its kinetic energy to particles which it hit on its path (which means they will also being accelerated after collision) (and eventually ionization, disintegration, or pair-production of matter-antimatter etc. etc. can happen). That's what we see in Cloud Chambers - the more particle has kinetic energy, the longer is particle trace. Particles which weakly interact with matter, such as neutrinos or antineutrinos, don't have many collisions with matter, so don't leave traces. They require more sophisticated methods of detection.

The Cantor set can be described as the set of points left over in the closed interval [0,1] after successively removing the middle third open subset of every remaining interval. Then each removed set has the form (m/3^n,(m+1)/3^n). It leaves endpoints m/3^n and (m+1)/3^n. These are rational. Since \(\mathbb{Q}\) is countable, so is the set of endpoints.

Expansion of *space* The theoretical predictions were made nearly 100 years ago. They were first confirmed a few years later and have been repeatedly confirmed to greater accuracy many times since. That is why the Big Bang model is accepted.

That or the blue wave got a little off course and flattened out on a shoal before getting to the shore...

Knowing is having high confidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon Above is a good description. note that the primary fuel for the fusion us Li6 which generates H3, which fuses.

Yes.

One problem here is that building one speculation on top of another is not really a legitimate way to proceed. (Also, I don't see the difference between the atom absorbing the photon and the electron "receiving" the photon and sharing the energy and momentum, especially with no model or explanation of what this means, and what the ramifications are.) Why would a photon interact in any way with a particle that does not interact electromagnetically? Photons are thought to be able to scatter with neutrinos, but AFAIK that's because of electroweak coupling.

Regardless of your intent, there’s a lot of biased thinking embedded in these questions. Just because some humans have more melanin in their skin does not mean they are different in the ways you suggest. We’re all far more alike than not, and all of us share various bits of DNA and common ancestry. You seem to be working from stereotypes and assuming things about physicality that (if present at all) are better explained by remembering how slave owners selected and bred slaves for specific characteristics. If certain strengths are more common (which I challenge as likely untrue), then it’s not about skin color at all but is about horrid decisions made on plantations about who could and could not have children. There’s also clear confirmation bias in your specific ideas. Either way, this is one of those threads that is going to rub lots of people wrong and likely won’t stay open long. I’m pretty understanding and it rubs me wrong. Suggest you focus first on the historical origins question. To that end, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history#African_origins

Again, Let's try and make this as simple as possible.... [1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. They are a prediction and tool of the quantum theory as first proposed by Richard Feynman. The experiments conducted so far, including the Casimir Effect, support their application. Hawking Radiation is also an effect that requires virtual particle pairs, as do other areas of quantum theory. If you have any evidence why any of that or the links I have given are wrong, then its about time you presented it.

It would be if implied that the broad public support was real, and not on the regimes disallowance of free speech.

The only thing you're clear on is that you'll immediately reach for the absurd cliched strawman. Rather than whining about my "tone", how about you check your integrity?

I'm not a troll, how dare you. Quite obviously this is an echo chamber of pseudoscientific Marxists.

So you can see that strawman and name calling is about the level of science you'll get when it comes to human differences, on this website. Just before I get banned I'd like to point out that race is based on shared ancestry like any other taxa. So we'll leave these pretend scientists to circle jerk their PC fantasy. On PBS? *facepalm* That's a media corporation owned by Jewish commies that hires commie pseudoscientists to present their crap to hoodwink the white goyim masses, isn't it? Note how they all single out *white people*. Most of them are non-whites, living in white countries. Quite obviously commie demoralisation and invasion tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

if the elements of this reaction are there, there is no reason why it stops at a simple unicellular. the knowledge of the ancients is not primitive it sometimes exceeds our current technology

You may consider snarkiness cute but it is actually disrespectful to people living in North Korea. They suffer under a brutal regime and if one criticizes Kim Jung-un it could result in the death of not only themselves but their families. Because of that fact it is not possible to discern how people in North Korea feel about their govt. You understand this but are still choosing to use their plight sarcastically for a cheap comeback. It is ugly behavior and fails to address the issues raised you are attempting a respond to. I provided real information and you agree Republicans have gerrymandered the system. Point proved. I never stated to what degree. It varies by locality. Ultimately there isn't an acceptable degree so you can stop attempting to frame it in more palatable light. More ugly behavior.

I never said virtual particles were discovered, and gravitational waves have actually been discovered. The affects of them are only seen indirectly, and they are only theorized to exist to influence and create other real particles that are observed. I don't see why you seem to have been under the impression that I have been saying otherwise. I just completely changed my position on it from what I said earlier. It is just as possible for random particle pairs to actually be an undiscovered Higgs-like boson. The ability of the Higgs boson, to emit photons, was not discovered yet at the time these virtual particles were even believed to exist. It is the same way they discover particles in the first place, in this type of situation. They see light coming from something, and they make a framework to describe it as other particles, virtual or real. Obviously, whatever they detected to be random particle pairs hasn't been completely explained yet, from the apparent violation of conservation of energy. A Higgs-like boson could allow for conservation to be maintained.

Then it appears that I have backed you into a corner, and you are willing to make up your own science to just make yourself sound correct to everyone else in a science forum. I really think it is a shame that online bullying is preventing any real work in modern science from being able to be done by this form of harassment. I think you are really missing the point, and I am NOT trying to use this example as a tool to discredit quantum theory. You may have encountered a lot of people like that before, but you need to learn to get over it. You are basically allowing me to bring this subject area into pseudoscience now by showing you how you are contradicting yourself and you not being able to identify an answer which assumes you were always correct.