Leaderboard

Out there, just out there...

Recognize anyone ?

Biggest problem with all versions of cyclic cosmologies is the fact that entropy has to be 'reset' to the low initial state. One mechanism proposed by R Penrose with Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is that all particles have to eventually decay. And while a proton decay is possible ( even with other theories ) after more than 1032 years, the decay of fundamental fermions is a lot tougher to come to grips with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Let's say you woke this morning and found a space shback yard. For the sake of argument (all you Star Trek fans know what i am, talking about) it's the Delta Flyer. The door is open and when you walk in it tells you it will take you anywhere you want. Where would you go first?

Lime and garlic salt works really well, if you have something to bind it together. Like in a sauce, rather than just seasoning. Often the tomato delivers enough acidity though a sprinkle of light vinegar or citrus can brighten it up. Or you can make it denser with aceto balsamico.

That's a shame, they have obviously taken them down very recently. I went to the website and copy/pasted the link in from my address bar make my last post. Edit No they are still there try again, though 1 has gone awol. (I see I somehow lost an R) http://www.umsl.edu/~chickosj/c365/lectureNMR2.pdf

It depends on at least two things. First, the endpoint measurement. I.e. how did you determine a positive event. If a trial consists of regular testing of even asymptomatic folks your final infected cohort will contain cryptic infections. If you only measure symptomatic cases, your study will ignore those. I do think that the trials are likely only focusing on symptomatic events and are therefore comparable (but I could be wrong). The second issue is that the number may be derived from a differently sized infection cohort. If you only have very few infected folks the numbers you get can be highly biased. Therefore any efficacy measurement with a small cohort is unreliable. There are therefore target numbers that the study has to hit, which given infection rates turn out not to be a problem. For rarer diseases this can lead to very long trials. Yes that is the basic idea. You create two cohorts that typically are similar in composition (to avoid bias) and then let them out in the wild and see what happens. The Null hypothesis is that after some time both groups should have similar infection rates if the vaccine does not do anything. What folks hope to see is that among the (much smaller) infected group, we see disparity between treatment and control. The big challenge is to get enough folks infected and there is a risk of confounding factors leading to who gets infected in the first place. The idea is then that both (control and vaccinated group) are similar enough to each other to cancel that out. That is potentially not always the case. Just as a random example, it is possible that the vaccine does not work for elderly female Asian folks (for some reasons). But since so few are in either group we have no information about that.

Thank you very much Now I know, what I seen under microscope. Amazing.

Europa

You have posted in the chemistry section and also asked about the implications for drug molecules. So physical properties such as optical rotation of polarisation are not important here. We are looking at chemical properties. This is important because we are no longer talking about one molecule here but two or more molecules and the effect on their (chemical) interaction. This is the significance you were seeking. Enantiomers arise when the configuration of a molecule is such that it is chiral or posseses 'handedness'. The left and right handed versions are called enantiomers. One is the enantiomer of the other. Since we are talking about at least two different molecules for a chemical reaction, we must recognise that either or both can be chiral and possess two enantiomers. I will call the first molecule the reagent molecule and the second the environment molecule. So with a chiral reagent we have two situations: A chiral reagent and a non chiral environment : Fig1 A chiral reagent and a chiral environment : Fig2 I hope you understand the 3D notation for the configuration of the molecules ask if you do not. I suggest you use sensei's models if you have access to them or make your own with potatoes and cocktail sticks. You will see that the functional groups on the enantiomers of the different molecules line up differently for a chiral environment, so will react differently. but for a non chiral environment both reagent enantiomers line up the same so will react the same.

Easy, Pluto and it's five moons Always been fascinated by this mysterious dwarf planet. Next stop Titan.

I'd go to the closest earth like planet* and compare note's. *size, age and conditions.

If con is the opposite of pro, then isn’t Congress the opposite of progress?

Saturn seen from Titan amidst lakes and rivers of methane.

I love to go to the moon and see how our earth is visible..I've seen our earth amazingly nice in files and other documentaries. I've been reaming of seeing it really with my own eyes sometimes ago

I agree with Sensei. Get a model kit or even just some tooth picks and blu tack. Make something with four different substituents and make its mirror image, then try and rotate the mirror image so that it is identical to the first molecule. You’ll find that it doesn’t work because they are not superimposable. If you repeat the process but with two substituents that are the same, you should find that you can rotate them to look identical (hence it is not chiral). The example you gave doesn’t work since by your own logic, the two mirror images are superimposable.

One would need to look at the full report to see what kind of measure was used. A typical design would involve self-monitoring for symptoms and participants will be regularly called to see how they are doing. So unless they specifically monitored for asymptomatic cases (which would increase complexity of the trial and I suspect is somewhat unlikely), it is more likely the reported cases are symptomatic ones. In other words, among the whole cohort we find 5% of folks having symptoms (and then tested) despite being vaccinated and the remaining infected folks only had the placebo. The overall cohort was only 30k people and while they try to be representative of the population, it also means that we will only have limited data regarding who has been infected and why. There are also other considerations, e.g. whether folks getting sick while vaccinated may have a much higher exposure than the rest. Also, one thing to consider is that, assuming the vaccine acts as promised, it basically means they do not get sick. However, it does not mean that they may not get infected and perhaps even spread the disease. I suspect that many folks will believe that once vaccinated they are immune and can get everywhere, but I hope it will be communicated that they still need to keep their distance from unvaccinated folks. Often, vaccinations will reduce the viral titer sufficiently to only pose a problem in rare cases. However, with this disease we simply do not know.

Get a ball'n'stick box and remake two compounds with different chirality. It will visualize you the difference. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/organic-chemistry/stereochemistry-topic/chirality-r-s-system/v/chiral-achiral-jay

My apologies if I've given you that impression. Science, and Physics in particular, is almost as exact as mathematics. Physicists don't usually go on 'flights of fancy' and say things like ... because you haven't proposed a mechanism, or reason, for this to happen. It is simply a WAG. Planck denotes scale. It can be compared to a descriptor like 'centi' or 'kilo'. A Planck unit of length implies it is measured at the Planck scale, and related to other Planck scale units ( of time, energy, mass, etc. ). Do you understand now, what I mean by Physics is very exact ? To a Physicist, what you said is meaningless. Not just 'unlikely'. It is an ill-posed question akin to asking "What happens when you move faster than the speed of light ?". As far a Physics is concerned, that is impossible. Just as impossible as introducing enough energy into the universe fo fill all of it with massive particles. Any answer I could possibly give you will not be based on known Physics, but will be based on my 'imagination' or a WAG. Similarly, any answers you get from Ghideon, Area54 or Swansont, will be totally different, and based on their 'imaginations'. So what you are really doing here, is not real science, but 'imaginary science', or guessing, otherwise known as science fiction. Hope I've clarified my comments enough so that you don't perceive them as aggressive . Maybe take Zapatos' comments seriously, and tighten up the conditions of your thought experiment, so that you can get meaningful results from the resulting discussion.

I agree. I think my question was not clear; I mean more a chain of dialog contexts* spanning over several turns. Assuming parsing user input and calling backend bot logic is taken care of, what is a good way to draw the conclusion that the user is discussing the same topic or has moved on to a new topic? Example: The user has added items to basket and wish to pay. The dialogue moves on to handle checkout. In checkout it may be more likely that the user will ask about deliveries than about items in the stock and the bot may learn that to allow for better predictions. I have used similar things in some frameworks but the implementation was blackbox. As Zak seems to try to start more from scratch your opinion on implementations could be interesting. I also note that this topic is huge and the research is ongoing. Prototypes I did last year is probably obsolete by now. Your examples are pretty narrow and this is a huge topic. Maybe you could start by designing more generally what the chatbot will handle? Because the answer is different if the bot is concentrating on more specific tasks than if the bot is capable of general help. For instance you seem to assign the entity "fee" with possible synonyms "pay" and "dept" to an intent like payment.cant-afford. That implies that you have already assumed that the student only asks about issues with the ability to pay. But the student could use pay and fee and dept in other intents. Examples payment.how-do-I, payment.how-often and many others. *) AKA topics in some frameworks(?)

Trump 2024 "Make America Grate Again!"

Have a look here: https://einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/index.php/dictionary/25-christoffel-symbol Essentially, the Christoffel symbols (of the 2nd kind) tell you how the components of your basis vectors in a given coordinate system change as you move around a manifold. If you want to define a concept of a covariant derivative - which by definition needs to be consistent everywhere on the manifold -, you need to compensate for this change, which is why the Christoffel symbols appear in the definition of the covariant derivative.

While this "Wall of Fire: has a high temp, you have to understand the difference between temperature and heat content. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles. Heat content is the total of the KE of the particles in a given volume. Thus a volume that contains a lot of low temp particles can have a larger heat content than an equal volume with higher temp, but fewer particles. Now while articles have described this wall as being of a "high density", this is meant relative to the normal solar wind density of a few particles per cubic centimeter. This a much better vacuum that can be achieved by man on Earth by several magnitudes. This "thick wall" off plasma is a not that much less of a vacuum. To melt a comet you need to add a fair amount of heat energy to it, and even at such a high temperature, this plasma has nowhere near the total heat content per cubic meter to do this.

Had pasta ( rotini ) in a tomato/meat sauce with Parm and chili flakes sprinkled on top, for supper. It certainly was a good idea; for real, not a thought experiment.

Just doing quick mental calculations ... Mercury solidifies at a pressure of 14 Kilobar, which is approx. 14000 standard atms. That is equivalent to approx. 420 000 in of Mercury, which is 35 000 ft, or approx. 6.5 miles. IOW your hypothetical planet would have a Mercury 'sea', 6.5 miles deep, surrounding a solid orb of Mercury. Not sure about Gallium, as it expands when 'frozen' ( like water ).

Three of those images imply too much power in the wrong place. The other is a horse.

This could be hard proof of tunneling for macroscopic objects...

I don't care; I still want a History forum. I ( and CharonY ) are constantly having to sneak in historical tidbits into other forums. Please, please, please.please, ...

OK, but I have to question J Biden's judgement... Is it really considered good manners/respectful to tell the POTUS to "shut up" ?

Dandelions and Homo are genetically similar enough to be connected, but that doesn't mean that either is descended from the other. It just means we share a common ancestor at some point. The more recent that common ancestor, the closer we are related to a thing.

Baning one or closing his topic without letting his answer is not a good behavior for a group of people who are scientific brothers together! Such as religious brothers! Specially in a scientific forum!!! The member John Cothber and me were debating based on Algorithm/Logic! I quoted that for debating/discussing We have to reference to one of: 1-Experience, 2-Knowledge Or both Otherwise we aren't anything but the fool. He brought an example that he claims is king of china. Well, Am i a Chinese!??? Nope. Have I ever gone to china??? Nope. Am i a follower of events of the china that maybe he has been the king of china or not!??? Nope. Therefore i am not allowed to deny his claim! Well, but if one have one or two of the above, for example he says: Nope! You aren't! The onus will be on him to refer a source for his denying! And he says bcz of i am a chinese man and aware that who is the king of my country! It about the Experience. And or he says: "i am a political/businesMan and aware that the king of china is another man!" Then he in continue can reply: "but I has been the king since few minutes ago and you aren't aware!" Or about the lilliput lands that he claimed and nobody is allowed to deny that without having gone there or having opposite knowledge about that! For example the same size of the universe; We aren't allowed deny that while we haven't ever gone around that and see its correctness or not! I debate/discuss by Algorithm and it's not against the science!

Hi 2 all non-fool[open-minded] people. Well, We proved that we aren't allowed deny any saying while we haven't had any source/reason for our denying Source/Reason = Experience or Knowledge/Study Otherwise we aren't anything but the fool! Well, We have a narration about Races in the Torah and we aren't allowed deny that while research and find any opposing source against that! Well, But we researched and found an opposing source! And this tells us: Ham: 1. All Blacks of the earth Japheth: 1. Gog 2. Magog 3. Slavs 4. Turks 5. Chineses Shem: 1. Jews 2. Arabs 3. Persians 4. Germans 5. Japanese 6. Koreans 7. Everybody but Hamitics and Japhethic.... Well, Our discussion here will be about difference between Knowledge of Races and Racism! In my analysis/researches/experiences the Race is a start point and it's not insurance for being a good person! Exactly such as a group of cars that match for a rally, We all know that the cars of Germany, Italy, Japan, USA are the better than those of Korea, France, England... and these are better than those of Turkey, China... etc... But it's the Driver that makes a car Champion! For the same reason we know some people are from the better races and their morality will be lesser than some people who are from the worst races! But according to my own experience, those weak races mostly have very lower IQs than those greaters as you see in their Technologies/Advanced Source: Do you have any opposing source? Bring!