AndresKiani

Man taking this Physics class.. I'm just loving every intricacy. There is a beauty I seen in it like no other comparable , when I'm learning Kinematics for the first time and I realize how I can describe motion mathematically, or the fashion in which the concepts of physics interpret the universe for the way she is as abstract as she is in an patternistic, simple, and proportional manner. I love how we take impossibly complex problems and solve them by breaking them down into simple kinematics.

I'm definitely in the right science. The discipline of physics is so magnificently beautiful.

Thank you. I'm getting into those videos. I'll also definitely turn to you guys for further understanding.

I have to also admit I've never taken Calculus level math. Though I'm concurrently going to take College Physics (Thank God I finally manage to take it) and Calculus 1 together.

I'm a little worried, should I be? I've never taken a Calculus class and this will be my first Physics class.

What are all the forms of factoring that I need to master?

Where is greatest common denominator used as oppose to least common denominator?

What is the difference between Greasiest common denominator as oppose to greatest common factor?

I need to master this. I want to master this.

Do philosophers every make any positive contributions in science? I've thought about this, and I figure that philosophers usually don't ask many worthwhile or even relevant questions that which are any use in science.

What is your thought on that ajb.

no, this was your victory over the self.

you won.

Lol yeah.

 

Science careers are not determined by the actual "degree" you get. In reality there are very few hard lines regarding any of these subjects. My bachelors was in Agronomy and my phd is in biology. My actual expertise is in genetics and genomics with strong computational emphasis. However, I also have a long history in molecular biology and biochemistry. I could get a job in biochemistry without a biochemistry degree. I could get a job in plant biology, biochemistry, genetics, biology, cell biology....etc.

 

The simple fact is that these "subjects" are the byproducts of history. At one time, the methods and knowledge required to be a geneticist was very different than that of a biochemist or a zoologist. Now, biochemistry is typically a required course in many biology departments, biology courses in many biochemistry departments. I took 5 semesters of chemistry as an Agronomy major. Regardless of what department you do a PhD in, your research may require you to do any of these subjects. I know biochemistry PhDs who do more molecular biology and genetics than actual "biochemistry" and "biology" PhDs who do more biochemistry than many in the biochemistry department. The hard lines/methods have broken down. What is important is less the specific degree than what you do with it, what sort of work you do, and where you carve out the niche of your expertise.

Yes from my limited experience, this is what I've come to realize as well.

I've been humbled.

Do we know what energy is in Physics? I've thought about this for a long time, but it seems as though energy some what synonymous with motion and potential for motion. This my interpretation from my readings.

Potential to do work. Though what causes an object to do work? What is it within the fabrics of that object that allows it do such a thing?

Does this relate back to entropy and perhaps the big bang? It seems to me that energy comes from the instability of something to a more stable existence. Thus does this relate somehow to the big bang perhaps, how the general directionality of the universe is from unstable to more stable?

Well.. next time I'll be prepared.

I think we are done here. There is nothing else to be said other then, next time I wont make the same mistake of just going off the top of my head using my phone as a keyboard interface.

I apologies.. Arete and CharonY as well as the moderating staff and I also like to apologies to swansont from the physics forum. I'm from a confrontational culture and it's finals week so I've been a little stressed out in general.

With that said, I respect you guys' expertise, knowledge, experience, and do realize my own inexperience and ignorance. Though I feel as though I have good things to say and I get all worked up when I think that one of you guys' has misinterpreted or misunderstood my point.

There's no push for greater fitness. It's an inevitable consequence of heritability and differential reproductive success.

 

Things that reproduce more will be better represented in the gene pool. That's trivially true and since humanity still experiences a great deal of differential reproductive success (which generally doesn't have much to do with what we value in terms of success or "fitness"), we don't have much say in the fact that natural selection happens to us or what is getting selected.

 

Whether our social philosophies are Darwinian has little to do with whether Darwinian processes apply to us, and they apply to anything that replicates with variation.

I've agreed with this in my earlier comments.

I know notice that in these forums we also have to be "politically correct" at all times otherwise it leads to misunderstandings and bickering back and forth with what we actually meant. For example.. I meant to say "Biological Systems.. and not "Organisms" push.

Unfortunately this whole discussion has been ravaged with misunderstandings.

Yeah, my initial major was software engineering and than I got into Neuroscience. I'm graduating this spring with a degree of some sort, I've already applied for graduation and I'm taking Physics 1 this spring so I'm pretty excited.

I just turned 21, exactly two months ago and I'm seriously considering physics major.

I admit, I probably have heard some over exaggerations. I'm not in direct contact with anyone's salary information and have gotten most of my information from undergrad. biochemist majors lol.

But I wills say this, I do know of one professional Biochemist working at TTU, who does make 80~90 K with a Phd doing research. The other biochemist major is the father of my friend, who makes about 100 K working in the industry. The rest of the BIochemist I know are just undergrads.

I know in most other biology majors you would be lucky to see a 50 K a year.

Higher gene pool = higher survivability

Better suited traits = higher survivability

More offspring = higher survivability

More resources = higher survivability

The push for greater fitness by organisms means higher survivability and so fitness in this sense can have broad definition. CharonY I never once said natural selection was the model by which humans will evolve. No I'm definitely not comfortable with that explanation. Our society doesn't run on Darwinian philosophies, natural selection for humans has little meaning in this sense.

However the push for greater fitness is still a viable model for humans to continue evolving. Though we must also respect the fact that our species is in evolutionary equilibrium and that most of evolution is dictated by periods of equilibrium.

The main problem I have with you Arete is that you continuously want to define fitness, so much so that I don't even know what your actual point is. Otherwise I do respect your knowledge and experience as well as yours CharonY.

 

 

 

Which I never defined in this thread.

 

 

"Furthermore, you seem to be conflating various meanings of fitness. There is no striving for fitness, as obviously natural selection is the result of varying fitness associated with various genotypes (in the population genetic meaning, not in terms of physical fitness)"

Nice contradiction.

 

 

 

Fitness has a general interpretation, thus your antics to scrutinize other's comments is ill placed, simply due to the fact that neither of us have used the term out of context. Based upon my knowledge fitness is defined best by survivability of an organism. Neither one of us has used this term out of context, therefore your huffing and puffing is not needed in our discussion. Ofcourse if you feel the need to protect your ego, by all means go right ahead.

 

 

Demonstrably false. Drift can cause the fixation of deleterious alleles in a population leading to reduced fitness -

 

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v110/n3/abs/hdy201286a.html

http://www.genetics.org/content/198/4/1587.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01311.x/abstract;jsessionid=4858B37A1780144F265243325AF57DC3.f03t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

Yes we are well aware that drift can cause fluctuations in allele frequency as well as desertion of certain alleles. Yes, thank you for the Bio 101, and again as with most of your comments, no value in this conversation what so ever.

Though this does not describe general directionality of organic evolution in at it's broadness, as if this happened to be the case biology would have never sprouted. Genetic drift is generally a poor argument to the fact that better fitness is the general driving force of biological systems. This being said evolution will not cease, again this goes back to my previous comment.. These laws that dictate biological systems are in turn dictated by physical laws, and so it is the failure of the biologist such as yourself to think otherwise.

I would also like to add that throughout the history of biology, genetic drift both random and non random, recurring mutations, migration, natural selection, and other factors have all led to the general trend of organic evolution.

Arete trust me we know what fitness is, and none of what you have managed to say here has added to the quality of the discussion. Rather, it seems to me, and I'm sure others involved in this discussion, that your critiques are mainly for your own personal egocentric satisfaction.

We are not idots, you have successfully re-iterated most of what we have said with no additive value, except with a few feeble remarks on our thought process.

I would also like to add that ALL biological systems are pushing towards greater fitness, as long as we are procreating our species biologically. To assume that the human species has come to a halt evolutionary is a common human error, because our brains cannot process the timescales in which major evolutionary spurts take forth in. We must also respect the fact that most of macro-evolution is dominant by periods of punctuated equilibrium.

Also this is very ignorant and typical of a biologist to think that these laws are dictated by human "discretion" or organismal "discretion". These processes (as with all biological processes) are dictated by physical laws of nature and there is no law in physics that describes that a biologist or a biological organism has to be content with these principles.

I assume sodium fluoride is something that would possibly interject negatively with common biological processes and so yes I do believe it's not good for you.

No you won't die and no it won't block all the radiation that you supposedly need.

Are you sure? That sounds a lot to me for graduates, unless the situation in the UK really is far worse than the US.

This is my experience, I'm sure it's because we here have a lot of industries like Mayo and HCMC and Medtronic that are paying these guys way more.

With Biochem. your also a very good applicant for Med school, Pharmacy school, Dental School ect.

I had completed my finals when I was twenty one, but graduated when I had just turned twenty two.

Very good, I assume you majored in physics correct? I see you in the physics subforum quiet often. Have you been content with that choice?

No I actually didn't because I transferred schools and somehow physics slipped out of the cracks for me.

I'm 21 now and I've just found this new love for the discipline which strives to understand the universe at the most principle level.

I don't hold a degree of anything, but I'm interested to know at what age did you guys attain your first 4 year degree?

Yes this is very true unfortunately, I've never in my life taken a physics course.

 

The point was that the bit about "matter breaking down" is wrong. Now you claim you knew the answer all along. What's the point of that? (That's rhetorical; something to ponder. I don't really care)

With I due respect..so far you have managed to give a us a description of kinetic energy, thank you I applaud you. In which I clearly stated was inspired by an answer given to us by my professor last summer when a student asked a similar question.

You didn't not once comment on the thermodynamics that I was discussing, and you completed avoided the quantum fluctuation aspect of it as well. Are those sufficient answers to this problem of 0K or am I missing something else? I want to hear your whole point on the matter not just the fact that I was wrong about the thermal energy = breaking down of matter which sounds absurd to me know that you point it out.