Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About druS

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/19/1962

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sydney Australia
  • Interests
    Science - Inspired by Sean Carrol to attempt to learn the math behind Quantum, and picking up a life long love of biology at the same time.

    Rugby (Union), 4WD
  • College Major/Degree
    Bachelor Building
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    From Queensland originally, lived in the UK for 10 years. Represented Britain in the 2007 Skydiving World Cup ("also rans" but fun).
  • Occupation
    Technical Services (Development and Construction)

Recent Profile Visitors

2072 profile views
  1. Fist year biology assignment. It isn't really about the topic itself but about: experience with literature search Scientific writing and referencing Must include 3 references to peer reviewed journals Technically correct scientific terminology The topic is Cas-9, I have chosen agriculture. The assignment needs to provide a background to gene editing, outline of Cas-9, outline of beneficial work, then ethical considerations. I can post the whole assignment if needed. For now my challenge is fine tuning database search between information overload to nothing when I want specifics. I'm doing fine getting an overview of the topic so far, but a refined search is failing me. Those specifics (at the moment) are trying to find seminal journal articles for: 1. Repeat palindromes found in halophiles - by Francisco Majica 2. Subsequent purpose discovered (viral defence) by Horvarth. If I can nail this, then I'm on to Talen, ZFN, embryonic stem cells and pluripotent ES (my term not scientific) Cheers Dru
  2. Not really. Try engaging with Studiot. If you take his guidance and have considered his posts, you are already half way there.
  3. druS


    y = m.x + c m is the slope. c is the y axis intercept How you get there depends on the starting information.
  4. Absolutely. Occasionally there are posts on here that lead to immediate "aha" and my connection with science kicks up a gear. This is one. Thanks Mordred
  5. Just finished Adam Becker's "What is Real? the unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics" - a history of quantum foundations. Well researched, well written and I at least found it thought provoking. Glad I read it.
  6. Thanks Strange, yes I meant ST not SR. I had understood that in principal the energies required to test ST are impracticable. IS that just too simple an approach in terms of dumbing down the theory for the populace? Otherwise the difference between untestable and unfalsifiable seem hazy. It starts feeling like pure math (presuming the axioms stack up) rather than science at that point.
  7. Question from a novice to the brains trust here. It has been said (sorry I cant quote the source but variously and probably pop science) not simply that SR hasn't been proven, but that it is unfalsefiable. That is not a subtle difference. I have also seen Sean Carroll state it doesn't matter, that it is unfalsefiable for now but someone will resolve it at some stage. But that does seem to contradict one of the basic tenets of science - leading the topic into either math or conjecture.
  8. RIP Gell-Mann. We lose a great scientist here.
  9. As someone very very early on this journey and doing it very late - I'd appreciate if you could expand on this. My personal experience is that my curiosities are too broad and defining a study course through my interests, and doing this somewhat efficiently through how quickly I can gain qualifications, well these things are diametrically opposed. I am fascinated by the concept of Masters v PhD. I get the different levels of academic interest/ability but there are always going to be details that sit around this. A M Science should not EVER be sneezed at.
  10. I love this place. Completely unexpected but occasionally something goes "Hell, what happened there? It's something right on the tip of my ability to understand." An issue then to drive study. swansont, thanks. But to be fair, rock on Itoero. If you weren't making noise mate, I'd be missing these opportunities. Love this community, thanks all.
  11. I'd approach this more from engineering, or perhaps physics. The average set of lungs holds approx 6l and when you fully breathe out there is a residual approx 1.5l So if you exhale a contaminant mixing inside your lungs there is only 1/4 of it left - at the same concentration so you are still consuming it the same way. Inhale non contaminated air and it has been diluted to 1/4. Note though that the whole time your lungs are consuming whatever it is.
  12. druS

    Rotational motion

    Yes appreciate it.
  13. druS

    Rotational motion

    Yep. Seems my biggest issue was the free body diagram to the falling book. Weird. Not a difficult thing, surely. And yes, puzzling out these things is rewarding.
  14. druS

    Rotational motion

    Thanks again. Yes this final step didnt stress me too much. accel = alpha x R; T = F x R Sigma T = I x Alpha Which ultimately gave me 0.16 kg.m/s which is text consistent. Are there easy and simple introductions to LaTex? Probably dont have time to test it mid trimester but it is goinng to have to happen sooner or later. Thank Studiot.
  15. druS

    Rotational motion

    Cheers guys. Waking up in the middle of the night with a brain spark started by this conversation. Yes I've been visiting and cogitating. Studiot, I suspect our formula are equivalent though I like the accuracy in the way you express things. I'll stick with the formula sheet in our sample exam papers though. Swansont I think I was jumping to the next step in my head, looking for the moment of inertia. not focusing on one issue at a time had me applying Newtons 3rd law incorrectly. Acceleration works to 3.75m.s-2 (matching Studiot's more accurate expression). And going down is negative. For the 3kg hanging book I get a tension force above FT = m.a = 3.0kg x 3.75m/s2 and weight acting down W = m.a = 3.0 x -9.81 AND what I was missing a resulting force FR = m.a = 3kg . 3.75m/s2 [Sum of] Forces = 0 FR = FT + W (the bit I did not have right!) 3 x (-3.75) = FT + 3.00 x (-9.81) providing FT = 18.18 N Then I was wracking my brain with the 2kg book on the (frictionless) table. The only difference is that there is no relevant weight force (normal force and weight cancel to zero in the y direction). (What I had been doing incorrectly for the 3kg book) In the x direction the resultant force simple equals the tension force and we get 7.5N. Which fortunately matches the text answers. OK next step? I'm presuming that the torque applied by these tension forces will not equate to the actual torque observed and the difference will be related to the moment of inertia of the pulley. (but just for now it is 3:20 in the morning and I'm going back to sleep a happy student).
  • 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.