VendingMenace

does anyone here play go? Just curious. I play online sometimes and it would be cool to play with some of you all, if you play.

Yeppers If the pore size is small enough then you are assured that it is steril. (kinda like how a backpack pump will work -- though that may be reverse osmosis is some cases) Autoclave can work, but you have to be careful. Depending on what you are doing, the heat of the autoclave can cause your chemicals to deteriorate. Also, autoclave can take quite awhile, as you have to wait for the machine to run and the wait for the solution to cool. WIth 1 liter of water, this can take awhile. Filtration will be faster -- and in my opinion better, though more expensive. It is. And really you will not need to add much HCL to get the pH to where you want it. TRIS is a compound that is used particularely in biochemistry. It is used as a pH buffer when working with protiens, DNA, and the like. Not really. You make the buffer first, and then add the chemicals that you are studying. The buffer exists in order to keep the solution at the correct pH so that proteins and DNA do not denature. Thus, even though you are adding base, you are doing so only to bring the pH into the acceptable range for your experiment. Once you have done this, the pH is quite stable. So quite the oppsosite is true, adding NaOH to adjust the pH will, in the end, make your protiens more stable in the solution. Though, without the buffer, your accertion would be correct Actually, it is correct to add water to the tris. It is incorrect to meauser out 1 liter of water and then add tris to it. The reason is that a solid, when dissolved will often occupy a different volume than when it was solid. Thus, you need to add the apporpraite amount of tris ot a 1 liter volumetric flask and then fill the flask to the full line. This is the way it must be done if you are to be assured that you have really made the correct concentration of tris

Nope. Snow will cool too. Ice definately can loose heat Also, the only way for heat from the water freezing to go into the grape is if the grape was colder than the water that was freezing. Otherwise heat would flow from the grape to the water :/ Sorry starwiz, i am afraid that i don't have anything aurthoritative to throw in your teacher's face. I will do somethinking about it though and see what i come up with

i am pretty sure that it is just an insulating effect of the water/ice on the outside of the vines. At least i think that is what i was told in my viticulture class

Light is affected by mediums. For instance, light travels through glass slower than it does through a vacum

It will. Tris is a buffer. ph 7 is well within its range. All you need to do is make the correct molarity solution of tris, then add either dilute HCl or dilute NaOH, until the desired pH is obtained. Then, you can sterilize it either through autoclaving (not what i would do -- takes too long) or filtration (what i would do). Cool

NOt at all. It is not as if there are only two choices -- god or evolution. It could just be that our theory of evolution is not quite right and it will be revised. Rememeber, if anything is wrong with the thoery of evolution, then it is false and must be revised. So, just because the theory is not accurate does not mean that we must turn to god for answers. Furthermore, evolution does not reject the idea of god at all :/ I don't really understand why people think that the theory of evolution and the concept of a god are at odds. They clearly adress different issues. One attempts to describe how organisms change over time the other offers an explination why there is anything in the first place. And even more, why must acceptance of god be antithetical to education. Just wondering why you think the two are in opposition

Becuase, historically, all other scientific theories have been wrong. So it is safe to assume that evolution is incorrect too.

i think this has already been pointed out, but i will say it anyway... the problem with statements such as "X race is less intellegent than race Y" is that intellegence in not a property of a population, but of an individual. The statement that must be made is this; "on average, individuals in race X are less intellegent than those in race Y" Of course this statements gives you no information that would eb usefull when trying to decide who is more intellegent out of a group of individuals. As such, such a statement is almost worthless -- at least for evaluation purposes. This is why poeple react so negatively to such statements, even when they are phrased correctly -- they can be misinterprited. An unintelligent person would (almost ironically) use this statement as a grounds for hiring people of one race over the other, not realizing that averages derived from populations cannot help one decide the intellegence of an individual. And that is just what is wrong with making statements like that, symantically. There are many other reasons why such statements are poor, scientifically speaking. These include (but are not limited to) the following... 1) IQ tests are questionable measures of intellegence. It is not entirely certain that they acutally measure ALL types of intellegence, or even in they do meausure any type of intellegence (though they prolly do meausre at least some types) 2) There are way too many compounding factors when trying to compare intellegence between races. Such factors include, education, nutrition, traditional roles in their society, social standing, ect.

it is not classified as a vegitable. It is calssified as a fruit -- at least biologically speaking. Of course when you walk into a grocery store you find it in the vegitable section most of the time. But hey, its just a store. Then again, if you want to get really picky, then there is no such thing as a vegitable. THere are fruits, tubers, legumes, rizomes, roots, ect. But NO vegitables. The take home message? The next time your mother tells you to eat your vegitables, tell her no! If she gets mad, then say, "you are the one asking for impossible things." That oughta go over well.

kinda defeats the pupose of the trick, if you "try" to beat it. After all you really arn't competing with anyone...you are just seeing something cool about your mind :/

i thought of squash first...tasty squash...mmmm..... but right after squash i thought of carrots...weird cool thread man!

yeah, so it seems like most people here belive that you can control your own thoughts. Right? Lets say that when you are controling what you are thinking it is "rational" thought. Meaning that you can use reasoning and you have control over your thoughts. SOund good? Ok, so then the weird part is this (or at least the wierd part, i think); if you can actaully control your own thoughts, that means that they are not controlled completely by nature. This must mean that your thinking (your rational thought) is outside of nature (given that it is not completely controlled by nature, it must have something that lies outside of nature). Ok, so that means that you rational thoughts lie outside of nature, or, in other words, are supernatural. So, if my reasoning is correct so far (if it is not, please point out where i have gone wrong -- not quite sure of this argument yet) then we are left with two questions; 1) Where does this "supernatural" stuff (ie. controlling of thoughts) come from? If you belive in a god, then this is all explained. But if you don't, then you are led to question two, namely... 2) How can one reconcile the existance of one supernatural thing with the belive in atheism? that is, if you are willing to admit to the existance of one supernatural thing, then how can you rule out another -- such as god? Just some questions that i was thinking about. Cool

not in the professor X sort of way two part question... What i am wondering is this; do you think that you are in "control" of what you are thinking? Meaning, are your thoughts completely determined by outside processes? Or can you control, to some extent, what you are thinking about? if you can control what you are thinking about, then where does this impitus for control come from? If you belive in a god, then i think this answers the question. But if you do not belive in a god, then where do you think this abililty to control your thoughts comes from? just curious, i have been thinking about this for a while now, and i don't really know the answer to either question. Cool

what type of biology are you interested in learning about?

yeah, and the two nobel prizes can't really hurt

correct, a degree does not make you a scientist. What qualifies me as a scientist? I work in a chemistry lab, doing science

Of course the line is somewhat blurred between biochemists and inorganic chemists too (ie. studying metals in biological systems). Really, there is quite a bit of overlap between all the chemical disaplines.

why memorize functional groups, when you can just understand why things are nucleaophilic, or electrophilic and if they are stericly hyindered or not? With just a basic understanding of the thoery, you can give reasonable reaction mechanisms without any undestanding of the functional groups. Not that it is not important to know these groups -- of course it is. I just htink that ochem is taught incorrectly in undergrad. Rather than saying, "this is such and such a functional group and it will behave in such a way" and then having people memorize functional groups, they should say, "electronegative atoms are electron withdrawing. Groups that are connected to an eletronegative atom are electrphilic." and so on. IN such a way, you can learn all of ochem in one quarter. Then, once you understand the theory, spend a quarter learning to name things. Then, when you are done with that, spend a quarter learning spectroscopy. I think that is a much better year long course. IMO

i would agree that chemistry is a subset of physics. Why? Well, most things in chemistry are explained using physical models. HOwever, i would not consider this belittleing at all. I think that people that would take this as an insult are not quite secure in the fact that they are chemists -- perhaps they really wanted to be physicists? Anyway, why is this not an insult? Because, the chemist chooses to investigate a particulare aspect of "physics" in great detail. SO much detail, in fact, that all other aspects of physics must be almost excluded. Of course this all depends on what you are doing in chemistry. A physical chemist will know almost as much nuclear chemistry as a nuclear chemists. By the same measure, a nuclear physisist might know a great deal about moleculare orbital theory. The point being that "chemistry" is just a short hand way of saying , "i specialize in the physics of interactions between molecules, wich mostly has to do with the interaction of outershell electrons with other outershell electrons and the formation of moleculare orbitals, yadda yadaa yadda." Of course this is rather long to say, so we just say "i am a chemist." No of course this saying is a bit belittleing. Refferring to things other than Physics as stamp collecting shows an inability to appreaciate anything other than what you do. But sometimes that is what happens when you are involved in something that the world really reveres. If we lived about 100 years ago, people would have scoffed at you if you were a physicsist -- chemistry was where it was at then. And before that, it was all about being a natural biologist. And before that it was about being an artist. So, really it is all about what period you are iin, whether or not you get to feel superior about your career. Anyway, i think the reast of us understand the importance of this so called "stamp collecting." And one other thing, we must decide on what "science" means if we are to really agree that sicence is either physics or stamp collecting. FOr instance, is economics or scocial sciencec science? If so, then your statement is incorect. Of course, you might not consider them science, i don't know. I don't even know if i do, but whatever

A reference frame is just a frame from wich you can make observations. It is an abstract concept, and may be somewhat hard to grasp. Perhaps this will help. Think about riding home on the bus, ok? From wher you sit, you are in a reference frame. You are in a frame that is moving exaclty as the bus is moving. So we can say that your refference frame is the bus's reference frame too. From this point of view of this reference frame, the bus is stationary and the world is sliding by. Right? NOw lets assume that as you are looking out the window, you see a person standing on the street looking at you. From your perseptive, this person is sliding by you. However, from their perspective, you are moving down the street and they are standing still. Their refference frame is that of the street. SO now we have two reference frames, that of the bus and that of the street. It turns out that we could have an infinite number of refference frames. WE could assign one to the car that is driving down the street the oposite direction of the bus. From its refference frame the bus is moving past it and so is the person standing on the sidewalk. WE can keep assigning frames ad noseum. Refference frames to not need to have an "object" associated with them. IN the above examples our three reference frames had a bus, a person and a car associated with them, respectively. However, we could assign a reference frame to just a random space. It can be a completely arbitrary, abstract, construct. Once we have a reference frame picked out, we can start to describe it. We can say things like how fast it is moving, in what direction it is moving, whether or not it is accelerating, what sort of feilds it is exposed to, ect. As far as SR is concered, we need only consider two aspects of the reference frame -- how fast is it moving and is it accelerating. The speed at wich it is moving is quite important, it tells us how extreme the relativistic effects will be for that object (relativistic effects gain magnituted as you approach the speed of light). the other thing wich we must answer is whether or not it is accelerating. In special realtivity, we claim that all frames that are not undergoing accleleration are equally valid. That is to say that for two frames that are not accelerating, measurements taken from these frames are equally valid (see the my above post). However, should one of the frames be accelerating, this does not hold. Measurements made from both frames are not longer equally valid. The acceleration "breaks" the symmetry, so to speak, and fixes one of the frames as the "absolute" frame -- the frame whose measurements are acutally correct. So we see that the idea of non-accelerating frames is quite important for SR. In frames are accelerating, then they are not equally valid. So, we must know when frames are accelereating and when they are not. Rather than writting every time "this frame is not accereating" (which would be rather lengthy) we instead give reference frames wich are not undergoing acceleration a speacial name. WE call such frames inertial frames. THus, when you read that a particulare frame of reference is a inertial frame, that means that that reference frame is not accelerating. Hope that helps out some, again, feel free to ask more questions

it gets really complicated when they require you to learn the so-called "named" reactions. Mostly becuase it is brute memerization and there are lotsa different methods (thousands). HOwever, if you just want to learn the theory behind reactions, there is a really good ~300 pg book called the art of writting reasonable organic reaction mechanisms byRobert Grossman. It is by far the best ochem book i have ever had, hands down. It is a no-nonsense, concise, and complete approach to writting mechanisms for reactions. IN six chapters and 300 pages (quite short for an ochem book) Grossman will take you through all of the basic reactions we find in ochem (addition and elimination in acidic and basic conditions, cyclization reactions, rearangements, readical chemistry, ect). The book emphazises theory rather than memorization. Grossman quickly presents why various types of reactions occur and why certain types of reactions will happen over competing reactions. Then he solves a few examples and moves onto the next topic. At the end of each chapter are many, many problems. I cannot stress enough, how good this book is. In just one quarter in grad school i learned probably twice as much as i did in my year long undergrad course. And while my proffesor was quite good, and had much to do with that, this book is amazing. SO if you want a book that will teach you why things happen in ochem and you don't want once of those crappy verbose books that you prolly already have -- buy this one, it will open up the world of ochem to you. One caveat -- naming is not covered in this book. At times, gossman will refer to a compound by its name, and if you don't know what he is talking about you will be out of luck. Fortunately, it is rare that he talks about something without a diagram, but for those few cases, it should not be too hard to look it up on the internet -- or ask someone ont this forum

in certain observed populations, geneotype frequencies have been observed to change over time. Since the definition of evolution is the change in frequencies in genotypes over time, we can say that evolution has been observed in these species. Now if you want to make the leap (a generally accepted one) that phenotype is greatly dependent on genotype, then in populations in which phenotype frequencies has been observed to fluctuate throughout time, one can assume that the genotype frequecies have as well. If you are willing to accept this, then bassically all forms of "life" have been obseved to evolve.

Gene It is kinda is a matter of perspective, and kinda not. WHere your analogy is good is in this; how you see an object depends on your frame of reference. If you are in a frame of reference such that the observed object is moving close to the speed of light with repect to you, then you will observe that the object appears contracted (shortened) and more massive (has more mass) than it would if you observed the same object in a frame of reference such that the object was not moving with repsect to you. Thus, we see that your view of an object does in fact depend on your perspective, so to speak. That is somewhat the point of SR. That your view of objects can change depending on the frame from wich you are observing them. However, your alalogy does bread down. Specifically, it breaks down with this concept; IN your alalogy, the view of the apple was different depending on a persons perspective. right? However, despite their differing views, you could make an absolute statement about the reality of the apple. That is to say that it is a red apple, it is 10 cm long, and it has a mass of 0.5 kg. These facts would be absolute, in your example. that is, no one would contest that these are the "true" facts about the apple. However, in SR, all views from an inertial frame (one in which you are not accelerating) are equally valid. So, you cannot really make absolute statements about the apple' s color, lenght, or mass. Imagine that you were in an inertial frame in which the apple was stationary to you (not moving realitive to you). You would observe the apple to be red , 10 cm long, andhaving a mass of 0.5 kg. Now imagine that i am in an inertial frame for wich the apple is travelling near the spead of light realive to me. For the sake of argument, let's say that the apple is moving towards me. I would observe a doppler shift in the light, a lenght contraction, and a mass gain, for the apple. That is to say, i could see the apple as blue, 2 cm in leghth, and having a mass of 4 kg. ( i have not used the equation, becuase it is not nessesary for a qualititive explilation. I htink you get the idea, thought the numbers may be of somewhat). Now what do we have? WE have two people observing the same apple and getting quite different results! NOw the fact that we got different results rests on the fact that we had different perspectives on the apple (ie. we were in different inertial frames). HOwever, (and this is the important part) since all inertail frames are valid, there is no way to say whose measurements are correct. Both of our observations are correct. The apple really is both read and blue, 10 cm and 2 cm, 0.5 kg and 4 kg. It just depends on where you are when you meausre (which intertial frame). And both results are valid! Crazy! Anyways, that is the crux of SR. You can get different results from different interial frames, however, these results are not more or less correct, they are just different. All the results that you get from different interial frames are all equally valid. It is quite cool. Well, i hope that answers some questoins, ask more if you wish

Not nessesarily. It would depend on the size of the universe's infinity and the number of possible things. If the infinity that is the number of possible things is larger than the infinity of the universe (i belive it is, but i forget the reasoning) then it is false to claim that all things must happen.