ewmon

Well, first of all, you need to make some sort of assumption about the angle of the aim (and from that, bullet velocity), most likely horizontal. That said, you can figure out your s and t values using what you know.

You can use this simple technique with white paper, not to burn the paper, but to view the Sun's color and shape during the day (you may still want to use sunglasses). You can also make and use a camera obscura. I also used a modified pinhole camera / camera obscura to view the phases of a solar eclipse, and the small amount of light through the pinhole did not require sunglasses.

It seems you ask why we don't live in paradise. Someone pulls a trigger, but the bullets don't reach their targets. Someone else jumps off a cliff, but doesn't get smashed to pieces at the bottom of the cliff. I eat too much ice cream, but I don't get an ice cream headache. A man and a woman have sex: if they want a baby, she gets pregnant, if they don't want a baby, she doesn't get pregnant. So, why don't we live in paradise? Because we don't. (Did I mention that no one is born with any kind of guarantee.)

I don't know the answer, but Alt+240 gives you the ≡ symbol, and you must use the numbers on the number pad.

Homework help works only when you tell us what you've accomplished so far. For example, I could easily solve this for you, but I won't. I"ll never say something is easy, but it's a matter of method and steps. That's what math is — method and steps. We don't do the work for you, we give you advice and suggestions along the way. So, what have you accomplished so far?

So it was organic molecules, but one for the history books? I think not, especially because they haven't even ruled out contamination. NASA needs to be peer-reviewed. ha!

I don't see clinical as a very small subset of psychology, and in fact, I would think that therapy is the part of psychology that affects people's lives the most. On the subject of psychology, Wikipedia says: What else is being done in overwhelming amounts in psychology that make clinical/therapy a very small subset of the psychology? As for the psychiatrist/psychologist distinction, although psychiatrists publish the DSMs, psychologists as well as psychiatrists use it, and other professions use it. In a sense, even ordinary everyday people use it. I know a boy with Asperger's Syndrome, oops, I mean he's autistic (because Asperger's won't be appearing in the DSM-5). Previously, someone could have been depressed because her mother died, but now she's just acting "normal" because it's normal to feel that way when a loved one dies. A member of my family had "Adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features", but now I don't what to call it because this mental disorder no longer appears in the DSM. With its labels and diagnoses in constant flux, as it is, how can anyone take it seriously? If psychology is not a soft science, it certainly is rather fluid.

I would also like to draw attention to the ever-changing and controversial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the so-called "bible" of mental disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association that classifies and defines mental disorders) as evidence of the significant uncertainty involved with both psychology and psychiatry, which I previously described as being "soft sciences". Over the years, the DSM has added, modified and deleted a variety of mental disorders. For example, in the not too distant past, the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. This NPR broadcast details the controversial changes for next version, DSM-5.

I read "genetic mutations" instead as "mutations involving gene expression", and that it can involve the gene itself in the DNA of a chromosome, or anywhere along the path that produces the final product. To quote your Wikipedia source — Mutations that don't alter DNA. The classic (and probably most common) form of genetic expression is where a simple sequence of DNA result in a simple string of amino acids that compose the protein being expressed. However, a gene can produce a protein in other ways. The gene can be in two different sections on the chromosome, and a "helper" molecule binds together the two resulting protein sections. Sometimes the protein produced contains an extra amino acid or lacks an amino acid, and a "helper" molecule deletes or adds the amino acid in question. These three methods can be part of gene expression, and they are far from simple. If something makes the "helper" molecule scarce, then it can't do its job fully, and the gene expression is interrupted (without involving the DNA). Reversible mutations. I am a good example. As a teenager, I suddenly became lactase deficient (aka "lactose intolerant") because I lacked the enzyme lactase that helps digest lactose (ie, the sugar in milk), and so, I could not tolerate milk in my diet, but the same thing happened to my brothers at the same time (and our ages spanned eight years). So, it was environmental (ie, something in our environment triggered it) and not developmental (ie, something at a certain age in our development triggered it). Twenty years later, I became lactase un-deficient and could tolerate milk products again, for which I was very thankful (ice cream, hot cocoa, etc ). ... but I defer to CharonY (who knows more than I do)

I do respect the fact that psychiatry is a specialized branch of medicine, which is a science, and I don't doubt that psychiatry provides a scientific analysis and response for many patients and that psychiatry works as a hard science in those cases. However, in many instances with both psychology and psychiatry, there seems to be insufficient objectivity, and there can't be until they invent instruments that can read people's thoughts and feelings. Until then, both psychology and psychiatry will, in many cases, continue to attempt to measure something that's broken with something that's broken (ie, subjective self-reporting), and in those cases, I find myself unable to call them a hard science.

I've heard psychology/psychiatry called a "soft science".

Not to get off track, CharonY, but I began my biochem career in a small clinical lab where we used the term "calibration curve". Then I moved into MNC biopharma where my terminology was corrected to "standard curve". Does this somehow jive with your experience? Thanks.

I think that, if they saw a Martian rabbit go hopping by, there's nothing that could restrain that news for a split second. If the discovery was one organic molecule, I think it would be exciting, but not "one for the history books". So, I'm guessing that it's a spectrum of organic molecules that much more than suggests life on Mars, but closer to life on Mars as a reality.

Was your lecturer questioning that you used the log of the Absorbance to plot the points on regular graph paper or semi-log paper? If so, then I agree with your lecturer. Instead, keep the original Absorbance values and plot them on log-log paper. I also agree with CharonY. Because you're halving the concentrations serially, simply double an Absorbance and compare it to the previous Absorbance. There's a certain spot where the readings obviously begin to "go wrong". You can also see this in the log-log plot — some points will fall on a straight line, but others will deviate significantly. If it happened at the other end of the dilutions, then it would be a matrix effect.

They kept the arsenic news secret for a while even though it wasn't what they claimed it was. Is NASA getting too tabloid-ish?

Curiosity's SAM → organic molecules If it's a slam-dunk definite that life's been found, I think it won't stay secret for two weeks ... someone will leak it.

I saw this and thought of it as a pretty cool "Eureka!" moment. Anyone care to comment? Also, do you know of a similar situation where the "problem" is originally/naturally viewed one way, but superior scientific insight results in a solution that's different? source

It could be me, but I got lost in the first sentence, and then it was downhill from there. (I'm still trying to figure out how telling the truth requires "manipulation".)

(I hope you have a sense of humor ) We think you believe you understand what you think you wrote, but we’re not sure you realize that what we read was what you meant to write.

When you see a vitamin (that is: A, D, E or K) in oil inside a gel cap, it tells you that it dissolves in an oily medium more readily than in water. These are so-called "fat-soluble" vitamins (fats and oils basically being the same thing for this purpose), and the adipose tissue that CharonY mentioned is body fat. Because these fat-soluble vitamins dissolve less readily in a water-based solution (such as blood), they tend to accumulate in the body fat, where they can build to toxic levels, instead of getting into the bloodstream and being eliminated by the kidneys (as CharonY mentioned about Vitamin C). Also, keep in mind that, just because a substance is good for you doesn't mean that "more is better". For example, water can be fatal. As they say — Everything in moderation.

Your many statements and your awkward sentence construction results in ambiguities and unsubstantiated facts. For example, does "a guided, fevered attempt to preserve the mysticism of your faith" refer to my supposed guided,fevered attempt and to my personal faith or is it a fancy way of saying Christianity? Sorry to pop your balloons, but I'm not here to discuss the validity of creationism, and I never said I was. CirclesAndDots, all I'm saying about Collins is that whatever he believes as his religion does not interfere with decoding the human genome, just as my religion does not interfere with the bench chemistry that I perform. Christians are not monolithic in their beliefs, so it's not fair to lump us all together. As I said, there are some Christians that, even if they weren't Christians, couldn't do science. You mentioned "apologetics" (the branch of theology regarding the defense and proofs of Christianity), yet I'm not here to defend or prove anything. I'm saying here that the idea that one must stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science is not true. That's like claiming that one must stop "doing" religion (or philosophy) in order to drive a car (which is all about science — physics, mechanics, aerodynamics, electronics, chemistry, computers, tribology, etc), or to repair it, or to modify it, etc. Please point out what seems to be appeals to authority lurking in my response. Someone mentioned to stop "doing" religion in order to "do" science, so I gave Francis Collins as an example, wondering what he had to stop "doing" so as not to interfere with him "doing" science. If there antagonisms and expectations between the two, then I don't find them. To begin with, I've already asked people to define what's meant by "doing" religion, and I don't remember seeing any replies. Quite frankly, I don't know what I must stop "doing" in order to "do" science. Do you?

I figured that the Lounge is as good a place as any to post this thread. Having a biopharmaceutical lab career, I recently had interesting talks with a friend who works in a doctor's office, specifically a gynecologist's office. In biopharma labs, we must properly label and store all substances. The label must show the substance's name, its lot number, its concentration, its expiration date and its storage requirements. In my friend's office, liquid substances are decanted into simple jars and cups with simple labels that give only the name of the substance (such as "Ferric sulfate" and "Lugols") — without any lot number, concentration, expiration date or storage requirements — and these containers are often left uncovered and unattended for days on end, including overnight. If we did this in biopharma labs, the FDA would come down on us like a ton of bricks even though our substances aren't used on people (or animals). In the doctor's office, these substances are administered to real people, most likely topically, and the doctors and nurses are apparently unaware of their lot numbers, expiration dates and storage requirements. Their concentrations are anyone's guess, depending on whether the solutes or the solvents evaporate more readily. My question is, do doctor's offices have similar requirements (lot numbers, concentration, expiration date and storage requirements) for substances for the safety of their patients? Additionally, when biopharma labs use software to perform computations, the software must be certified. However my friend's office is littered with various pregnancy slide rules produced by what seems to be every maker of gynecological product. Again, if biopharma lab techs using something so unofficial and gimmicky for computations, it would likewise result in a ton-of-bricks response from the FDA. Are such practices common in doctors' offices?

So, why didn't our arch-enemy, the Russians, use their radar units to show that the US didn't send anything to the Moon in 1969? [sarcasm]Aha! They were in on the hoax too, right? And the whole Cold War was a 24-year hoax as the convincing backstory of why they didn't reveal our Moon-landing hoax. The US bribed Leonid Brezhnev with chocolate bonbons, but they were really chocolate-covered Egyptian cotton balls that ... oh no, wait a minute, that was in "Catch-22" written by Joseph Heller ... um, yeah, right ... well, he was born to a Russian couple who immigrated to the US ... and uh ... the book was a backstory to refute Brezhnev's complaints that we had cheated him ... and, uh ... Heller once worked alongside Mary Higgins Clark, who once worked as a stewardess for Pan-Am Airlines, and this whole scheme was her idea ... uh, yeah, yeah ... she was born to immigrants from Ireland, and that of course, was the secret connection to Jack Kennedy who was the US president when he announced that the US would put a hoax man on the Moon before the end of the decade.[/sarcasm]

There's the Central limit theorem and Central tendency.

There are the believers who will attribute just about anything to God that pleases them (he got them a home, a wife, a job, a pickup, a guitar and a dog — just like a country song in reverse), but there's also plenty of believers — especially the scientifically-minded ones — who believe that God doesn't dabble in people's lives most of the time ... if at all. I would guess that they also tend to believe the supernatural is merely the not-yet-known natural, and this idea doesn't conflict with their beliefs. Christ performed some "miracles", and he told his followers that they had failed in their attempt simply because they didn't know how to do it — nothing supernatural. Religion always turns to God? I wouldn't say so. Chaos? I feel certain that there is no chaos, and most/all scientists would agree. The idea that something happens for no reason does not appeal to either the believer or the scientist. Not to say that everything is predetermined, but that there is cause-and-effect to everything (although the "will" of even one human is a highly complex system). The Butterfly Effect is not new, so I don't know why people have marveled at it. We find the same cause-and-effect in the For-want-of-a-nail proverb (no, it's not Biblical) that is at least 600 years old. The kingdom was lost ... all for the want of a horseshoe nail. I don't think the church entertains much of anything regarding science. The church knew/suspected what Galileo had discovered, and it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang Theory — and the church apparently allowed him to publicize it. I never heard that Francis Collins ever posited any unscientific impetus and decorated the thing with an emotional, human appeal to 'motivation' or purpose. Should I just "believe" you, or is there "evidence" of this?