Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MM6

  1. This makes no sense. The bullet will exit the barrel and continue in a straight path like any normal gun. Unless you mean when fired the barrel of the gun extends beyond the corner of the building/structure. That's the only way it would work. It wouldn't make an arc in the air. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThere are microscopic imperfections on the surface of a bullet/BB. But as iNow said, they're too insignificant to allow any appreciable break in the bullet's flight.
  2. That's true b/c the concrete stairwell is a solid block, in which case shear force is nullified. It's all compressive force, which is where the true strength of concrete lies. I was considering the cases in which the interior is hollow and the structure is built with wood. Like the stairs in/around most homes. Good point, though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged pyxxo, What exactly is your hypothesis? That's what I'm looking for, a simple statement so that I know what we're arguing for or against. Anyway, I can think of plenty of right angles that exist in nature. Here are two categories. 1) Right angles occur in chemical bonds 2) There are several perpendicular relationships among charged particles passing through magnetic fields. Grids in nature. I'd have to think more about this one. Reiteration: Could you please state your hypothesis?
  3. Cafegirl, It looks like your mistake was in how you computed and used the average. Here is my solution: Jeweler A official measurement (average of the 3) = 2.59/3 = 0.867 Jeweler B official measurement (average of the 3) = 2.57/3 = 0.856 So.... Jeweler B has the more accurate measure (it's matches the true mass of the nugget) However, Jeweler A has the more precise measurement. Even though his average is less accurate, his measurements are more similar to one another than that of Jeweler B. Jeweler A % error = = | 0.867 - 0.856 | / 0.856 x 100 % = 1.29% Jeweler B % error = 0
  4. A perpendicular support experiences less shear force than the slanted supports. It also uses less material. It's a better engineering design. That staircase image caught my eye so I'm picking on that one example. I haven't read your entire post(s). You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. I'm looking forward to reading it.
  5. Ghosts are real! When I walk outside in the daytime this black ghost follows me all over. It changes it's position relative to me but it's always attached to me! Explain that!
  6. Precision and accuracy are not concepts dedicated solely to chemistry, they apply to every application of measurement. Something (e.g., measuring device) is accurate if it reports the actual measure of something. Something is precise if it reports the same (within some given range of error) measurement on multiple trials. Can you get the answer using these definitions? You should! You must use your own smarts! If you wager an answer, I'll verify it. The formula for percent error is % error = | experimental result - accepted value | / accepted value x 100 % Find the average of each jeweler's results (add the three values and divide by three). In the percent error equation this will be the "experimental result".
  7. Yeah, but think about all the carpal tunnel syndrome computers are giving us!
  8. I wonder if dolphins are having this same discussion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Exactly. That's the paradox. That's why I don't buy into this concept of consciousness. Sumpin' ain't right about it.
  9. No shit Einstein, I said that myself. Where I draw my line of value for humans vs other organisms gives more value to other organisms relative to what most other people would give, it seems. But I'm not a loon. I disinfect my bathroom weekly killing millions of bacteria and fungi. I would not as easily dispatch a million human beings. I would have to be a loon for my ethical code to be airtight. Those are curiously arbitrary quantities, several animals and one or two humans. And that's why I dislike ethical discussions. They are fuzzy and squashy and completely arbitrary at the end of the day. We might as well argue about our favorite color. What about saving an endangered tree, or the spotted owl? This puts people out of jobs (for some extent of time). During that time period an individual or two so unemployed may lack the medical insurance needed to treat their daughter's acute lymphoblastic leukemia. There are numerous realistic scenarios we can imagine. The difference in the analogy is obvious. People don't accidentally conduct medical research, and vice-versa people don't aim their cars at squirrels or young girls (usually). One is a premeditated act, the other is not. The comparison is invalid. You'll notice I didn't say that I'm against animal research, only that it disgusts me, but not to the point where I'm going to wage a campaign against it. My training is as a biomedical scientist. I understand as well as anyone the need for animal research in the progression of human health. I'm curious if your bias ends with your species. Would you choose a person with the same background (likes/dislikes, politics, nationality, ethnicity) as you to live over someone more "different" to you? What about someone closely related to you? Do they have more value than others?
  10. Just type into Google, "glucose transporter animation" or "...interactive". I never understand posts like these.
  11. Actually none of the answers are correct. As swansont explained, heat is the flow of thermal energy (the vibratory motion of particles passed on to other particles). Choice A is the best answer, although it is not the correct answer. Just for your own knowledge replace the word heat for the word energy in all the answers.
  12. HAHAHA LOL that really made me laugh! Now I can go to bed, finally! Before I do. In case you ever sneak back and read this thread (you will): Yes light (energy) and matter are interchangeable. But you need massive amounts of energy to create matter from pure energy. That's what Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is telling you [where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light]. Square the speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and you'll notice that a huge amount of energy is needed to become even a tiny spec of matter. A beam of sunlight does not have the energy to make even a single atom let alone a molecule or a cell. To your second point about light bending around black holes, stars, planets, etc., any mass. Yes that is true. It's true because of the curvature of space-time. Gravity does not pull on the light--that's the Newtonian way of thinking about gravitation. Think of the light as traveling through the curvature of space-time induced by the black hole. We are not all "deuschbags". Most of us are not even German. Be well, douche bag. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you're not convinced by my explanation or anyone else's, be a real scientist and go test your hypothesis. As absurd as your notion is it is a testable hypothesis! Get yourself a microscope and set it up outside on a sunny day. You can watch that thing for a lifetime and see if any cells spring into existence. We'll read about it in Nature. (I can't believe I'm still thinking about this crazy op)
  13. Cameron, Training full body every day is way too much. You'll over train and loose muscle faster than your body can build it up. What I've said is true for most people, unless you're taking some serious steroids or part alien. You can experiment a little, but full body workouts 2-3 times a week really is optimal for most people. If you want to split your muscle groups up and work out every day you can, but as a beginner you'll likely do better with full body workouts. Your workouts should not last more than 1 hour to 1.5 hour. At that point your body begins to release the stress hormone, cortisol, which acts to break down muscle and decrease production of anabolic hormones like testosterone. That will work to counteract the whole point of working out. Whatever you're doing make sure you get it dome in that time frame.
  14. What an absolutely absurd and ignorant statement. I do hope you're just joking.
  15. Have you considered coupling your smoking with some unpleasant stimulus (as if knowledge of the destructive effects of smoking isn't enough). For example, between puffs you could punch yourself in the head. Or with every cigarette you smoke you donate $10 to some organization you dislike (more civilized/sane?? lol). You know, a form of Pavlovian conditioning! It's a good idea, try it! BTW, on February 1, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory on Chantix.
  16. I know that the effects of endorphins are short lived compared to synthetic opioids; they're cleared from the system more rapidly. Also, your body naturally produces endorphins under times of stress and pain. Clearly the endorphins are inadequate to mask certain types of pain or we wouldn't need extrinsic analgesics. You could clone the endorphin genes and synthesize the various endorphins chemically or via some cell-based system. Is that what you're thinking? Based on the above postulates, I don't see why that would be useful or economical. Even if certain endorphins are more potent than morphine, you would have to deliver the endorphins into the system at a much higher rate (cumulative daily dose) than that of morphine. Actually, I don't know the comparative potency of each. Maybe over the course of the day all those mini injections of beta endorphin would add up to a lower daily dose. Which brings us back to your original question. Good question.
  17. On philosophical-religious grounds using animals in research is saying that animals have less intrinsic value than humans. I don't share that philosophy. Scientifically speaking I don't see the distinction in value between a bat a tree a bacterium and human. They are all valuable parts of their ecological niche. In fact, one could make the argument that fungi and bacteria (decomposers) are ecologically more valuable than humans. Personally, animal research disgusts me on the grounds noted above, especially to conduct it first-hand. But I have less of problem doing research on yeast or bacteria. That's a glitch in my ethical code. Also, given the choice between a young girl being hit by a car or a squirrel, I would choose the girl to live. There is another inconsistency in my ethical code. It's not purely black and white. I'm not sure why that is--maybe I am just looking out for my own "kind" first. As others have pointed out animal models are necessary to medical research.
  18. I don't understand some of you here (severian, antimatter) that say kids should learn that there are consequences for their actions and that they need to take responsibility for them (fine), but then using that as an argument against using birth control pills (non-sequitur). Knowing that you're going to have sex and having the guts and self-direction (responsibility) to go to the school nurse for birth control pills as to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (consequence), and then take those pills as directed (responsibility), seems to me like a kid who understands responsibility and consequences.
  19. Here's the short answer: I don't care what you "believe." Is there solid evidence that this promotes sex? News flash: kids are having sex whether you like it or not.* At least they can have some of the same options for safety and birth control as any other age group having sex. That would include condoms, too. *Nationwide, 6.2% of high school students had had sexual intercourse for the first time before age 13. Overall, the prevalence of having had sexual intercourse before age 13 was higher among male (8.8%) than female (3.7%) students. Reference: http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm
  20. Cameron, What you're doing now is a whole body workout. You're working all your major muscle groups in a single day/session, right? I'd recommend that to novice weight lifters. You'll get the best all around gains and the variety will nurture your motivation. Do a whole body workout 2-3 times per week. One set per exercise is enough, though (2 max). When you've worked out consistently for 4-6 months, you can split your muscle groups into different sessions. This allows you to focus on particular geographic areas/movements. Here is one permutation or split: Mon:Chest/triceps Tue: Wed:Back/biceps Thu: Fri:Shoulders/abs Sat:Legs Sun: Do 2-3 different exercises per muscle group, 3-4 sets per exercise in the 6-12 rep range. (blank days are rest days--important to rest, eat, and grow!) Change things up periodically: reps, sets, splits, throw in full body workouts for a month and go back, burnouts, giant sets, supersets, Olympic lifts, etc.
  21. Stem cells succumb to senescence and death just like every other cell (but at a slower rate). The average healthy stem cell lives for the life of the individual. In culture stem cells (and germ cells) are "immortal". On a side note, cancer cells (which behave like stem cells) appear to be immortal too, although that would be impossible to test! All HeLa cells, which are standard experimental cancer cells in labs worldwide, are derived from cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks in 1950/51. The cells keep dividing and living, with no signs of aging. They appear immortal. Conclusion: stem cells, cancer cells, and germ cells are immortal. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust to clarify my post, you may wonder why stem cells have a life span in vivo but not in tissue culture. It's still unknown whether aging in stem cells is an intrinsic property or a whether stem cells age within the context of an aging tissue environment. The fact that they survive and divide longer in culture lends support to the second hypothesis.
  22. MM6

    Animals and Fungi

    The concise explanation is that protists gave rise to all eukaryotic life (plants, animals, fungi). Plants were the first to diverge from the protistas, followed by fungi and animals. So evolutionarily speaking, fungi and animals share a more recent common ancestor. Thus, they have more in common. As GCG mentioned, this can be substantiated by DNA analysis.
  23. This has got me thinking about AI and someone like Data from STTNG. His neural nets are built up to some desirable state of complexity, before he is ever turned on. When first switched on wouldn't he already have memories and knowledge just by the very nature of the architecture? Let's say his neural architecture happened to be an exact replica of the brain of some other living individual, wouldn't they necessarily share the same memories and knowledge? That's a testable hypothesis. They would have to, if our theory of mind is correct--that experience maps neural architecture. Wouldn't the converse have to be true--that neural architecture maps experience? I'm not thinking clearly right now, but this seems all very fascinating to me. I need to be slapped.
  24. You need to work on your grammar before you attend medical school.
  25. I don't understand your premise. If your body is living for tens of thousands of years, your brain would live under that same umbrella of time, since it's part of your body after all. What is it that's regenerating your tissues--stem cell therapy? Stems cells can replace other cells with a distinct architecture, but replacing dead neurons and their connections with perfect fidelity might be impossible. It's interesting if you would retain (regain) your memories/knowledge with the replacement neuronal networks. Now the plaques, tangles and inflammation, that's what you have to worry about. Those are correlated with Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative disorders (causation has not been proven). If you can keep those from forming you may be OK. As for memory, the amount of storage in the human brain is enormous. You could keep making neuronal connections infinitely (I'm not aware of any upper limit on how many connections a single neuron can have). If you ever did start having problems storing data, by that time we'd have a way to integrate technology into the brain, solving the storage problem. PS (I plan on living forever)
  • 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.