iNow

Thermodynamics... Think "entropy."

In the vast majority of instances, yes. This is absolutely correct. However, there is a small, but non-zero chance that, despite false premises, the conclusions may still be correct. However, these rare instances tend to be a function of coincidence and chance, and are in no way related to a valid/logical induction from the premises.

Okay, so all you need is a list of words. It's best to avoid those words all being similar, or too hard, but really all you need is a list of words. You then show that list to your participants, tell them they have 5 minutes to remember them as best they can, and you test them later. There are free online tests, too. Just google terms like "Recall test word list" or something like that. Also, lots of really useful stuff here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chmemory.html

What type of memory do you wish to study? If you want to study recall, then you can use lists of words, give subjects 5 or 10 minutes to review/memorize, then test them all after 30 or 60 minutes and see how well they do. You could run the test whereby they have to write the words with no cues (straight recall), or you could run tests whereby they have to match words on a page (recognition). If you want to study spatial memory, you would show them a map with names of places on it, and ask them after the alotted time to recall which name goes where... or, cut out the shapes and ask them to place the shapes back together. Maybe you are interesting in visual memory, or facial recognition. You could flash through 15 or 20 similar photos of faces, wait the allotted time... then, throw in faces which weren't previously seen and ask them "have you seen this face, yes/no?" You could do auditory memory, and play various bits of music... wait, play music later that they both have... and also... have not heard... and ask them whether they've heard it before. Finally, you might want to measure false positives (they "remember" something they've not before encountered, or a stimulus you never even showed them), or you might want to measure false negatives (they don't remember something which they have been previously shown). In short, it really depends on what you want to do with it, and what type of memory you're interested in measuring. Heck, I didn't even raise the concept of "muscle memory."

When I studied, Geometry and Trig came before Calc, but I honestly cannot say whether or not this was the "best" way.

I'm like CharonY. I have coffee, then some more coffee. Sometimes, I'll throw in a granola bar if my blood sugar is low, but the coffee does me right. Interestingly, that's only when I'm working. When I'm home, or off on the weekends, I go completely without, and sometimes even cook up large servings of breakfast tacos with fresh veggies, sausage, eggs, salsa, hash browns, the whole works... but (as a general rule) no coffee.

To what, specifically, do you refer?

Indeed. I quite agree being a gun owner myself. One thing with which I struggle, however, is that I don't feel anyone should have assault weapons like AKs and ARs. They only have one purpose, and that is the mowing down of other humans. The challenge for which I've thus far failed to find solution is that... if we outlaw those weapons... then only outlaws will have them. Dilly of a pickle, that. Thanks, DJBruce, for confirming my instinct that this "if only Iranians had guns" idea was created and is generally being propagated through the right-wing ideological networks.

I think that if the people of Iran had (and were currently using) guns, the government in Iran would be using more and bigger ones to suppress/kill them. I also think this idea (that guns would somehow prove useful to the Iranian protesters) must have been put forth on AM talk radio (conservative blogs) within the past day or two since one of my close colleagues at work brought up the exact same point during lunch today.

In my estimation, this is another nice thread contribution. Enjoy. eUB4j0n2UDU

Of course you could, but... with us...emotion is what makes a memory more profound... it makes the memory change future behavior and decisions. The emotion is fed from hormones like adrenaline and neurotransmitters like dopamine. We could waste all of our mental capacity remembering every single detail of our lives, but instead we put a valence on them with our emotions. Some stand out more than others, and for good reason. We nearly avoid a car wreck and get a surge of emotion. We then remember better the factors which led us to nearly get into that wreck so as to not repeat the same mistake in the future. We have a fight with our girlfriend, we are emotional and remember what we did that led to the fight... or, what we did to lose the fight... and the emotion makes us better NEXT time. Emotion is the base of it all. We remember the happy parties and the depressing times, because the ability to do so prepares us for later experiences. It's only when emotion is NOT present that we tend NOT to remember stuff. Sure... we could just design a cold computer like memory for all possible events, but some events ought to have a greater "weight." If you want to explore this, you will need to account for that. How do you place a greater weight/importance on things which should be... in fact... more important? The emotion came first in our brains. It's related to the reptilian brain, and is evolutionarily older than the cortex and critical thinking skills. Emotion came first... then memory built on top of that... then problem solving and critical thinking on top of that... These are all layers to the cake, and all you have is dough or flour if you remove any of the layers. I'm just saying... You're talking about consciousness. Emotion plays a crucial role in deciding the things about which we're conscious or to which we're attentive.

Probably not what you're thinking of, but here's something along those lines: http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/atmospheric/drag1.html From that same site, another cool image (but it required the plane to be flying through smoke): Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTolmos - How about this (same phenomenon as above, but more natural): Schlieren image of the shock waves generated by an F-18 aircraft flying at Mach 1.4. The Mach cone generated by the head and tail shocks can be seen as well as the shocks generated by the leading and trailing edges of the wings. (NASA Dryden Flight Research Center) More to Kyrisch's point, it sort of looks like this:

Yes, I sure can, but I'm not going to. How about you take the onus on yourself to find us a picture of what you're talking about so... well... so we know what you're talking about?

It wasn't a shock wave, then. Probably more related to some sort of turbulent air.

Then, are you suggesting that this is what you saw: These dramatic photographs of free-flight models of the X-15 being fired into a wind Tunnel vividly detail the ahock-wave patterns for airflow at Mach 3.5 (left) and at Mach 6 (right). ?? If so, I sort of doubt that (as per IAs posts above). http://history.nasa.gov/SP-60/ch-5.html The major consequence of flight to high spced is the effect on airflow, because of the elasticity (compression and expansion) of air. At the slowest speeds, subsonic, the effects are not pronounced. As airflow velocities increase, the air becomes compressed, and pressure begins to pile up ahead of each part of the aircraft, until finally distinct pressure waves, or shock waves, form. The transonic airflow region is where shock waves first appear on an aircraft, though these shocks may be only local in nature. It is a region of mixed and erratic flow between subsonic and supersonic flow, which causes abrupt changes in lift and drag forces and airplane stability. As speed is further increased, local regions of subsonic flow disappear, and the flow is everywhere supersonic. The air has become further compressed. The shock waves are now distinct and trail aft in the form of a wedge, or cone, behind any object that interferes with the airstream. While a shock wave is normally less than .001-inch thick, the air undergoes large changes in pressure, density, and temperature across this minute boundary. These effects are far-reaching, even extending to the ground in the form of sonic booms. Aerodynamic theory has been developed that enables the characteristics of these shock waves to be precisely calculated. At higher supersonic speeds, the shock waves continue to increase in strength, bending back to form an acute angle with the aircraft surfaces. The equations of supersonic flow at this point no longer apply, and many interactions between shock waves and flow field are evidenced. One major effect is a loss of lifting effectiveness of the wings and tail surfaces, because the shock waves attenuate the aerodynamic forces. Of more significance, the friction of the air flowing along any surface raises air temperature to many times that of the surrounding atmosphere. Airflow is now in the hypersonic-flow region, and the science of thermodynamics is added to aerodynamics. Though not exactly defined, it is generally accepted as applying to speeds above about Mach 5. It is an area of multiple shock waves and interference effects. The difficulty for the aerodynamicist arises from trying to unterstand the effects of flow that is discontinuous at each shock wave. Each new geometric shape calls for reorganization of theory.

You're, not your.

I like the idea of compulsory voting, as it tends to be a much better representation of what the populace wants. Also, I absolutely DO think it ensures the populace is more engaged/involved/knowledgeable. I'm also curious about "what happens if they're handicapped" and simply can't vote type questions, though.

Did you see something like this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070819.html Explanation: Is this what a sonic boom looks like? When an airplane travels at a speed faster than sound, density waves of sound emitted by the plane cannot precede the plane, and so accumulate in a cone behind the plane. When this shock wave passes, a listener hears all at once the sound emitted over a longer period: a sonic boom. As a plane accelerates to just break the sound barrier, however, an unusual cloud might form. The origin of this cloud is still debated. A leading theory is that a drop in air pressure at the plane described by the Prandtl-Glauert Singularity occurs so that moist air condenses there to form water droplets. Above, an F/A-18 Hornet was photographed just as it broke the sound barrier. Large meteors and the space shuttle frequently produce audible sonic booms before they are slowed below sound speed by the Earth's atmosphere.

That's ridiculous. Ever heard of a neurotransmitter? I'd also appreciate it if you would share a source for that text which you copy/pasted. Not only is it the rules, not only is it just good personal policy, but I'd like to read the context in which the comments were made so as to better understand them. A sentence suggesting that some guy Hameroff is not convinced isn't good enough. Finally, those superconductors operating at higher temperatures that you mention... those are made out of materials which simply aren't present in the brain.

My "word salad to english" translator suggests that his response in post #33 can be summarized as a "No."

I think there's a basic flaw in your premise. Levels of neurotransmitters (like dopamine) fluctuation throughout the day, and depend greatly on what we're doing. There is no "one level," since the transmitters are responsive to what's happening in our environment. They could be very high, they could be very low... it really just depends. Now, sometimes there are people who have chronically low levels of NTs like dopamine, but they too will fluctuate throughout the day. I'm sure there's a range of some sort which is considered normal, but it will vary greatly from person to person, and also within the same person depending on what they are doing. As for testing levels of NTs in the system, there are many tests, often it's just a simple urine test.

Hey... you guys should check Snopes! I can't believe nobody has done that yet.

Yes, actually... I do. People believe in all sorts of "woo" that has no grounding in reality, because... well, because it's easier, and that's just sort of human nature. I mean, hell... Just look at religion. (Generalizing here) For practically every claim they make there is zero empirical support... no evidence whatsoever... not one iota... yet just look at how many vast numbers of people believe that without any doubts. I'm just saying, lots of people believe lots of things which are not reasonable or grounded in reality, so that's not a very good criterion for you to use when thinking that some field has any worth or merit. That's just it, though. For many of these things, there's not even smoke... Just people who think there's smoke. Try to keep that in mind as you move forward. Just FYI - That's an old urban myth, and is non-representative of reality. We actually use all of our brains. More on that here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html Enjoy.

Fair enough. So, those would be "plate boundary slidey zones." I'm really not too interested in this particular discussion to be perfectly honest. I find the blatant lack of regard for why we accept plate tectonics to both be rather appalling and annoying.

I fear that it's being way over dramatized, and that the producers of the film are taking too much rhetorical license... to the point where they may be putting in plot devices which are hardly historically accurate. Obviously, I won't know until I see it, but there was sure a lot of "woo" in the trailer. Also, it's called "Creation," which makes me think it's one huge misrepresentation of Darwins work by some religious group. Again, we'll have to wait and see.