antimatter

One of my teachers told me that it is the other way around. He said that centripetal is an apparent force because it is just a form of intertia, and centrifugal is stand alone.

I think the universe will eventually just run out of energy(-heat)

How would that happen?

IME, it actually *is* the sex that bothers most people. The US, particularly the religious segment of the population, has a very puritanical view towards sex, even safe sex.

Well, right, that's one of the groups I mentioned, the religious fanatics. Aside from them it's just the consequences people are worried about it.

How long will it take us to get the the point that we see no problem with anyone having sex when and with, when ever and with who ever they can talk into consenting to having sex with them. Humans should grow up in control of their own selves not worrying about what others think.

It isn't the actual sex that bothers people, but rather, it's the ramifications.

The people you hear complaining about sex in my school are most likely worried that the majority of the kids who are or will be having sex are irresponsible and are just giving in to their primal desires without a thought of anyone else. The other people you hear complaining are those religious stiffs who think it's wrong to hold hands with someone.

Actually, the averages eliminate oscilations, not enhance them. Think of it like seasons of the year - temperature oscilates, but if you average over the entire year, you can eliminate those oscillations and meaningfully compare the temperature of one year to another.

Ah I see, so in those averages there is an increase in temperature?

Not according to the multi-decadal average.

Can't you use the 'cycles' argument against that? When I tell my physics teacher this, he says that it's all just cycles of temperature and that this happens all the time, it warms and then cools.

So I'm writing a paper, and I look outside the window and see snow. Now, it's April, it's cold, and it's snowing. Snowing hard, and the flakes are much larger than they've been all winter. It's not really accumulating, but it's been coming down for almost an hour. I live in the East Coast of the States, and we haven't gotten snow after March in quite a while.

I don't know much (anything) about weather or meteorology so I'm curious as to why this is happening. Any explanations?

Sure does!

Big chill (if I understand what you mean by it) is the standard picture of the longterm future. Our galaxy will be bigger then (due to merging with other galaxies like Andromeda). Stars will burn out*. Dark and cold. Other darkening galaxies drifting away gradually fading out of sight.

If stars burn out, won't there be other stars? Even if the other galaxies start drifting farther away, how will that really affect us? I was under the impression that most of the other galaxies don't affect us quite as much (except gravitationally).

And by that you mean the data that it is getting cooler?

No, that there really is no data to disprove global warming. What he is saying that the intentions aren't enough to justify the cause, only data.

I've been reading a bit lately about the possible fate of the universe. So far I've seen a few models, and they all seem interesting to me. I've seen threads about these prophecies individually, but I'm not entirely sure which one is most plausible, so I'm curious as to your ideas. First off is the Big Crunch, the idea that when there is enough matter in the universe, gravity will cause the expansion to move backwards, thus collapsing the universe into a black hole singularity.The next one I found was called the Big Chill, the idea that as the universe is expanding, matter will get spread more and more thinly, until the temperature approaches absolute zero.After that, there is the Big Rip, which says that since the fabric of the universe is constantly expanding, the observable universe is shrinking, and that when the size of the observable universe is smaller than any particular structure, tearing will occur.Finally there is the Big Bounce, which says that we live in an oscillating Universe, and that everything moves in a cycle, and after our universe collapses, there will be another Big Bang.

These are all very brief summaries that I pieced together from several different resources. I'm not so sure of how accurate they are, but it has been interesting to read. Seeing as I don't know much about astronomy, I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on which one is more likely, and any possible corrections to the summaries that I've given.

Skeptic, you are mixing up a lot of different concepts here and in wrong contexts, too. I won't comment on that further, though as it would be off-topic.

 

Re: weaponization. This is not really about plasmids (some bacterial toxins or virulence factors are plamid encoded, many are not), or any genetic manipulation for that matter. B. anthracis (not anthrax, that is the disease) for instance is not harmless on its own as most strains are naturally carrier of the toxins causing anthrax. The weaponization usually refers to the delivery. Most biological agents are lousy in that regard, that is why they are commonly not considered to be superior to chemical agents (though it may appear to be more frightening).

Also it is unlikely that they easily spread without being noticed, as usual symptoms appear first. There are exceptions, of course (like e.g. HIV).

I assumed that weaponization meant what Mr. Skeptic was talking about. Finding a spore that could carry the virus, and modifying it to suit your needs.

By the way, you say that most biological agents are lousy in regards to delivery. Why?

Numbers are patterns. Mathematics is the science of patterns.

Numbers aren't patterns. They can be arranged IN patterns, but they are not patterns themselves.

The antibodies discussed in the article bind to a highly conserved region on the antigen. At some point, if use of the antibody becomes widespread, there will be selection pressure against that conserved region as well. We can then expect to start seeing flu virions having a mutation at or near the antibody binding site.

I don't quite get what you're saying when you wrote that we can expect to see a mutation at or near the antibody binding site. Is it that because of the constant mutations, this new vaccine will cease to be effective at a certain point?

Not a conspiracy, but it could be an example of "groupthink."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Is that your opinion? Or your interpretation of what he said?

Do you happen to go to a Catholic school, or religiously based school, Cameron?

 

Here, you mention that your physics teacher argues against human caused global warming.

In another thread, you said your biology teacher said condoms don't help prevent HIV.

 

What the hell are these morons doing in an instructional role? I'm trying to figure out what the common thread is for all of this false information you're being given, and the only thing I can conceive is that you attend a more spiritual than reality based institution.

To be honest, my physics teacher has a PhD in Geology...

He is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, though. He said global warming is a scheme by the U.N. to unite the countries. I don't think that I should have told him about Watchmen. It isn't a religious school (I know you were talking to Cameron, but oh well), it's the only public high school in the town.

Mathematics is the "study of numberlike things" or "philosophy of numbers"

I'm curious as to what you mean by 'philosophy of numbers'.

The way that they function? Philosophy is defined as the investigation of truths and principles, so is math a way of describing the truths and principles of the world through numbers?

Naegleria would be another ideal choice, since its hard to find once infected. It's also extremely contagious, and the bodies it kills become very toxic biohazards.

I'm not too familiar with it, can you give me some more specifics?

Good find! That was an interesting article indeed.

I agree with Mr. Skeptic. It seems too perfect that they found a part of the virus that never changes. Sure, it'll work for a while, but there'll be a few strains that it won't be able to combat. I don't know that much about Immunology myself, but I'm willing to bet that the part that they think is stable might end up changing because of this. Who knows?

wikipedia - la nina

 

answer to warming causing ice age

 

 

It's all about ocean currents and movement of different water types (salt versus fresh) and temperatures (warm versus cool).

It seems like they are trying too hard. In the second link specifically.

My Physics teacher went on one of his anti-global warming rants today, and he said that we're in a period of cooling that won't go away for a long time, and that it is all part of the natural cycles. He said that when everyone thought the temperature was rising, it was the same as how everyone sees the temperature lowering right now.

(Sorry if the post is incoherent. Studies and sleep deprivation has robbed me of any sense of cohesive writing).

Then what is it meant for, specifically?

To be totally honest, I'm not entirely sure myself. I stated above that I believe it is a tool to be used as the language of science, but according to others it is much more. I feel that describing it as just the study of patterns is honing in too specifically on one aspect of the broad field.

PS- the best kind of biological weapon is the kind that no one notices till it's too late, ie: smallpox, ebola, HIV, anthrax, or, best of all, rabies.

 

Ebola is definitely not the best kind of biological weapon. In fact, while it's disturbingly dangerous, it usually kills the host too quickly for the virus spreads. It incubates in around 5 days, and then kills the host in the next several days. It's too fast.

I agree on rabies. It causes encephalitis, which is deadly enough, and then takes 2-12 weeks to incubate before symptoms start showing up.

It's transmitted through the saliva of an infected animal, so it shouldn't be too hard to taint a water supply. The problem is, modern medicine can deal with rabies quite easily. Immunizations against it are also a possible threat.

Merged post follows:

Well, viruses I think are fairly fragile, and also require live cells to culture them. A bacterium that can form spores, on the other hand, is quite resilient and can be cultured. The most difficult part of biological warfare is delivery. You need a critter that can survive being sprayed into the air, and that can infect via the lung. To increase deadliness, for bacteria you can give them plasmids that give antibiotic resistances, and plasmids that produce toxins. For viruses, you need to insert the genes into their genome. You probably want a sickness that does not spread easily, otherwise it could get out of control. You probably want one that is not simple to manufacture, otherwise your enemy will make some and send it back.

So with all of this genetic engineering, how could you actually find a spore, insert the genes, provide plasmids and just overall do it without some state of the art lab? I hear all these stories and read these medical thrillers about terrorists making these bio-warfare weapons in their makeshift labs, but it doesn't seem at all realistic. What technology would it actually take?

With all the electricity generators, I imagine this would be much bulkier than the average grenade.

what I envision a milimeter of antimatter will do. But it will be less pretty because of no fallout......

I was thinking something more along the lines of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDwgsZTQSyM

Math is the study of patterns.

I think that you're over simplifying it. Sure, math frequently involves patterns, but that is not what it is meant for specifically.

How would the grenade be made to contain the antimatter though? You'd need to have a perfect vacuum, an electromagnetic field, and then some way of releasing it on contact. The math shows that it would be devastatingly powerful, but it's almost impossible to do.

It is more than just a language.

 

For example the dictionary contains all the words, but it is not poetry.

How is it more than just a language? Maybe I don't have enough experience with it, but to me it just always seemed like a tool in understanding science.