andrewcellini

Prometheus, what enzyme were you looking at on BRENDA? the enzyme with the smallest Km that i've found was "site-specific DNA-methyltransferase (adenine-specific)" with a Km of 0.00000000000001 mM for DNA Adenine http://www.brenda-enzymes.org/literature.php?e=2.1.1.72&r=676217

lol duh, this slipped my mind too; that's what i get for starting in the middle of the derivation. the total enzyme is conserved, so the concentration of the enzyme [E] = [E]0 - [ES], where [E]0 is the initial concentration. substitute that in for [E] in your equation and you should arrive at what i got.

the derivation in my textbook (Biochemistry 8th ed Campbell and Farrell) and also on this website (http://www.bgu.ac.il/~aflaloc/BioHTML/Goodies/DeriveMMEqn.html) would have you dividing by Km + S to make this short (and to start somewhat in the middle) you would be at ([E] - [ES])/[ES] = Km Km[ES] = [E] -[ES] (Km+)[ES] = [E] [ES] = [E]/(Km + )

wouldn't the velocity always be at Vmax? assume Km = 0 V = Vmax/(Km + ) V = Vmax /(0 + ) = Vmax/ = Vmax edit: after thinking about it i don't think this would happen as I just showed above.I forgot that is defined as Km = (Kr + Kcat)/Kf, Kr is the constant of the reverse of binding substrate to the enzyme. Kr and Kcat are positive real numbers, so for Km to be zero they would both have to be zero. and because Vmax = Kcat*[E] where E is the concentration of enzyme (held constant), if Kcat is 0 Vmax is 0 and thus V = 0 when Km = 0. it has a great affinity for whatever substrate it acts on, that's for sure, but i've not been able to come across papers where, given the conditions in the experiment, the Km was equal to zero. edit: i'm not sure what physical sense to make of it given my addition to my answer above.

what makes you think that? so i guess GR is wrong then? /sarcasm

last time i checked, science was incapable of thought. science typically can refer to the body of knowledge gathered by scientists using the scientific method, or the scientific method itself, neither of which can think. and to comment on "refuses to explore God," you haven't presented evidence that a god exists, and you weren't clear about what god you're talking about, the properties of this being, what its actions in the universe would look like and how it is possible to measure such a thing etc. how could god (scientifically) be explored without having some clue as to what to look for or even evidence that such a thing may exist?

the problem is not a lack of open minds; i think it's fair to say from viewing your other topics that people are open to your ideas and do ask you for clarifications (for example, you never provided citations as requested in cartoon form by john cuthber). you do not seem to be open to the possibility you are wrong about anything and retreat to outrageous claims that you are being insulted which is not readily apparent. your original post is based not on well reasoned propositions or on evidence about the real world but was essentially a very short creation myth you made and very much soapboxing; you didn't ask any questions which would allow any discussion to proceed other than for people to say "nice story" or, something that i agree with: and this elizsia is because you simply do not provide any reasons for a person to consider.

anakin has no father; he was conceived by the "will of the force."

quote from wiki: Finally, a field is a commutative ring in which one can divide by any nonzero element: an example is the field of real numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)

from what you've quoted: "This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide--or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change--has been underestimated, according to the study" and: "Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling," she said. "They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. Theres more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes." and: "Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere" one more: "The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C)." this is outside of what i study and i am open to correction but it seems this article you've quoted is saying that the average surface temperature change on a 20 year time scale (that is the time scale according to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ) is worse than previously thought; it's increasing at a faster rate.

do you really think it is reasonable to hold a "discussion" where every participant is merely restating beliefs? where is the progress? that is, how can you expect people to understand how you came to your conclusions and reasonably consider them other than for readers to assume they were synthesized from your back end?

can you blame them? they serve breakfast all day now.

are they? citation needed, this claim cannot be taken for granted. then what "threshold" would a socialite who is also a drug addict have? and i ask again, how do you quantify the "threshold?" what other quantities are related to it?

okay but you're probably going to have to describe in detail what that is and how you can quantify it such that you can make statements like without it sounding like you pulled it from your... well you know what is a socialization threshold? this isn't a term that I can find in literature (though obviously a lot of papers for each of these terms individually)

like NAND and NOR flash memory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory tunneling is also used to erase the data that has been stored. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive- NAND flash is used in usb flash drives.

i didn't know children were ancient animals. this changes everything.

energy is a property not a substance.

citation - "a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." from google so your speculation is nonsense. i get the impression that you think that logic and speculation are mutually exclusive and that, when you speculate, you can speculate wildly assessing every bit of nonsense you can think of as being meaningful to the discussion. thinking this way tolerates inconsistencies very well i guess i don't because i disagree with your distinction

what have you added to physics?

no i get the impression you put "neuronal" in there to try and make the idea seem a little more palatable and scientific. it didn't work. what makes you think that we only learn during infancy? what is the difference between "absorbing" and "collecting?" these "phases" don't have clear definitions, and it's not apparent that you could actually measure them or what connection they have to "neuronal excitations."

it's easy to demonstrate (or rather give the illusion of demonstration of) ones case when one quote mines. the actual quote is "creating the illusion of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space. "

i presume you're referring to this which if you are, it's referring to the work in this paper http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488 which says absolutely nothing about the magnetic field going into another "dimension." from the abstract: "Using magnetic metamaterials and metasurfaces, our wormhole transfers the magnetic field from one point in space to another through a path that is magnetically undetectable. We experimentally show that the magnetic field from a source at one end of the wormhole appears at the other end as an isolated magnetic monopolar field, creating the illusion of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space. Practical applications of the results can be envisaged, including medical techniques based on magnetism."

you are not a scientist the suggestion that you are actually misunderstanding what you're reading is helpful.

i doubt that the creators of this game provide any real depth of explanations of the supposed mechanisms of phenomena in the fictional world they created to lead you to such a conclusion. regardless, it's a fictional world and does not need to abide by the rules that nature follows; the rules are at the whim of the creators. x2

in order to prevent further divergence from the topic, i think this topic should be closed. i was personally provided with enough good and thought provoking answers and further questions to rethink my original question.