Leaderboard

First we should run a petition to change the confusing term of "Neuroscientist"(bleah) to the more accessible "brain scientists"

There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light; She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night. Attributed to an unknown entity

This is the equivalence principle and has been known about since at least 1915.

Different kind of radiation; the various kinds are named after the energetic particle involved. Alpha, beta, gamma (photons, aka EM radiation), neutron, neutrino... EM radiation has an electric and magnetic field, but is uncharged and has no mass. (it's caused by the same interaction that involves charges) The part of the OP that is most interesting is that photons don't usually interact with each other. While a photon can turn into a particle/antiparticle pair, it doesn't happen in free space — it needs a massive particle nearby in order to conserve momentum. Two photons colliding would not — if you can get them to interact.

But that is perception. Not time.

It says that in the article.

Even you can turn light into matter and anti-matter.. It's called pair-production. You just need high enough energetic gamma photons. [math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math] On the left of equation there is 1.022 MeV, on the right of equation there is 2mec2 me = ~ 510998.928 eV/c^2 (rest-mass of electron/positron) and 2* 510998.928 eV/c^2 * c^2 = 1.022 MeV Electron is matter particle, positron is anti-matter particle. Positron is anti-particle of electron.

Like these: https://www.nature.com/nrn/about/conferences Or these: http://www.abcam.com/neuroscience/neuroscience-conference-and-events-calendar Well, I'll certainly sleep better knowing you are on this.

ok guys , i wanted to share the article , next time i won't do this. Promise

Hello and welcome to the forum. Hmm. You have copied word for word the news or article more like it from an external website without quoting or giving credit to the person who wrote this. (In this case "MICHELLE STARR" I guess.) After quoting an article it's nice to add your own opinion/question/doubt or anything like that so we can start a discussion. Sorry swansont, I cross posted.

! Moderator Note Posting news articles should be done in Science News, you need to link to the article (posting without attribution, as if it's your own work, is plagiarism) and you can't just post the whole thing (that's a copyright violation) (moved and trimmed) http://www.realitybeyondmatter.com/2018/03/physicists-are-about-to-attempt.html

You know how science works? You create a model (eg your new equation) then you test the predictions of that model against experiment to see if they match and if they are better than other models. Have you done that? You said you have experimental evidence. Can we see it, and a description of how you made the measurements. Thank you.

Actually, the above mentioned trichinosis was a major issue with pork, as the typical feed for cattle is not a risk factor. As with everything, it is a matter of likelihood. There is a good chance that you will have not issues. But if you happen to have contaminated meat, eating it undercooked is an added risk. However, even so, my guess would be that overall diet imbalances has a higher net risk on health. Unless, of course your meat source is from a high risk pool.

Yeah, you can't beat a nice coating of acrylamide... yum yum.

Pretty glaring emission...

You can heat up a space via many methods and ways; but the object wanting to get warm must absorb part of it. Not efficient. That is why very warm multiple layers of winter clothing on a persons body is usually the most efficient method of heating. An extreme example would be heating a living space in dead cold extreme winter while having the people in the room only wearing swim suits. They may eventually get warm but would have to work at it. The heavily dressed folks would want to get un dressed. The bikini girls would want to get dressed.

C'mon people. Let's keep in mind that this is HW help, and anyone asking questions can only go with what they have been taught. Answers need to be given that conform to the material that's presented. If it's a simple "heat absorbed raises temperature" problem (as it is here) then it's inappropriate to bring quantum mechanics into the discussion, or to be answering questions other than what was asked, or to kibbutz on the information that's given in the problem, over which the student has no control.

...or the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa?

Oh, of course. Why did no one think of that before?

That is ironic (and bizarre) as you are referring to teleonomy, which: "is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention." And that is exactly the distinction that you are pretending doesn't exist.

Or you can just heat copper in air.

Hi There is a big hole in my understanding of integrated rate laws, and I've been having a hard time finding what it is that i'm not understanding. I would assume that it's a very small idea that i'm missing. Anyway, here's my problem, I would assume that I will say some false statement at some point, hence me getting weird results. Say you have the reaction A + B --) C And let's assume that the global order of the reaction is 2. We are also given the initial concentration of A aswell as the contentration of A at a certain point in time (t) The integrated rate law would be 1/[A]=1/[A]0+kt. We can use that equation to find a value for k, since we know every other variable. Now, here's where I get lost. Say we do a second experiment where the intial concentration of B is different, but the initial concentration of A remains the same. We once again find the concentration of A at the sime point in time (t) If we once again find the value of k in the integrated rate law, won't it's value be different? Changing the initial concentration of B has had for effect to change the rate of the reaction, and therefore the concentration of A at the same point in time is no longer the same. However, t and [A]0 are still the same. Now I know that the value of k doesn't change if you change the concentration of a reactant, so I'm confused as to why I get those results. Hopefully It wasn't too confusing. If it was, ask me questions and I will gladly clarify. Thanks a lot, I appreciate your time and kindness.

I have always assumed that (up or down) votes on old posts are from new members who have been catching up on old threads.

jai sree krishna How c languade uses pre-processor to expands source code

Because they are made, to measure correct time. I'm talking about scaling a correctly working mechanism. It can be a clock, it can be an engine or it can be a beating heart of living being Pendulum is not the best example here, as you don't change it's actual size. Better is to take 2 gears - with 32 and 16 teeth for example - make a smaller copy of them (with maintaining the number of teeth and the proportion of their sizes) and measure the rotational speed for the bigger and smaller model. If we will keep the same angular velocity, then their rotational speed will be different - but if we keep the same rotational speed, then the angular velocity will differ. Well, if an object on the surface of a rotating sphere moves with a given velocity, then he can't slow down, just because the sphere became smaller - because it would have to give it's energy to environment. Oh yes? And what about the dimensional time axis? Can you perceive the reality 20 years from now? No, you can't... Here's math: Va is not the same as Vb And that's it. A mentaly retarted monkey should be able to figure this out - but it seems, that it was too much for you

I am Oleg Gorokhov. My first account (OlegGorokhov) was banned. Why? What evidences and measurments do you need? Don't you know that the free-falling acceleration is 9.8(m/s^2)? Are here smart people?

First of all understand that the current formula for Work and Energy is is erroneous. Do it through the Karlson's example. And then the question is So do you agree with the fact that Karlson’s Energy will not be spent on this displacement of the stone (9.8m), during the 2nd second? Because this displacement (9.8m, during the 2nd second!) would be even without Karlson. THE KARLSON'S EXAMPLE IS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE So do you understand that the gravitational does not do Work moving the stone trough the 9.8m dispalcement (during the 2nd second)? Because by the beginning of the 1st second of the fall, the 20kg object has not yet accumulated the velocity v (= 0 m/s). Therefore, during the 1st second of the fall the object moves a total distance D (= 4.9 m) for only one reason: - the object moves the displacemen D1 (= 4.9 m) as a result of the Work (Pushing) of the gravitational Force, and - the object does not move the displacemen (D2) (the distance that is due to inertia), because the object has not yet accumulated any velocity (v). D = D1 + D2 = 4.9m + 0m = 4.9m By the beginning of the 2nd second of the fall, the 20kg object had already accumulated the velocity v (= 9.8 m/s). Therefore, during the 2nd second of the fall, this object moves the total displacement D (= 14.7 m) already for two reasons: - the object moves the displacement D1 (= 4.9 m) as a result of the Work (Pushing) of the gravitational Force; and - the object moves the displacement D2 (= 9.8 m) as a result of movement by inertia with a velocity v (= 9.8 m/s), i.e. without the Work (Pushing) of the gravitational Force. D = D1 + D2 = 4.9m + 9.8m = 14.7m So do you understand that the gravitational does not do Work moving the stone trough the 9.8m dispalcement (during the 2nd second)?

The ebb and flow - the result of the Earth's rotation and whirlpools. The discovery published in the Russian-German scientific journal "Eastern European Scientific Journal" №3. 2015. Positive review was obtained from the Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences.. The waters of lakes, seas and oceans of the Northern Hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise, and the waters of the Southern Hemisphere, rotate clockwise, forming giant vortices .. It is known, what everything that rotates , including swirls have the property of retaining the gyroscope axis upright in space regardless of the Earth's rotation.. If you look at the Earth from the Sun, whirlpools spinning with the earth overturned, twice a day, making whirlpools precess and reflect on my own tidal wave around the perimeter of the sea.. The waters of the Gulf Maine waters are rotate counter clockwise to form a huge whirlpool, a gyroscope, which reflects the precessing tidal wave around the perimeter of the Gulf of Maine. A similar scheme tides observed in all lakes, seas and oceans.

I did answer to people on their questions. It's not the spam! Do you see the difference? How can I answer to them in else way during the first day if I get more than 5 questions? Then limit questions .(your rules are ... not well) I presented to you the biggest discoveries in physics? THE BIGGEST DISCOVERIES EVER THESE DISCOVERIES COMPLETELY CHANGE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE AND GIVE US THE ACCESS TO NEW COLOSSAL CLEAN ENERGY. Why no one reads the link: https://goo.gl/1q9HaU No ONE cares? As I has said before, -- Unfortunately the whole text is too big to be put here. Are here smart people? Please, read the links: https://goo.gl/aETJdQ https://goo.gl/YffRQL https://goo.gl/1q9HaU

Did you read the 3rd link??? But I think it will be too difficult for you now. First please answer the following question. (about -- How about solving: How far does an object drop under gravity in 2 seconds?) Are you smart enough to read the text and the table So your question is How about solving: How far does an object drop under gravity in 2 seconds? The answer is 4.9m+14.7m= 19.6m Once again 4.9m (the displacement during 1st second) + 14.7m (the displacement during 2nd second) = 19.6m in 2 seconds Capishe? The answer will be in the Discovery#3 (about The New Law of Conservation of Energy.) Discovery #3: (temporally hidden now). If this new knowledge (that Energy of the table is spent without any movement of 20kg of the object) confuses you, just think about how many small particles are , for example, inside the iron table.These particles are pushing each other to stay together in form of the table. These pushings are Work, and, of course, Energy is wasted on this Work. Think about how much Energy is spent on these pushings every second, in order the table simply remains in the form of a firm table. And, of course, extra Energy is spent on these pushings when there is the 20kg object on the table’s surface to prevent the particles from dispersing apart from each other and to prevent this 20kg object from going downwards (this is what the 20kg object is trying to do every moment).