Leaderboard

Glad to help. That's a major function of this site. 🙂 Ask again if you need more help.

Well I was replying to your question to bufofrog Which your repeated acouple of times. In fact I did double the volume in my original post to get from 500ml to 1000ml as the easiest way to get to moles/litre. But sure you could work on actual volumes if you prefer - It's just more mistake prone and longer winded. Bufofrog also offered you a very handy formula that can be applied in many cases That is C1V1 = C2V2 This is much used by pharmacists who do a lot of fiddling about with concentrations like you have been doing. Here are a couple of pages from a pharmaceutical calculations course that also show what to do when you can't directly apply the formula. I don't know what you wil be getting up to in Biology, but the most general situation is when you are mixing two different strengths of solution etc. There is one formula that works in all cases. [math]\frac{{{\rm{Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Weaker}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{{{\rm{Stronger}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{\rm{ = }}\frac{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Stronger}}}}{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Weaker}}}}[/math] This formula works whether you use w/w, w/v, v/v %, P ie all units so long as you are consistent.

Alko: The problem I find with your core thesis is that one can use the same argument to deny consciousness to any matter, even matter that grows from DNA coded instructions and which we call a person. To clarify, let's take your opening comment, "This article is an attempt to explain why the cherished fiction of conscious machines is an impossibility. The very act of hardware and software design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the designers and not an infusion of conscious will. " Now I can substitute DNA coded life into that paragraph, like this: This article is an attempt to explain why the cherished fiction of conscious beings is an impossibility. The very act of reproduction, resulting in DNA-directed design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the parents desire, and not an infusion of conscious will. Do you see the problem here? Your formulation seems to be unwittingly sneaking in a sort of Cartesian dualism, where something immaterial must be "infused" in some mystical process. But really, what does it matter (no pun intended) whether hardware that has the self-modifying features of a neural network (a connectome, in current parlance) is initiated in nucleotide chains or in some inorganic substrate. Your thesis begs the question.

While reading Steven Pinker's latest book, Rationality, I came across a problematic paragraph in chapter 3 which is supposed to be about probability and randomness. He begins by noting Einstein and his famous saying about God playing dice with the world, and he mentions the importance of not mistaking nonrandom pattern for nonrandom process. Then he gets to the paragraph below: All this raises the question of what kinds of physical mechanism can generate random events. Einstein notwithstanding, most physicists believe there is irreducible randomness in the subatomic realm of quantum mechanics, like the decay of an atomic nucleus or the emission of a photon when an electron jumps from one energy state to another. It’s possible for this quantum uncertainty to be amplified to scales that impinge on our lives. When I was a research assistant in an animal behavior lab, the refrigerator-sized minicomputers of the day were too slow to generate random-looking numbers in real time, and my supervisor had invented a gadget with a capsule filled with a radioactive isotope and a teensy-weensy Geiger counter that detected the intermittent particle spray and tripped a switch that fed the pigeon. Now, I can't get the idea of the last sentence altogether. what does an animal behavior lab have to do with Geiger counter and feeding pigeons, and with randomness to begin with!

Hi. Find this video very pretty. If there was an 'educational videos' section, it would fit well. Move to 'Experiments' or leave it here; but enjoy it ! ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AXupc7oE-g

I think the fundamental issue is that the court case sought to examine the issue of defamation, not domestic violence/abuse. While Depp's quote clearly indicates he believes he was a victim of abuse (as does Heard), the trial itself was never intended to prove if Depp or Heard were the perpetrators/victims of abuse, but defamation. There is certainly an ongoing discussion about gender issues in domestic violence/abuse in the sociology literature - the gender based asymmetry of physical/psychological forms of abuse, gender bias in the likelihood of reporting abuse, etc. But the Depp/Heard case is tangential to that issue at best, simply because its focus was not abuse. To apply a scientific analogy, if I do a Kirby Bauer disc diffusion assay on a stain of bacteria using an amoxicillin disc, it will tell me whether or not the bacteria is resistant to penicillin beta lactam antibiotics. It won't, however tell me anything about the resistance of that bacteria to carbapenem. The bacteria might or might not be resistant to carbapenem - but making an objective, evidence based determination about its carbapenem resistance would not be possible based on my test - I'd need use a carbapenem KB disc.

Thank you very much for these valuable resources - I have a much clearer understanding of this subject now. I'll try to implement that formula in all of my future excercises. And thank you to both of you for correcting my mistakes! Without your help I'd still be stuck on that problem

That was from me for marshalling the same elsewhere. Your conduct in this thread has been despicable. The posting zapatos references somehow manages to mention irrelevant transgender issues and then accuse the staff of being poisoned by the PC woke virus? Hogwash. Unlike MigL I'd be fine with you following through on leaving.

Then think of it as an exercise to improve your social skills.

You don't have to believe me, but moderators don't delete anything, and it's a long-time policy. We do hide posts sometimes while discussing behind the scenes what to do with them, but we generally either move them to an appropriate section/thread or we put them in the Trash, but they should be visible somewhere. I don't know about Admins, but Mods can't read a private message unless they're included in it by the author. I do get a readout that shows how many posts, registrations, polls, and private messages a member has, but it doesn't even show who the message is to, much less what it says. I definitely think there is a bias in science towards liberal examination of evidence. Everything about the methodology tells us that objectivity functions best without preconceived notions, and that we should simply follow where the evidence leads. Conservatism urges us not to question tradition, to fight change and innovation, and that often seems antithetical to scientific study. Science is always supposed to be the best CURRENT explanation, which can change if the evidence changes. The members often nitpick that fine line between known science and hidebound resistance to change.

So pleased you could renew your subscription with the Delphic Oracle.

The question relies on the assumption God exists in the first place. Ok, so lets assume this is the case (not my belief by the way) are we talking about an all powerful omnipotent being that lies outside of the all known existence? Because if so there is no reason to assume any laws, logic or causality applies, therefore the very question could be moot. God may not have been created, God is just is. Personally though I'd go with (like many others have said) God(s) is/are a figment of human imagination.

Karl Popper read about Sigmund Freud's theories and listened to Albert Einstein's lectures which helped him formulate the theory that makes "pseudoscience" (as he coined it) and "science" distinct. What he realized is that Sigmund Freud could warp evidence to conform to his theory. For example: Sigmund Freud could explain how a child might feel lonely by explaining that they were hugged too little as a child (lack of affection; induces alienation to affection) or being hugged too much as a child (affection becomes a normal occurence it is taken for granted). Sigmund Freud seeked to prove his theory which ultimately leads him to cognitive dissonance and bias--something unscientific. Albert Einstein did not do what Sigmund Freud did. What Albert Einstein did sounds counterproductive, but he seeked to disprove his theory. The solar eclipse of 1919 was heavily watched by Albert Einstein as the way light would travel to Earth would've disproven the Theory of Relativity, but as we all know, it becomes the most well-known scientific theory today. (The solar eclipse proved the Theory of Relativity as Einstein observed how the light warps or bends) What seperated Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein was unorthodox and seemingly contradicting, but we can never trust how we "feel" but rather what we "know". We know that theories that seek to disprove are scientific because they do not have the bias that a theory that would seek to prove. It sounds weird, I know, but Karl Popper thought that seeking to disprove eliminates more bias than seeking to prove ever would. In his eyes, every "wrong" theory that we assume gets us that more closer to the truth, because we have just crossed off one wrong idea to be replaced with a right one.

This is where you went wrong and why it is a good idea to convert to equivalent vol of pure ethanol. You have taken the density of 215ml of a liquid (that indeed has the same amount of ethanol as 150ml of pure ethanol) but it also contains 30% water since your liquid is 70% ethanol. So some of its density ie mass will be due to the water. So multiplying this density by the volume will not get you the mass of ethanol. secondly you only made 500ml of solution with this 215 ml of liquid You need to double this quantity to get moles / litre. That is why my calc ends up at about 5M whilst yours ends up at about 8M. You are however right, and even said you made the volume up with 9 parts of water in your opening post - I missed that. I just saw the 1 : 10 which is usually interpreted as I said. Does this help ?

The Road to Reality is a very good book. Any recommendation from Genady is probably worth considering, OTOH. It's not a book to actually learn physics though. It's more of a whirlwind tour of the exciting topics of modern physics. As to popular books with emphasis on experiments, I recommend, Weinberg's The Discovery of Subatomic Particles. Then you can try the Feynman Lectures on Physics. If you want to learn physics in earnest, you probably can't do much better than Landau & Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics. Encyclopedic (10 volumes.) A bit old, but will take you a long way in understanding the deepest principles of physics and how they're applied. There are many other books, I'm sure, and with a more modern focus. A good rule of thumb is: The more unassuming the title is, the more likely it will take you to the nuts and bolts. I think you get the idea. Although we could hardly be more off-topic.

You certainly can, I just think it is easier to find densities of pure substances in general. That's right. C1V1 = C2V2.

Against my better I did take a look at the trial and while it has already been stated by other members before, the trial is in fact not about abuse, and as such an even worse example for the real issues outlined in the title than I thought it would be. The libel case really just means that the jury found Heard to have made false and defamatory statements against Depp with malicious intent. At the same time Heard also won a counterclaim against Depp (also for defamation). The big issue with such cases is that it is easy to use these as a strawman to dismiss real societal challenges by pointing at shitty behaviour of celebrities.

Sorry Koti. I do hope you choose to stay. Your opinion has always been respected, if not always agreed with, by me. I would hope you respect mine, even if you disagree with it.

People did. Religion is the original 'social engineering'. When mankind became a social animal, as opposed to a familial animal, there was a need for uniform moral values across that society, and religion, with one or many gods, provided a way to 'control' people, such that they fit in with that society. Essentially, for better, god(s) and religion provided a way for a few to exert control, and direct the evolution of that society, and, for worse, a way for a few ( unscrupulous ) people to exert control, and direct the evolution of that society.

https://www.theonion.com/oil-companies-lament-rising-price-of-joe-manchin-1848656304

Personal attack. Perhaps you can address the content of the post rather than the motives of the poster.

-1

Facepalm.

I am not so sure. The implication is that the special exception is part and parcel of the definition. Only that if people created G-d/gods it is an "immaterial" creation. No. If a clock-work universe were designed and then the guy (or possibly Descartes' demon) walked away it may be impossible to discern the hand which wrought it out. "who created god?" is also a loaded question.

Ookay. In indirect fashion at the end I elaborated on the ideas of immanent vs. remote. I don't feel it obligatory to elaborate on terms that are readily available to be defined by a search. And I don't accept the question as though he's asking on behalf of a group of hillbillies who have limited computer time or speed at the local library or something. That is the question of the thread, and I have to disagree that since it is made explicit it is not a form of special pleading, being that the exception being declared defines the issue under argument. As an exercise in abstraction, let's examine empiricism. I'd say results of empirical science follow from an initial measurement or observation, and deductions then made to explain those observations or measurements. There is a small leap of faith made in granting that the instrument of observation or measurement has been calibrated precisely against an objective standard. Here if our instrumennt is human perception or reasoning we take it that these are not fallible or that enough observations and deductions agreed upon as reasonable constitutes sufficient support. By assuming that a result of epmiricism, like Darwin's theory of evolution, is based on precise or objective data is making a special plea for the results of a science that has not performed sufficient validation of it's base method -- being that it always relies on observation, human vision (which no doubt arose from random point mutations in the chemoreceptors of amniotes), or reason, which may be error prone. I'm not trying to fool anyone, nor evangelize to hillbillies. Although if there are any Mohammedans in the Hills, the 99 attributes or names of God also speaks to immanent vs. remote. Why you want to act aggrieved and insist that I elaborate on things such as that is beyond me. Well reasoned I'd say, and important to delineate that it may be a conception for explanation that is being examined; wholly equally weighted conclusion based on evidence that the concept is a construct of the human mind, IMO.

I introduced two terms to the discussion, and then provided two or three commonly known examples from religions to try and illustrate the terms. If you think that question was earnest, why is it so unspecific? I have to bear a demand for burden of proof on what point, exactly? This isn't Meta. I'm not here for the likes.

I’m not a fan of Johny Depp, I was never especially attracted to his acting, I don’t hate him and I don’t love him as an actor. As for Amber Heard I’m not sure if I even saw her in a movie and if I did I can’t remember her. I followed the trial very closely though and thoroughly because as I mentioned in my previous posts I think it’s an important shift point in todays world (alongside others) After following the countless witness testimonies, the testimonies of AH and JD, the testimonies of psychiatrists, psychologists, their friends and acquaintances all I can say is that I’m very glad Johny Depp feels he got his life back and was succesful at defending his name in this trial. If you were capable of reading with comprehension you’d know that this thread is my last one. Also its all hogwash to you because you werent here participating in countless discussions over the years on pollitics, ethics, transgender issues, PC issues, so things might sound irrelevant to you but thats because you know jack sh..t.

Symmetry Arete. The abstract talks about gender symmetry not only gender assymetry. Your error would be meaningful but considering the context were in here and all I said about bias - its hilarious.

It’s a combination of factors - changing the rules a couple years back to delete posts by the moderators, private message reading by the staff, the progressing pollitical and ideological bias blinding the science, its most definitely not this thread only, this seemed to have tipped the scale for me and I a am no longer benefiting from being here. I will finish up this thread and I will no longer be participating. Sure, poor Koti unknowingly resorted to strawman dissmissing the real societal challenges (like transgender inclusivness) and CharonY knows that JD hasn’t been abused because it doesn’t fit the f up framework that has been spoon fed on this forum for years, progressively. It must already be 4 or 5 years since we had a discussion about „The Red Pill” the documentary about abused Fathers. You tried to dismantle the narrative portrayed in that documentary in a similar way youre trying to dismantle JD here by undermining and whiting out the facts by a methodical process which is completely unscientific - you set up a pre-etablished view and youre trying to put in the pieces of the puzzle in a way determined by that pre established view. The level is different but the mechanics are the same as talking to a religious nut, the difference is that a religious nut puts a scarf over his eyes and pretends not see the reality and you subtly and skillfuly move and puzzle the pieces using a broader skillset so that the final result fits your predetrrmined narrative. It’s not only you, most of the staff have been poisoned by the PC woke virus and my gripe isn’t emotional but its coming from countless posts and threads over the years. I wish we could all stick just to the science but its impossible, pollitics are creeping into everything these days and it pisses me off.