physica

no. How would we be able to understand the relationship between forces without mathematics? In fact mathematics accelerates science. This is why biology is becoming more mathematical. Yes there may be more advanced ways to problem solve. Show me where maths breaks down and how you can improve it. If you can't then you're just wasting time with directionless speculations.

No your asking the question do we need maths. It's always OK to ask questions. I do not go to bed in anger because 100% of the world doesn't understand maths. People are not second class life forms because they don't truly understand physics. I'm glad that other people pursue arts etc otherwise this would be one boring world. You can even read physics casually as a hobby it's fine. The arrogance comes in when someone wants to be acknowledged for understanding physics but they do not bother understanding the maths. In previous conversations I've always noted that you're open minded and you seem interested in what others say. That isn't a sign of arrogance.

Sciences like biology are becoming more mathematical. I say that if you can't apply maths to something you don't stand a chance in properly understanding it. This can be mistaken for arrogance but it's the opposite. I know that my brain is not amazing enough to work out that we orbit the sun when I see the sun rise and fall in the sky. Mathematics led us to this. I know that my brain can't deduce that the earth is round just by looking at my surroundings, again mathematics leads us to this. My brain isn't amazing enough to comprehend probability accurately (look at the monty hall problem), again mathematics leads us. Mathematics gave us justification to look for anti-matter. Mathematics demonstrates when ideas are consistent and logical from previous findings and also highlights reasonable gaps where we can look to improve. Many people shy away from maths because it's hard and there's right a wrong answers. Because of this a student learning maths will be shown multiple times that they are wrong or what they thought was logical is illogical. Most people don't like looking upon this harsh mirror of reality so they waste their time telling people that they don't need to learn maths even though they don't understand maths because they didn't learn it. You need maths to understand reality, only the arrogant think that their brain is amazing enough not to need the guidance of maths.

definition of backstabbing: the action of criticizing someone in a treacherous manner despite pretending friendship with them. how is he doing this???? which means: or do you resist an attack however inept you opponent is? what kind of question is that??? seriously do you understand most of the words you use??? It isn't looking like it. well get round to it instead of talking rubbish, you've done enough of that already

You can't. When I discussed paradoxes with this Kristalris. He misread one of my posts and got my argument the wrong way round forming a lengthy argument in turn backing my point without knowing it. When I quoted myself and pointed out that he got it the wrong way round. He then just completely changed is post and guess what a lengthy post still opposing me. This guy doesn't bother with details. That's why multiple people have pointed out that his sentences don't even make sense most of the time and his points are not backed up and vague and he shows no effort or even acknowledgement.

I think what Kristalris is trying to say is that he finds his meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic

Yeah Kristalris let's just ignore huge points like you not backing anything up and just making it up as you go along. Very childish approach, when you're approach is inferior and multiple people are calling you out on it, it is very arrogant and childish to just say that they are not smart enough. Einstein is famous for saying: "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" But yeah you're too smart for Einstein aren't you. Why should you condescend to the low standards of Einstein??? best just say stuff like this: What your trash statement actually says: I can react in all styles which is why I asked. Though a R&D style must be obeyed and as a consequence reflective communication style. Yet maybe not appropriate to the occasion your preferred way of communicating. To my grief my clear meaning is not sufficient to find something out for certain as to what your needs and failings are in communication. Once the excessive words have been substituted for their actual meaning it is clear that the writing is utter trash. The sentence structure is awful. Some sentences don't even make sense. Somebody with a poor command of the english language may look at what you've written and think it's elegant but for anyone who understands english they will see it for what it is, trash. Substituting though for albeit doesn't change the word count or the tone of the statement. It's just pompous. Reminds me of a 12 year old kid who discovers a dictionary and swaps words around unnecessarily to make himself appear smarter whilst not putting much effort into the substance of what he's writing. This 30 second video sums up your post: I think your command of the english language is so poor that you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that you've produced a well written piece, in turn getting frustrated as nobody seems to get what you're saying. The truth is that we'd have to read your mind to get what you're saying because your sentences don't actually make sense most of the time. Here's another terrible statement that doesn't actually mean anything: Strange stated that I was naive and oblivious to what not. So he chose a directive way of communicating to me. Okay, Just Proof: something for something: a authoritative instruction or direction response knocking his position for six. So stop moaning. This statement makes zero points, it's complete trash. The first part of the statement doesn't even follow through to the next part. How does pointing out that you exchanged words address his claims that you're oblivious and naive????

It is widely accepted that skill in writing is putting a point across concisely and directly in all circles. This is why judges sometimes apologise for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion. Shakespeare was renowned for conveying so much in such a short piece of writing. In fact I have never heard a review congratulate a writer because they were wooly. Your style implies that you're out of your depth and you remain wooly as a last defence. It reminds me of when I ask a student a question. You can tell that they don't have a clue about the answer because they will repeat the question in their answer, stall, use excessively long words and fail to commit anything concrete to their answer. In your posts on this thread you make a multitude of strong claims and you only give three links: one stating that a man is a man one to say that you know about nature and nurture and one link following your statement that your style is descriptive (even though the link doesn't cover, just more out of depth smoke and mirrors I suppose, nothing new there) If you want people to come round to your way of thinking you have to commit to a solid point and give it substance. I'm sorry to say that most of your posts are waffle.

Yeah sure biophysics is improving medicine without a doubt. What we have to consider is practicalities. You have given some examples where implanting them is needed. However, the majority of chips and devices I've seen developed in the research department in our hospital have been external. For instance one of my friend's is developing an artificial pancreas using only 6 differential equations (I seriously wonder why anybody takes biology as a major nowadays, physics maths and biophysics is where the true innovation lies) and the sensor and pump is strapped onto a belt and infused into the fatty tissue. Why? because surgery has risks and can also introduce infection. Also biofilms can adhere onto metal/plastic meaning a patient can come in and out of hospital many times with infections. Also if the equipment goes wrong then surgery is needed again to replace it. You will find that if a medical tech company can make something that functions outside the body they will. it's cheaper for the patient and a ton safer. If they don't then another medical tech company will take their business. The patients I've seen with insulin pumps etc usually have a spare that they are advised to change immediately if they start to feel acutely sick and seek medical attention as soon as possible.

I've had 4 year emergency room experience and I dabbled in medical research. Th academic standards for medicine in research is so low I was working with professors of medicine who couldn't comprehend the most basic forms of maths. I took a pay cut and spent all my savings on tuition to go back to university to study physics with an interest in biophysics and bio-engineering. The more I studied physics and maths the more I realized that my colleagues (and me before study) didn't have a clue. Lets look at your post. You state your opinion but do not back it up, you do not address the links and studies cited. Yeah who cares about the link to the former editor of the British medical journal stating that the math standard for med research is inferior and there's a lot of trash published. who cares about the study citing that 1 in 10 doctors will not recommend all vaccines to their patients as you have the answer to that: and who cares about the three links on this thread that were found in under a minute when googling where there are loads of doctors and nurses speaking out against vaccines and one book against vaccines had 48 medical doctors names to it. I really shouldn't be sweating this because you have an answer: And who cares about the link giving recent historical examples of the medical profession as a whole getting something wrong in 1995 (before social media) like the risk of a clot when on the contraceptive pill because doctors look at the percentage and saw that the risk doubled resulting in 13,000 abortions the following year. Even though the risk doubled from 1/7000 to 2/7000, yeah the main focus in your opinion is social media. I'm sure you've got some half-baked opinion on this piece of writing that reviews multiple studies pointing out that doctors can't comprehend the most basic concepts of probability and fail very simple probability exercises: https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/sites/default/files/media/forschungsergebnis/pdf/gigerenzer_gray_2011_launching_the_century_of_the_patient.pdf Now remember you're going to be a medical professional soon so don't bother reading up on anything. All you have to do is start your point with: "in my opinion", and say the rest confidently. After reading your post I have no doubt that you fit in well in medical school. Remember you'll need to maintain this confident assertion of your opinion without reading too much into specifics or trying to understand concepts like logic, cause and effect or probability if you want a successful career in clinical medicine.

This is an interesting article. Makes the point that there are many doctors who simply don't understand the most basic maths behind med research and make it very hard for patients to make the right decisions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28166019

This time I have to agree with TAR. Even if we are observed by a higher life form how can we speculate their level of interest? It would be like an ant trying to understand my level of interest of their ant hill as I pass by trying to speculate whether I created the universe for them or not.

Mike your distribution graph is a complete joke. The concept of definite integrals show how wrong this graph is. What it's saying is that it's just as likely to decrease in entropy as it is to increase in entropy. Also there are no conditions stated in this graph. That means your saying that this state applies to all situations. So What your graph is also saying is that the probability of a system becoming less disordered if I heat it up is the same as the system becoming less disordered if I cool it down. Seriously read up on some basic A-level maths at least before you start making stuff up. That graph would fail an A-level maths exam.

did you write the book?

What confuses me is that popcorn starts a thread about a theoretical physics concept, when the maths behind it is elaborated on he ignores it. When the maths is then repeated he then states that he doesn't do maths..... why start a thread on a theoretical physics concept if you're not going to engage in the maths???? The result is that we have some half-baked guess that defies the laws of physics.

The problem with this post is that it has the tone that it thinks it's being smarter than it actually is. It's actually Hamilton mechanics and it's E=1/2mv^2 As for the rant using blacks and homosexuals etc these are completely false. Being racist of homophobic is judging a whole group of people based on one external factor that they usually don't have much influence on. The rep scoring system is offering a judgement on one person (not a group) based on their actions that they have influence on, furthermore they can redeem their rep by shaping up. Being racist or homophobic is completely opposite to the rep system and actually it was fairly pathetic to chuck that in. In my experience people usually chuck these points in because they are losing and want bully or smear the other person. I don't know your motive but seriously in the future think twice before chucking in racism and homophobia. As for the rep system it's good for both parties. (as a side note you shouldn't stress over what strangers think of you over the internet life is tough enough). If you're debating with someone they will sometimes never admit that they are wrong just out of sheer stubbornness. I've had it where someone has completely misread what I've written and went off on a rant that actually back up my claim, when I pointed it out to them they edited their, flipped the argument on it's head so the rant would then go against me. I then had a a bias view towards his posts after that and took what he said with a pinch of salt. However, if I got multiple negative votes for a post it would prompt me to look back at what I said and evaluate it. Rep is also good for the other party, if there is a debate and the person really isn't budging and the conversation is becoming cyclic then you can look at his rep. If it is really good then it would be good for me to look back at my posts but if the rep is a huge negative value then you shouldn't worry too much. This is only a snap shot. I am aware that you have a negative rep but you are taking steps to learn maths and you have posted statuses pointing out that you realize that physics is a lot harder than you thought. Because of this Because of this I have more time for you than 2 people I particularity know who have positive reps but in my opinion spew complete trash most of the time.

The photoelectric effect shows that light travels in packets on energy called quanta. Light has been shown to knock electrons off metal. There is no doubt that light travels.

This study doesn't answer your interest fully but it was the best I could find. In this study of 1,251 physicians in 2008. The electronic survey sent to these physicians (self-administered servery) revealed that 11% of physicians did not recommend to patients that children receive all available vaccines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18726813 So if you are not a well educated member of the public for one reason or another you have a 1 in 10 chance of your family doctor not recommending that your child receive all available vaccines. They will just try and do the best for their child. Doctors and nurses need to stop thinking about our own image for once and admit to the public that the vocational degrees do not qualify us to make scientific analysis. Clinical training teaches the student how to interpret symptoms and which guidelines to follow, science is barely touched.

This doesn't even make sense. Are you just going to ignore the fact that it's called imaginary time because it uses imaginary numbers??? I'm reposting my last post. You have not addressed it, instead you've ignored it and made something up. lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers. Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe. Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers. Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths. You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs.

lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers. Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe. Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers. Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths. You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs. Again this is why top universities like Oxford encourage their philosophy students to study maths in their philosophy degrees and most major philosophers have maths backgrounds.

This is a prime example of the limitations to ones philosophy if they don't understand maths and why top universities like Oxford make their philosophy students study maths. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking and not proven. It's also called imaginary because of the use of imaginary numbers. When you square an imaginary number you get -1 which is a very real number. This unproven concept is theoretically proposed to better understand the Big Bang Singularity where are one point space-time curvature becomes infinite. What Hawking proposes is that instead of thinking about singularities in ordinary time, they should be considered in terms of imaginary time. As squaring an imaginary number comes up with a negative real number a complex number has a real component and a imaginary counterpart. When time is set to zero then the imaginary part will override the real part and you will end up with negative time. meaning there is no beginning or end. This is like picking a point on a planet. You can travel an infinite distance but you will end up with a finite displacement from your first position because you will be going round in circles. Engineers use imaginary numbers on a daily basis. Second year mathmatical modelling will have you using real numbers to model spring movement. Alter the length of the spring is changed and you will find yourself square rooting negative number and needing imaginary numbers do describe the spring.

The other problem why vaccine denial will never die is the confusion of the public in terms of credible opinion in medical science. Many members of the public look to their doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals for scientific analysis even though the degrees they have done were vocational. My assessments before clinical practice basically tested to see if I could memorize anatomy and physiology and that I could comprehend procedures and follow guidelines, memorize drugs and basically say that I wasn't dangerous in a hospital. The scientific method is lightly touched on and maths barely played a role in the education. I myself wanted to get involved in medical research. After working with a few medical professors who couldn't understand the most basic maths (failed to comprehend probabilities of a dice role, one professor just kept calculating means of everything because he couldn't get his head round distribution) I went back to university to study physics with the interest of biophysics. However, the average doctor and nurse has such limited scientific acumen they don't realize how limited their scientific analysis is and they preach their half-baked opinions to the public. Some are rational but some are just out right stupid. In the link below there are 3 women, 2 of them medical doctors claiming that vaccines don't work, they are dangerous. http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/ Below is a website with pages of doctors, nurses and pharmacologists writing against vaccines http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Midwives-And-Health-Professionals-Against-Vaccination Below is a link to a book against vaccines with 48 medical doctors putting their name to it http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/tag/medical-doctors-against-vaccines/ of course there are also doctors and nurses who are pro vaccine and then there's the majority of doctors and nurses who simply follow the guidelines and do their job without giving it much thought as they were grateful that they passed med school and that the end of their 12 hour shift is in sight. The sad thing is that doctors and nurses have capitalized on the public's misconception. I don't expect a scientist to perform an operation just like I don't expect and doctor or nurse to have enough scientific acumen to have a respectable analysis. However, as long as the public has this misconception they will be confused. Below is a link to a blog entry of the former British Medical Journal editor venting his disrepair and stating that he no longer reads medical journals any more and that the majority of publications in clinical medical journals are trash: Richard Smith: Medical research—still a scandal http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/ There are some stupid people who make up the public but when they're exposed to medical professionals who think they can have ago at this science lark and spew absolute trash you can't be too harsh towards the public.

A tactic I use is to find where the vein splits in two and aim in the middle of that V. This is useful in elderly patients as their veins move and this prevents the needle from sliding alongside the vein.

I'm sure we've all get a neg rep once or twice. I certainly have however, it gives you a chance to look back at that post to see why. Members with a huge negative total rep usually fire off a post resulting in something like a -4 rep. Instead of looking at it they fire off post after post with the same mistakes. It takes perseverance and repeatedly ramming faulty logic and ignorance down other people's throats to get a big neg rep.

I'd say the opposite. I had to learn anatomy for my first degree and clinical training. Although the fancy pictures look cool for the first 2 weeks it's simply rout learning. Will not improve your reasoning skills and will leave your head if you don't use it. Thanks to the fact that I can rely on google at work now I've forgotten most of mine. I'd say learn maths. It will change the way you look at the world and you'll be able to apply it to a whole range of situations. Maths and physics is becoming ever more powerful in physiology and areas like quantum biology. I'm sure there are other people on here with clinical backgrounds that will tell you the same thing. You know yourself better than anyone else so learn what you want but I urge you to think twice. It's far more rewarding to learn something that challenges you and your view than just memorizing a list of Latin words and their position in the body.