greentea

you don't need bioweapons for mind control. there is a science called sociology invented for that

alright, I am not gonna do people's HW again, just give hints/suggestions. new here.

I think it is integrable, but cannot be expressed with elementary functions, so the result will inevitably be something like an infinite series.

A friend just asked me how does wind affect the propagation of sound and I am ashamed to say I do not exactly know. It is experienced that when the wind blows from different directions, you would hear a distant sound differently. Obviously changes in pressure will affect some characteristics of the sound wave, but I cannot think of a model. Any ideas?

It is more I think. I would suggest 607.

While the helium3 on Saturn is a perspective, let's wait for the time when we go to colonize other stelar systems. For now we need something else. Those assisted bacteria sound like a good idea.

Biochemistry, Biophysics, Physical chemistry, etc can nicely go with Nanotechnology

20 cm v1,h1,r1=v,h,r smal cone v2,h2,r2=v,h,r big cone v1=h1*(r1)^2*pi/3 v2=h2*(r2)^2*pi/3 h1/h2=r1/r2 (similar triangles) x (required height)=h2-h1 v1/v2=1/27=(h1/h2)^3 =>h1/h2=1/3 x=30-10=20 Hope that is detailed enough.

as for photons exerting force, there is something less exotic than a solar sail. lasers. they are actually already used in biophysics to measure forces between single molecules.

I intentionally wrote "time as we know it". The extension of the concept of time "before the big bang" is a loose abstraction, IMO. The expression "before the big bang" implies a certain understanding of time. I do not mind speculating about it. However, since we go into semantics, I only want to note that the original reason for this thread is semantic. The Big Bang is/is not the "beginning of the universe" for a certain definition of time. So, I am just arguing by the same mode of thinking.

as far as I read it 'beginning' refers to a point in time. since there is no known 'before the big bang' for the reason time as we know it didn't exist, I see no problem with referring to the big bang as the beginning of the universe. still, I totally agree we know nothing about the thing that banged, etc.

Localization of focal adhesion proteins in MARCKS wild-type and knockout mouse fibroblasts during cell spreading. Only I should somehow get proper immunostaining, cause I have already wasted 3 weeks trying.

Maybe Syd's comment is actually quite relevant since it illustrates another model, namely v=s/t, which yields a different result. Still, we 'know' (punctuation intentional, please do not go into semantics) that relativity is a better model in this case. Whether it gives meaningful results for speeds above that of light is purely a speculation in my opinion (and a nice thread topic, I guess).

I would assume that this number 'means something' from purely historical reasons. It might be a coincidence discovered long ago. Most planetary orbits can be fitted into Platonic solids, but I doubt this shows something fundamental about the universe. Rather, at the time science was still mixed with mysticism. Newton spent most of his life doing alchemy.

right, look at the expression of some protein (assume it is a protein, maybe a lipid, though that makes it hard to detect) that Tor2 kinase phosphorylates after treatment with the activator for example

only one of the iron oxides is called rust if i am not wrong, which leaves the question 'how to purify rust'. i do not know. what do you need rust for?

'Gene' is the one in yeast or whatever the studied species was, while the mammalian homolog is the 'equivalent' (homologous) gene in mammals.