VendingMenace

crazy amounts of hormones?

right. oxygen binding causes a change in the tertiary structure of the protein. What you are reffering to, i believe, is the so called "cooperation effect." However, the advent of this structureal change is brought about by the binding of oxygen, it is not the reason oxygen binds. At least that is what i heard last. This can't be. How would oxygen bind to a carboxyl group? First you would end up with a -O-O-O motif then, and you would observe ozone evolving. HOwever, this clearely does not happen. Ozygen binds to the iron in the heme complex. It is this iron that is the carrier for both O2 and CO2. yeah, but what happens when it is carrying a CO2?

yeah, but if you tried to write something like 4 degrees kevin in a scientific paper and then submit it, you would be laughed at and the paper would not be accepted until you fixed your mistake. I think his point was that the SI unit Kelvin prescribes that the word "degree" not be used with it.

I think i will have to disagree with you here. The iron that is at the center of the porphrin found in hemoglobin is in different oxidation states when it is oxygenated and when it is not oxygenated. As a direct result the MLCT (metal to ligand charge transfer) bands are different in the two states. It is the MLCT electronic transitions that give metal complexes their color. Thus, it the oxygenated and non-oxygentated complexes do have different colors. Now as far as red and blue goes...i am not quite sure, but i think that it is true. If memory serves the non-oxygenated iron is blue, but of course when you see blood, there are othing things to be seen, that can makes things look not quite blue. And of course we are chemists here so remember we do not mean crayola blue, just that it looks blue. I will try to find where i read this specifically for hemeoglobin, but i do belive that it is red/blue depending on the oxidation state.

well...as far as the energy thing goes you might want to talk some about the law that says energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, as far as the universe goes, the universe must conatain a certain amount of energy. This amount of energy can neither increase nor decrease. So i think that would be a way to talk about energy as a whole. Now, momentum is slightly harder. YOu might consider talking about how the universe seems to be expanding. Or perhaps how it could be rotating (angulare momentum). Of course the most interesting might be to state that the universe has a total momentum of zero. For the momentum is zero thing, your argument might go as follows. The universe as a whole is not accelerating, as acceleration requires a net force acting on an object. THis force must come from outside the object. Nothing is outside the universe (by definition) thus there cannot be a net force acting on the universe, and we thus know that the universe is not acceperalating. Also, we know that there is a finite amount of mass in the univerese, since mass is related to energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Ok, if there is a finite amount of mass, then we can find the center of mass of the universe. If the universe as a whole cannot be accelerating, then neither can this center of mass. Thus, the center of mass can be our reference frame for our future calculations. If we are using this as our reference frame, then we observe that the center of mass is not moving and we see that the universe has a net momentum of zero. The above paragraph could be wrong, but just off the top of my head, it seemed somewhat interesting. Hopefully that will give you some ideas though

well, after thinking about this for a day, i have come to the conclusion that i was incorrect in my above statement. I still hold that it is true that for an individual molecule undergoing a phase transition, the change is instantaneous (or nearly instantaneous). HOwever, for a bulk matierial, where the change is clearly not instantaneous, the time needed for the transition is not just due to the lack of an ideal material. Even if we had an ideal material (ie, one where heat transfer occured instantaneously and without loss of energy) i am unsure as to whether we would ever observe a instantaneous phase change for the intire material. This is owinig to the fact that phase transitions are either endo or exothoermic. Thus, (in melting for example) when the molecules start to come off the material, the steal energy from the system in wich they are in, lowering the temp of the substance, so that the rest of the substance is no longer at the melting temperature. Thus, we are required to continualy supply energy to the substance. So, unless we had a reserve of energy that also was instantly transferred onto the substance, we would never observe an instantaneous transfer between phases. Anyway that is kinda what i am thinking now. But of course i could be wrong again.

hmmm....i see the source of confusion now. Alright, the transition across pahses is instantaneous for the particles that are undergoing the transition. THerefore, in a idealized situation, where heat transfer within a substance was instantaneous (ie, every point in the substance is at the same temp) then a substance would instantaneously change from one phase to another. Unfortuantely (or fortunately, perhaps) this is not the case. THere are temp gradiants in bulk substances. Becuase of this, we find that it takes time for the entire substance to undergo the phase change. That is why we observe that it takes time for an entire chocolate bar to melt or an entire pot of water. That is also why we observe that part of a substance sometimes changes phase before other parts. However, this does not change the fact that for the molecules that are undergoing the change, this change is instantaneous. At one point they have too little energy to excape from they solid matrix, and at the next they have enough and escape from the solid matrix. (I guess that you could try to argue that this escape takes time, as well, and it might, but the timescale is too short to notice when you are just watching something melt with you eyes and probably more intramentation) I think this is right, i will have to think about this a bit more. But i am pretty sure.

lol I was just responding to duke's post. He seemed to be saying that stuff does not have a sharp melting point and he was using chocolate as an example, thats all. As far as glass goes, i am in the amourphose solid camp, but i said that a long time ago back in the beggining of this thread.

of course a chocolate bar is not a pure substance either, which is what we usually consider when talking about sharp phase transitions. THough, it is rather humerous that you choose chocolate as your example. You see, the waxy substance that is produced by the coco bean (it is called coco butter) is quite interesting. It is one of the few homogeneous lipids produced by plants. That is, the plant produces coco butter and pretty much only coco butter in its bean. Thus, when harvested, coco-butter is naturally a homogenous wax, a pure substance, if you will. This means that coco butter does have a sharp mealting curve. It also turns out that coco butter is one of the main ingreadents in chocolate bars, so much so, that a chocolate bar pretty much has a sharp meliting point too. That is, it has a temperature at wich below it is solid and above it is liquid. I think you are missing the point. WE are not saying that melting is an instantaneos process. WE are saying that it happens at a finite point. That if you walked into a room that was at -1 celcius, you would expect to find water in its solid form, and that if you walked into a room that was at 1 celcius, you would expect to find water in its liquid form. That is all. RIght, again, things do not happen instantaneously. Why? WEll for one, the chocalate bar is not uniform in temperature, when you start heating it, the inside will remain cooler than the outside. Also, melting absorbs heat. So, the chocolate bar while melting must continously be absorbing heat. However, long it takes to absorb this heat and bring the chocolate above its melting temp, that is how long it will take to melt. WE see the same thing with ice. You can put a ice cube on a warm stove (80 celcius) and it will not just instantly melt, despite the fact that it is well above the melting temp for water. This is becuase it will take a while to heat up the ice to above its melitng temp. Now so far, this discussion has delt with large objects (ie, ice cubes, chocolate bars). Of course, on a moleculare level, it is pretty darn close to instantaneous. That is to say, as far as the first layer of molecules are concerned, when they reach a temp above the melting temp, most of them will just suddenly become liquid. Just like that. The reason is, right at that temp the molecules (on average) have just gained enough energy to overcome the latice forces (or in the caes of lipds, the van der waals and other forces) that hold them into their solid phase. This is the reason why we have sharp melting temp. Yeah, so in conclusion, you are right, things usually do not just instantly melt (at least when we consider a large body of somthing) but this does not mean that the substance does not have a sharp melting point.

agreed, the term orbit is mearely one of convieneince. What we tend to do is calculate the rotation of bodies about the center of mass of a system. As far as the solar system goes, we say everything orbts the sun, simply becuase most of the mass of the solar system is in the sun. So to a good first approximation the sun is the center of mass. Of course, we choose to use the center of mass as our refernce frame, becuase it greatly simplifies our equations. HOwever, any frame is just as valid. We could (if we wished) choose the center of the universe as YT, and calculate how everything orbits him. Of course, this would be a major headache, but the important thing is, it could be done. Of course, i could also choose the center of everything to be me, and describe everything else's motion withe respect to me. SO you see, the world does revolve around me, no matter what my mother might have claimed to the contrary

i was always under the impression that "supercooled liquid" referred to a liquid that had been cooled beyond its melting point, but still remained liquid. These states were referred to as "frigile" becuase for most of them, the introduction of any perturbance caused them to crash out of this state into the solid. Am i mistaken in this?

Well, the crust probably does move due to direct tidal forces, it is just that this movement is negligable compared to the movement due to the liquid underneath it. Perhaps it will help to think about a balloon filled with water. You could try to pull directly on the rubber of hte balloon and change its shape that way. However, if you just cause the water to shift about to one side (like squeezing the balloon or something) then the water will force the balloon to change shapes. Perehaps this is not the best analogy. So instead, lets assume that we have two balloons, one has a neutral liquid inside of it, but the rubber carries a charge on it. The other balloon is made of neutral rubber, but the liquid inside of it is charged. Now, the total charge on the balloon and the liquid are the same. You apply a electric feild to both balloons, which one has its shape distorted more? I don't really know, but that is something to think about. In conclusion, i think that the tidal forces do affect the crust directly, but the affects of these forces on the liquid underneath the crust are more substantial, both becuase there is more mass in the liquid and becuase it is more efficient to have the liquid force the crust to move than to have the crust move directly. But i am just kinda shooting in the dark here and i could be wrong

yeah, i thought about mentioning this too, but really it is the same thing. The solid parts (like the crust) bulge due to the liquid parts underneath them (the mantle) moving in respnse to the tidal forces and applying pressure. I am not sure that the tidal effects on a solid earth would be even as great as the appear to be now, if the earth was not liquid on the interior. I guess if we knew how much the moon bulges now, we would know the answer

right, plants look green becuase they absorb other colors than green, hence in the light the reflect green in dominant. Similarely, green glass looks green because it absorbs colors other than green. Thus, we can asume the green glass could be (and most likely is) filtering out colors wich plants absorb (mostly yellow, if i remember correctly). So, if the green glass is filtering out the light that plants absorb, and hence use, we can assume that a green glass placed in front of hte sun would detrimental to plants.

Actually, it does spin. I promise. If the moon didn't spin, then we would see different sides of the moon. However, we don't. We only see one side of the moon, the only way this could happpen is if the moon spins on its axis while it also rotates around the earth. If you don't belive me, then try it for yourself. Get a tennis ball or some other shere. Mark a point somewhere on this sphere. Now get abother object, a soda can or something. Now move the tennis ball around the soda can in a cirle, making sure the spot you made on the tennis ball is aways facing the can. You will find that in order to do this you will have to make the ball rotate around its own axis (what we call "spinning"). Conversely, if you move teh ball around the can in a circle without spinning the ball you will find that the spot does not always face the can. SO, by doing this simple expreiemnt you will see that the moon does indeed rotate, as it must if we are to always see only one side of it from earth. well, if nasa told you 200 million to 2 billion years ago, then i am inclined to belive them.

i suspect the suglass' industry would take a serious hit

it most likely did spin faster at one time, however, it was slowed to where it is today due to tidal forces. We all know that the moon exibits tidal forces on the earth, and that the liquid parts of the earth bulge on the sides of the earth that are nearest and farthest away from the moon. That is why we get tides. Of course this is a two way street, the moon also feels tidal forces from the earth, only to a much greater extent. Also, the moon is not quite a consistant ball of mass, there are areas of the moon that are more dense than others. These "heavier" areas tend to be pulled on harder by the earth's gravity. As such, these areas tend to "want" to be closer to the earth. Now, it just so happens there is a large section of the moon that has a highly dense area in it. The moon, at one time, used to spin faster than it does now. However, over time the tidal forces of the earth slowed down the moon's rotation by pulling harder on this more dense area. Over many many years, the moon's rotation slowed to the point it is at today, that is it is slowed to the point where this heavier part is always facing the earth. That is why the moon rotates on it own axis is such a way that the same side is aways facing us, it is becuase this is the "heavier" side of the moon. Now, by the same token, the moon is slowly slowing down the rotation of the earth. In another so many years, the earth will also slow to the point that the same side of the earth is aways facing the moon. It is just that the forces exerted by the moon on the earth is much less than the force exerted by the earth on the moon, so it is taking the moon much longer to slow down the earth. cool

well, generally speaking phase transitions are quite descrete. That is, solids are solids, liquids are liquids. And when something transitions from one to the other, it does it in one fell swoop. There is no incremental transtion as something moves more and more to a liquid. It is just a solid and then in the next instant, it is a liquid.

well, it sounds like you need a control experiment you should take garlic or vics or whatever, put it in a box put your feet in a box and seal it all up, then step on the stuff. Or somehow seal up your nose and mouth away from the garlic or whatever, and get someone to rub it on your feet. Of course you shouldn't know what they are rubbing on your feet, so you are not biased. Then this should be done with other people on this forum and see what everyone comes up with! i mean, jeeze this is a science forum, it seems like instead of arguing about whether or not something happens, we could test it our instead:P of course, first we need to come up with a way to seal feet away form nose and mouth, and a person to rub crap on our feet

well, you don't need a calculator to understand calculus. I myself barely know how to use a graphing calculator as well, yet i took a fair amount of math in college. In fact, at my school, you were not allowed to use calculators in any of the math classes i took. And i think i am better off for it. Why? Because i understand the thoery behind the math now. I know why it works. Beucase of this, i know what situations different types of math are applicable too. The math courses i took were an actuall learning expreience in the science of math, instead of a really expensive technical course in how to use a calculator. The point is, don't worry about not being able to use a calculator. And there is no reason you should know the basics of calc, if you haven't taken it yet. Everyone starts out in the same place -- knowing nothing, so that is nothing to be afraid of/embarassed by. And you might know more that you think about calc. YOu will be suprised by how logical some of it seems. But if you want to get a head start, then i would just start reading your calculus book and working through it. Read the chapter, then do all the problems. Of course this will be quite dry, but it is really the best way to do it, better than online tutorials, since the textbook will be at the same time more thourough and will assume no prior knowledge of calc. Of course, if you have trouble understanding what is being said, you can always ask you fiance, she could probably help you out, and you can ask people here on these forums, we should be able to answer most of you questions Whatever you decide to do, have fun! OH, and congradulations on getting engaged, whenever that happened

So, what kind of particles are these? I guess they can't have mass. But they must exist, so are they energy? Or what? I think particles is a bad word, since particles have mass :/ Well, there is no need to have your complex equation for light -- it is already a wave, that is why it can take two paths at once, or at least seem to. Just as a ocean wave can go through to slits at the same time, so can a light wave. Most of your thoughts, however, seem to be along some of the same lines as string theory, wich is interesting, but just like string thoery your ideas are untestable :/ I think this remains the major problem of your ideas. You can come up with any conceptual framework that you like, but it if is not testable, then it is not really usefull and we must stick with the thoeries that we have now and are testable.

so you are saying that mass dampens out these waves and creates gravity? Are these waves equally distributed throughout space? Are they infinitely long? Are they only effected by mass? Are they at a resonance, or do they just kinda vibrate randomly? Do the virations have any energy associated with them? If light is effected by them, then does light, in turn, effect them? That is, is light able to dampen out the vibrations? Just some more questions, so that you can answer them and think about your theory some more

well, that is quite a number of questions, i will give them my best shot As far as is the bed sheet an accurate representation? the answer is both yes and no. No, it is not accurate, becuase the universe is neither 2-d nor is it a bed sheet. THe answer is yet, because it provides a simple framework in which it think about GR. The way that i understand it, mass bends space. That is the precnce of mass causes the space around it to curve. I know this is really hard to picture, but give it a try. Think about a completely 3-d grid. Got it? Now, put a ball in the center of this grid. Now, "pinch" in the grid around the ball, so that lines that are close the the ball are closer together than lines that are farther away from the ball. This is kinda how the whole curved space thing works, at least as far as i understand it. I don't really know what else to say in this case. Perhaps a good book to read would be relativity by Einstein. It is actually a fairly accesable book. Albert wrote it for the layman, using a minimal amount of mathmatics. Another book to check out, for most things non-classical is. The New Mr. Thompkins in paperback by george gamow. That is quite a good book and takes a playfull approach to nonclassical physics. Also, in his book Six not so easy pieces Richard feynmann give a pretty decent look at realtivity, both special and general. If you feel like learning about this stuff, these are great places to start and you will get information from someone much more informed than me I would have to say no. The reason? There are cohesive forces that keep water molecules together. that is, a group of water molecules will tend to stick together. THis is a result of electric intereactions within the water and hydrogen bonding networks too. Of course if you get rid of magnitism, then electricity is right out too, since they are the same phenomenon. HOwever, if electricity is out, so is the atom and the electron :/ So that is probably not a good assumption

Infrasound is a name given a set of presure waves, {of the form, (only for 1 dim, but the abstrction to 3 dim is trivial, i feel) is, [(d^2s)/(dt^2)=(dP)/(dp)*(d^2s)/(dx^2)], where s is a displacement factor, t is time, x is distnace, P is pressure, and p is density. Also, only dP and dp are derivatives, while the reast are partial derivatives} with frequency lower than that wich is detectable by human ears. For particulare ears, you may consider them as closed pipes with lenghth L as a resonable approximation if you wish to do a freestanding wave calcualtion. In this calculation, you will need to use the equation lambda =4L/(2n-1). These waves propagate with speed v= sqrt[dP/(dp)]. Of course these waves, being pressure waves are able to propagate though most mediums even those that so not sustain sheer forces. Of course what in infrasound also dedends on your relative frame of refence. If you either you or the source is moving you will expreince a wavelength shift, and you shlould take this into acount. If the source is moving we find lemba'=(1-v'/v)(lambda). If you are moving we find (frequency)' = (1-V''.V'/v)(frequency). Combining the two we arrive at the equation for both the source and the observer moving. Of corse there is more, we can concern ourselves with the intensity and energy of the sound. Intesity = power/amplitude Were power is found by crossing the force of the sound pressure front with the volcity of the wave. Well, i think that is enought for now, don't you?? WEll, my name is vendingmenace and i hold both 360 degress and 98.6 degrees. Unless we are in celcius scale. Of course in Kelvin i don't hold any degrees, cuase that would be improper. Also, if this post is too much of a jacka$$ed post, i may be geteting the third degree. It a good thing i wear that one deoderant, what is it called??? thats right, degree.

But this doesn't make sense. If gravity is due to the fact that there is diluted particles, then where there are concentrated particles gravity should be weaker accourding to you, right?? But then everywhere there are lots of particles, we should have weak gravity, like in the earth there should be very little gravity. I do not see how there could be a leakage of strong gravity into the earth, if gravity is due to dilution of particles. If gravity is due to dilution of particles, then where there are lopts of particles there should be little gravity. Period. Perhaps i do not understand. Also, lets consider the following. As you get futher away from the earth, you find that gravity weakens. That is, gravitational fields are found to be stronger 100 ft about hte earth than 100 miles about hte earth. Of course, 100 ft above the earth there are more particles present (in the form of hte atmosphere) than there are 100 miles above the earth. How does your theory explain this trend? THe trend being that al we move away from the earth we find that the concentration of particles decreases while the effects of gravity increases. THis trend seems to be in direct opposition to your theory. It seems to me that your theory could only make partial sense if you reverse what you are saying, like i mistakenly did in my original post. But then again, perhaps i do not understand what you are saying.