silkworm

Where did my ego come into anything? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about physics. I'm sorry you guys are feeling insecure, but I'm not attacking you. I'm talking about physics as a discipline and the fact it looks at nature at its most fundamental. Sorry, you're wrong. By your tone you sound like one of those cats who believe in orthogenesis. There is no why (as you seem to mean it) that isn't corrupted by us by dramatic or otherwise distorted overtones, and really any why (other than the first one of course) is really just a summation of the hows. I only used those terms because you did. I won't make similar assumptions about you as you did me, but I'm beginning to wonder.

I was talking about physics as a discipline in relation to nature, not commenting about the work ethic of any general group of people. Yes, I am young. I'm hot too. What's your point? Looks like I struck a chord here, but I am not lying to you or saying anything radical. Without chemistry biology would pretty much just be catagorizing. Without physics none of it would have any legs and everything would be "magical." Everything is physics. I'm sorry if this is a problem for you. I'm just telling the truth. I was trying to answer the question in the thread and my answer was everything is physics and using physics to explain the less fundamental parts of science is as complex as you can get, meaning it's the most "difficult" due to the complexity involved, although it is the most powerful because it is truly fundamental.

Trust me swansonst. He was looking for isotopes (which he alluded to before he asked if there were any chemistry majors in the room (me)), and when we were talking about H we weren't talking about isotopes of H, we were talking about H. The question was simply about subatomic particles, specifically what makes up an atom. Hydrogen was used as an example and my argument was that it was a bad example because it didn't have a neutron. I realize now I said atom earlier when it would have been more clear if I'd have said element, I'm sick and dizzy. Excuse me.

Examples from last week. My biology professor (PhD) explained the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by saying that when class is over there's more energy and everyone will leave and it's very disorganized. She also botched many parts of fundamental chemistry. My physics teacher (does engineering work for NASA and Boeing) had a dialogue with me in the middle of class asking me what you call an atom that has a different number of protons and electrons. I was like, "A different atom?" He was like, "Noooo." I was like, "Wait, maybe I misunderstood the question." He asked "What do you call two atoms with a different number of protons?" I realized he was talking about isotopes, and I said, "Those are different atoms. The number of protons defines the atoms. The number of neutrons can differ and two atoms with different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons are isotopes of the same atoms and are not affected chemically only physically. Differing the numbers of electrons from protons will give you ions." He just shut up and moved on and I looked around the room and kept telling everyone I'm right to help not screw them up. We had a major problem with the earlier when I explained that hydrogen does not have a neutron. Everyone thought I was crazy. My Calc 3 teacher (PhD) is pretty solid but he makes ridiculous graphical mistakes sometimes when he's showing us something geometrically. It happens, I just wish he'd be a bit more careful. He's a million years better than my Calc 2 teacher who couldn't answer many of his own homework problems and try to give us a botched explaination that would take a very long time before looking it up himself. What happened at that point is that we were given stacks of notecards to accompany us on tests. That's always a good sign. I got in many philosophical arguments with my General Chemistry teacher, who probably should not be allowed to drive. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't convince her that you can measure something to be 2.0 cm on a meter stick. She thought that a right on measurment would automatically limit your figures. You can imagine how the rest of the class was. I'm tutoring a guy in College Algebra who has a teacher that seems to do a pretty good job, but her achilles (sp?) heel are signs (positive and negative). The other PhDs in the chemistry department are pretty solid, but the chair is incapable of teaching. Good scientist though. He answers questions by making stuff up sometimes, but a lot of times he'd say he was making it up. Basically, in my experience, you're going to have a problem with people talking about stuff they know nothing about unless you get the old guys who take teaching seriously. You basically have to continually scream at any TA to shut the Hell up to keep them from poisoning your mind. They botch things more than anyone.

Bluenoise, I wasn't talking about convenience or about everyone being a unique and beautiful snowflake. What I was talking about was that everything that occurs can be explained at their most fundamental level, and the most fundamental level is investigated with physics. Period. If you don't see the power in that, I don't know what to do for you. The further away you get from the fundamentals, the more generalizing you get, the more mistakes are made, and pretty soon all you're doing is participating in trivia. Physics taken to its potential is more complex than anything, I wouldn't say anything is difficult, but nothing can be as complex as physics in that application, but physics in that application can be the only chance at a solid and valid explaination, because at that point "random" would only mean you got lazy.

Thanks Connor. That makes perfect sense. I had to investigate it a little bit, but I totally dig it. I just have to get better at solving. The book keeping involved with these matrices are what is killing me now.

Everything is physics, so it would most likely be the most difficult due to the complexity required to use physics to explain something less fundamental, ie biology. Physics is of course heavily reliant on mathematics as it's language as well (where less fundamental sciences can afford to be more narrative) and that frightens some people. Of course there is a lot of chemistry in biology, because biology is a reader's digest version of chemistry, which is a reader's digest version of physics.

It's actually spelled codeine and even though it's a synthetic opiate, it is still an opiate and has a structure that's similar to our pleasure endorphines. It's in the same class as opium, heroin, morphine. I only had the chance to take it for a short period of time in my life, and I very much enjoyed it. Anything can be addictive in one dose, it just depends on how you take things and deal with things, but I would say that one dose of codeine would make you love it forever. I know some people who don't take it well, but different strokes for different folks.

The science teacher should just ask, Santa who? Or, better yet, say "Science only deals with nature." But what's bad is we generally have idiots teaching science and botch it while teaching it which leads to misperceptions and ultimately misunderstanding of science for those who don't obsess over it. Now, I don't mean these people are idiots as in their unintelligent and unknowledgeable. I mean they're idiots in the sense that when asked a question they either know nothing about or don't know how to answer they make something up and give out misinformation that will forever scar the brains of those listening. I'd say 90% of professors lie like this and it's really really unfortunate.

So you're saying set each row equal to the identity of that row? I'll have to figure out what independent and putting A:I in ref means. But is that what you're saying?

Me again. I'm working with a 3X3 now. The other was 2X2. I can see where the 1/(|A|) comes from with the 2X2. I can't see where it comes from with the 3X3. It looks as though the shift (or rearrangement of the matrices in the 2x2 that you multiply by the 1/|A|) is determined by the new matrix given by that formula, but I'm lost as to where the new |A| comes from (for the 3X3). I'm sure it's simple, but our teacher hasn't gone over it and I'm a spaz that has to take a test on this on Wednesday morning. I could figure it out, but I'm having trouble seeing what this number is. I mean, I understand it's purpose but it's origin is enigmatic to me at this point. I don't even see how the reciprocal can be determined by 1/ad-bc times the shift. The first is like a cross product (for 2X2), right? Meaning it's orthagonal to both systems. And I can see that, but when it comes to the shift, that throws my thinking off because I don't understand the origin of the shift. So for the 3X3 I have no clue. Is it 1/(cross product of the 3X3) times the shift determined by the formula? And for the 3X3 they'd want (a3b2-b3a2, a1b3-b1a3, b2a1-a1b2) and then you find the square root of the sum of the squares of all 3 terms (Pythagorean?). I'm sorry. I'm sure this is grade school for you guys, I'm just new.

Actually, can't you extract chlorophyll by use of another solvent? I can't think of which one. Maybe just chloroform or ether. I've never tried it myself though.

Thanks Bignose. That's a huge help. Oddly, I had to actually prove that particular thing in one of my problems (which I really couldn't do), but I had never been introduced to it before then. matt grim, I know. It has to be nonsingular in order to have an inverse. Thanks.

Classic. I think it's a homage to bees. Here I'd like to mention that Kansas was the first state to name the honey bee as the state insect (1976, I think).

First of all, I'd like to apologize for how softball this question may be to this particular part of the forum, but I'm in a linear algebra course and I'm having difficulty with this particular part. There is a matrix where A (A^-1) = I. I understand that, but I'm having difficulty finding a method for finding (A^-1). I thought I found one, but I worry that my book has a typo that throws the entire thing off. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated, and I'd like to mention I'm not just trying to leech, I've looked and can find nothing on methods, just the beginning and the end. Thank you.

Culture is more of a side effect than an essential, but I can see your point.

It's because we are a scientific species with sophisticated communication skills. As a species we owe all that we have to science. Everything.

I find it offensive when I see a child wearing white tennis shoes, because it puts the child's sexuality in question. If they bad the nudists/nudists sites they also need to ban all pictures of children wearing white tennis shoes because we all know what it means. We're self-glorified apes people. Put it into perspective. With that said, the reason that child pornography is illegal is not because the child is nude. How many pictures have you seen of a baby's butt? The pornography part is where the situation becomes illegal because participating in any part of the distribution of the child porn is akin to demanding more child rape. As long as these kids aren't getting raped (or participating in any sexual activity due to age of consent versus age of majority and whatnot) at their nudists camps, it's not illegal.

Ionization (in terms of making an anion) is more difficult as atomic size decreases. Study effective nuclear charge (symbolized Zeff) for more clarity.

Yeah, when you look at it's affect on the cost of health care for everyone, it would make sense to make it illegal. Alcohol should be illegal too. So should pop and saturated fats. It just depends on where you draw the line.

Sunspot, you're being to general and you have to look at it on a person by person basis. Everyone is different. Genetically, biochemically, and in their environment and upbringing. Sure, it's unnatural for me to participate in male on male action, no matter how hot it is, because men don't get my toes a tappin'. But it's natural for say, Elton John, to, because it's just who he is. But, with that said, I can also have an unnatural relationship by having sex with a woman I'm not attracted to just because I'm bored. If she turns me on, natural. Your perception of what natural is is flawed because it appears to be based in cultural bullshit.

For me it was the groupies. Every time I get out of linear algebra or instrumental chemistry I just take my pick out of the line and take her home with me. I love being a scientist.

I have 2 recommendations for a beginners. "The Search for the Elements" by Isaac Asimov, which you should be able to find pretty much anywhere, and Descriptive Inorganic, Coordination, and Solid-State Chemistry, by Glen E. Rodgers, which is a text book but a very good one. I agree with woelen's recommendation. You have to make sure you have math handled before understanding quantum theory, but none of it is anything to be scared of.

I think the Navy may have work in Nuclear Physics, so I'd check them out before the Army. Sure you have enough intelligence. If you can tie your shoes and spell your name you can reach the apex of human intellect, you just have to focus. Good luck.

I'm sure it's happened, but never in any bag I've ever gotten, and it surely isn't regular practice. The only thing you really have to worry about when you buy grass is if it's wet or not (dipped in formaldehyde), which happened to me in the early days. To make the bag heavier some petty swag dealers will put extra stems and seeds in the bag (the seedier the marijuana the swaggier (lower quality) it is) because it's not out of the ordinary to see those in the bag. If you know what you're doing you know what to look for, and if you don't check what you're buying you deserve what you get. People hear this stuff on Oprah and suddenly it becomes law. Drug dealing is all about repeat business, and you're not going to get it by putting fiberglass in bags. There's also a pretty big misperception that drug dealers sell people drugs at gunpoint (a misperception from Oprah and her ilk) when really if you know any good drug dealers, you know that there's no problem pushing because the product sells itself.