Mark Ian

I think this is a terrific question. The universe seems to strive for efficiency. Phospholipids in solution will seek to form spherical vesicles, and so does water in space (doesn't form vesicles but a sphere). Heat will strive to disperse uniformly in a enclosed system. Life strives for survival... but does a particle of the microscopic universe strive to get from point A to B? In the example hat swansont gives does not work too well with electrons and photons. Your perplection is shared, for what is there to wave.

the solution is now neutral, it was basic so it has become less basic -> weaker base. The PH scale is logarithmic, base 10. the amount of Protons in the solution is 10^-7 moles per liter at a ph of 7 and 10^-10 at a ph of 10. The amount of protons has increased though, youll have (10^(-10))-(10^(-7)) protons

I've stumbled upon this quite interesting website (through google admittedly, but I find it nevertheless noteworthy; plus maybe you or someone else knows of similar sites to this one). The website is quite straightfoward, the code is in C and is roughly 3000 words long. http://kim.oyhus.no/QuantumMechanicsForProgrammers.html I am not quite sure as how to interpret the code, eventhough it is in code: float U[ 1000 ][ 1000 ]; ... for( t=0; t<1000; t++) for( x=0; x<1000; x++) U[ t+1 ][ x ] = - U[ t-1 ][ x ] + U[ t ][ x+1 ] + U[ t ][ x-1 ] ; so we have two while loops with a 2d matrix with time and x, looping a hundredthousand times. Does this return the y position at any given time and x position? and if the piece of code is to define all y positions how can we call a not yet computed y position? note: Im not familiar with C but all languages are quite similar, in my language a matrix is written as U[t,x] for example, but I understand matrices (I think) and use them frequently while programming.

the length of* a third point between A and B to A or B, AC (or BC) if you must. It isn't the length that I am looking for but the coordinates of C, I am in the wierd (or not so wierd while you are programming) position in which I know the length of AC but not the coordinates of C.

This isn't really homework, but it being basic math I thought Id post here. I have the following problem: say I have two points in a 3d space A & B and want to find a Point C that is on a line between A & B but has a specific length. The coordinates of A & B are given (x,y and z respectively). My brain handles trig fine in 2d, but for some reason I am making some sort of mistake in 3d. thanks a bundle, Mark

Hello guys, I modified my usb camera to work as a microscope yesterday evening. I was astounded at its magnification power and resolution. I used a cheap ~20$ camera with a resolution of 480x360 pixels. Nematodes are about an eigth of the width of the screen so about 60 pixels (equals about 6 cm) in length. If we assume a nematode is around 1.5 mm in length this would be a magnification of about 40x. I followed the instructions provided by the wiki entry of hackteria.org DIY_microscopy dissasembling the camera to its circuit board, flipping the lens for an even higher resolution, and mounting the modificated camera to a plastic frame. It is a fine apparatus which can be assembled quickly and at an extremly low cost. A must do for any biology lover (or of any science infact). Now that I have taste blood however, I crave to modify an even better usb camera with higher resolution and magnification. Additionally. I would like to modifiy the lense in such a way, that its altered focal distance allows a higher magnification. After I have done this I may add an extra stand for the prep glass for easier focusing (its a pain to do it by hand). If you have built such a device, your expertise desired. here are some questions to the expert: which camera do you suggest? can one modify thr focal distance of the lense? (Ive seen it done but I do not know which distances are reasonable)

I do not know how one would transfer the human conciousness into a machine because we have no way of accessing the vast amount of information in our brains (scientists estimate that the human brain can roughtly hold 2 petabytes of info), not to mention we do not know where it is. In the moment the techinques for scanning the brain are being refined and made smaller but we are no where near in being able to make a copy of our conciousness on a computer. The brain is much more complex than simply firing neurons. As for AI: I think we are pretty close (although scientists have said this during the 60s and 80s before) but the necessary computing power has not been reached yet. Using moores law however one can pretty accurately predict the processing power of computers to any given year. the amount of transistors is growing exponentially. (check out the wiki article on moores law) Well, in the moment the average cpu will have about 10^9 transistors and by 2020 around 32 times that amount. I do not think this will suffice, in 2030-2040 when computers are a hundred times faster than that of today's, then I think the hardware for AI is set. We probably will have a quantum computer revolution also during this period which would outperform the classical transistor based cpu by lightyears (this is independant to moores law tho, and therefore cannot be predicted as precisely). Eventhough we have this hardware barrier, constructing an intelligent brain like neural network in the form of software is a second obstacle to overcome.

my experiments are unbound to the macro and microscopic world as they do not directly replicate any natural phenomenon known to me. Nevertheless I think that the fields and spirals and waves and diffractionpatterns that come forth from these simluations reflect something deeply embedded in the logic of the universe. It is fun to go exploring in the jungle, blind folded, with an ak-47. I've tried searching the web quite extensively, but people seem to be more interested in simulating nbodies, fluids and newtonian gravity.

I agree with jp255, during chormosomal recombination the ratio between the two is not always 50% , but around 50%. For example this means that you can have 23% of your grandpas and 27% of your grandmas genese on your mothers side, due to the recombination of the chromosome in your mother. You still will always recieve 50% of the chromosomes from your mother (23%+27%=50% ehhhh math)

Just a thought, but an animals behaviour, especially in insects, can be substantially altered by parasites. The bahviour alteration can be directed by the parasite in such a fashion that promotes the spread of the parasite, usually through a larger host. A theory for explaining this behaviour could be as follows: the ant picks up the parasite though the feces or corpse of the main host. The parasite hijacks the horomone system of the ant, making it prone to move towards light and move in an eye-catching pattern making it easier for the main host to find and eat the ant. When the main host eats the parasite filled ant the cycle is complete.

to lesolee: My reasoning behind not giving full details / only including the image is this: The code needed for the simulation is quite simple. If you are a programmer and have fooled around with particle simulations chances are you have stumbled across this 'pattern'. Posting source code leads to ctrl+c/v which is what I wanted to avoid. The identification of the field is not the main purpose of the thread, contrary to what I claimed in the first post. I'm trying to find people who have coded similar things and would want to talk about it. These simulations are a hobby of mine. I blame my curiosity. I also am into theoretical neuroscience and video game programming. I didn't run this particular simulation for months. What I meant is that I try to figure out why the particles behave the way they do, if I can force the particles in behaving a praticular way, If I can de/stabilize the orbits of the particles, if I can create specific geometirical shapes by manipulating the code... the list really just keeps on going. I use the same program that I use to code my games in game maker studio. The language is comparable to delphi mixed with java phyton and C++, one can import libarays from C++ and export in 5 different file formats so that It can run on windows, mac and various phones. It is compiled in C++ on the windows. if choose(1,2)=1 { pt_dist=point_distance(x,y,argument0.x,argument0.y); pt_dir=point_direction(x,y,argument1.x,argument1.y); x+=lengthdir_x(pt_dist,pt_dir) y+=lengthdir_y(pt_dist,pt_dir) }else{ pt_dist=point_distance(x,y,argument1.x,argument1.y); pt_dir=point_direction(x,y,argument0.x,argument0.y); x+=lengthdir_x(pt_dist,pt_dir) y+=lengthdir_y(pt_dist,pt_dir) } I was going to explain what is doing what but Im sure you'll figure this out quickly. its a deviation of coulombs law ( I knew this before I started the thread :.p ). to dog: thanks. Phenomenal deduction skills.

According to the website below, that what would make the speed of light not constant is if a photon would have mass. We assume that photons are massless but we are unable to experimentally prove this. math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Surely identification does not require one to fully understand it, though it does require one to have seen it or something similar. But I will explain what I have programmed: On a 2d platform I create n particles and a reference point. Both particles and reference point have x,y coordinates on the plane. The particles move relative to the distance and direction to the reference point (very much similar to coulombs law). The particles are drawn onto a surface each step. This loops indefinitely until I end the program.

well I thought I also attached the image to the post itself. I just reattached the image to this post so hopefullz that worked. Basicallz I have a reference point and particles which have a direction and velocity. the distance the particle travels is proportional to the distance to the reference point. 50b27bed1b9b4.bmp

http://ctrlv.in/139005 Hi, Ive been running these particle simulations the last few months, and I dont know what exactly these fields are. If you know, or you know someone that could know... thatd be great! It would be nice to know the mathematical formulas for these things

Eventhough this thread is old... this is freakin' hilarious

so I'm guessing you don't have any protocols...? I thought the purification process would be enzyme specific in the purification step. I am familiar with the standard protocol for overexpression & introduction steps, but I never purified enzymes before.

Hello, As you've might have noticed most enzymes on the market are ridiculously expensive compared to production costs. What I have heard from people I've worked with is that it semi legal to isolate enzymes (excluding high fidelity versions) if it is used for non commercial experiments. Besides I have never heard of a company going after a single person for producing enzymes, they concentrate on Universities and Institutes. With that said I wanted to ask if you guys have any good protocols for isolating polymerases, ligases, Dna Ladders, restriction endonucleases or any other enzyme for the home laboratory. thanks in advance

spaceship

so the pathway would be battery(lithium)&water -electrolysis-> hydrogen -combustion-> kinetic energy the problem is that the pathway for electric cars is more direct, and therefor more energy efficient. It does away with the extra step of hydrogen production, and funnels the electric energy directly into the electric motor. There is considerable loss in just this one extra step, making it not fit for the electric car competition.

To Phi for All: I am not proposing a false dilemma. I have listed arguments for 'why we should stop eating meat'. I was never debating whether 'stop eating meat' or 'changing the production of meat' is the better path to take. I even agree with you at the end of my last post stating: "I agree that if we are able to change the way we process meat to such an extent that the negative side effects are dismissible it would be preferable to stop eating meat (heck, meat tastes great)." which you choose to ignore. You are right: you are not denying the antecedent in relation to arguments two and three. I just looked up the definition and it does not make sense, sorry about that. What I wanted to express is that you assume that because argument 2&3 support 'the way meat is processed' argument 2&3 do not support 'reasons to stop eating meat' (with the following mathematical analogy a&b => c; a&b≠>d; if anybody knows which fallacy of logic this belongs to, please post about it these arguments are valid for both subjects. Energy Transfer between organisms in a food chain is fundamental. We cannot alter the efficiency of energy transfer between primary, secondary and tertiary consumers, because energy will always be lost in the form of respiration. Any change in the way we process the meat will not influence energy transfer, unless we make cows primary consumers. (which would be really cool, I like the idea of engineering our food- but with the tools we are offered by bio eng. molecular bio and synthetic bio etc. aren't developed enough for this step yet) This ties in to your second argument concerning arable land for [...]: I think it will eventually become impossible to sustain the world population, but even more so if the population would be fed through a secondary consumer, simply because of Energy Transfer. The vitamin B12 argument is terrific! I am very interested in the introduction of metabolic pathways between species (here is an example. It might be possible to do so with vitamin B12, if the proteins responsible for its metabolization are known and the precursor materials are abundant enough in the plant cytosol) but there is no at hand counter argument, which does not involve genetically engineering plants to produce B12. After I did some googling on the methane subject I can agree with you. It is a cycle and therefore is sustainable. To A Tripolation: Try searching for 'factory farming' in google scholar most of it is very negative. I also watched a German documentary on factory farming, (my friend had found it on the internet and challenged me to eat a Döner sandwich while watching, I won haha) which showed how cows were skinned, some of them being still alive because the iron bolt that should have killed the animal probably missed the brain. The factory was probably in America because the workers had an American accent. It was far more disturbing than the youtube video iNow posted. I will try to find the video, but I doubt I can post it here. I can send it via email though if you like. concerning your counter argument on energy efficiency: Not only is this a false analogy, your analogy is also total bogus. Especially in engineering we strive to produce an energetically efficient machine. Today many companies are working on getting rid of the the gasoline powered engine and replacing it with an electric motor (which happenes to be ~3 times as efficient as the conventional motor). I personally find that Energy efficiency is the most important factor in this discussion. antibiotics: Ill just list a few papers: paper 1 paper 2 paper 3 paper 4 (I just typed in 'antibiotic farming' into google scholar. I bet you can find papers more directly linked to factory farming of cows, but I almost guarantee that you find not one paper speaking positively on how farmers choose to use antibiotics) There is no denying that the usage of antibiotics already caused damage to environment and even to us. The news article I posted earlier may pose an unrealistic solution, but the damage which antibiotics cause is very real. You also may want to read this article I mentioned in my last post, which is filled with highly disturbing claims which strongly oppose to your opinion on what the cows are fed. I also think that we should reduce meat consumption and work on improving standards in factory farms as a first step. But in the long run, I believe that meat consumption will simply die out as a main part of the human diet and turn into a luxury good like wine or cigars. This could gradually happen without any prohibition laws (though a tax on meat like on alcohol or cigarettes is possible)

XNA is synthetic dna(lab created) which base pairs are like dna in a way, but more stable. to answer the topic starters question: No, its impossible. Herpes is a virus, and cannot be an organ that produces its own polymerase. It's a virus. xna is synthetic, by definition it means that its lab created. To make xna I would think normal HF-polymerase is used. Redesigning the polymerase specifically for xna would be unnecessary. XNA is also unfavorable for a virus because mutation is the only way for a virus to create diversity. XNA is more stable than dna, which would limit mutation.

to Phi for all: Firstly, argument one is not related to the way the meat is processed, but to the way energy is lost every time it passes in between organisms in a food chain. Secondly, you are denying the antecedent. Argument two and three are valid because it is not possible to supply the amount of meat (in industrial countries) at a reasonable cost without using factory farming. If every American would stop eating meat, long term benefits directly linked to arguments two and three would result. If the method of processing would change to the better, similar long term benefits would result. All arguments apply to both why we should stop eating meat and why we should change the way we process meat. I agree that if we are able to change the way we process meat to such an extent that the negative side effects are dismissible it would be preferable to stop eating meat (heck, meat tastes great). I didn't know of the reabsortion of the methane directly back into the surrounding plants. Especially in factory farms. Surely you are able to back your claim with a paper or two. to Moontanman: I assure you that there is sufficient material to backup my claim. Animal cruelty is wide spread in factory farms. The reason I do not list any references is because I do not find emotional arguments very credible. I do not have a problem with killing an animal for food. You criticize my logical arguments, I will attempt to neutralize your counter-arguments: note: my arguments base on the majority: factory farming, where most meat for industrial countries is produced. With that said, you may want to look at this article on what is fed to most cattle. This article is from UCSUSA, which should add some credibility to their claims. Although, according to the ucsusa, what they feed to the animals is quite nauseating (and stands as its own argument) it indirectly shows that the majority of cattle do not feed on inedible plants that grow on infertile soil, fortifying argument one. If the majority of cattle would feed on inedible plants that grow on infertile soil, your counter-argument would be valid. It is not. Effectively you are committing a fallacy of logic in the form of an irrelevant conclusion. Your second counter argument ignores my second statement that it is a future problem linked to the exponential growth of humanity, and that the cattle population would have to match such a growth to sustain our current meat consumption. Please reformulate your counter-argument in consideration of this statement.

This is why I think it would be good to stop eating meat. emotional: slaughter: in which the cows are not properly killed, skinned alive, killed using unorthodox methods have become the norm in most industrial livestock farms (probably most of the meat you eat) logical: 1. the giant hundred thousand cow farms working at industrial scale of today are incredibly energy inefficient. The cows have to eat plant material and then convert it to meat. During the process allot of energy is lost. 2. Not only is factory farming cows (or any meat animal in general) energetically inefficient, it also takes up allot of space. In the moment it may seem chill, but with our exponentially growing population the cattle could take up valuable living space away from humans. 3. factory farms use loads of antibiotics. here is an article. use google scholar if you wanna know more about why it is bad to use antibiotics in factory farming (be it chicken, cattle or fish) 4. methane I eat meat every day nevertheless.

zero-ish. Ill go buy the book on monday. I started reading quantum physics for dummies, but it quickly became apparent that my math skills were insufficient, so I decided to start to patch up my calculus yesterday (i never directly took a calc class). For now I think the books will last me till fall, if not longer. thanks a bundle for the suggestions