Xittenn

For sure, just another tool in the toolbox. I wonder if microbiology sees extractable rent.

Ahhh this is difficult because it is hard to help without giving you the answers, as this is homework. 1) your measuring devices do have passive components, do you feel this could be meaningful? how do you think a manufacturer might address this? 2) resistors have a range of values based on the coloured bands that they are marked with, knowing the bands can help you track error/uncertainty 3) power supplies also contribute to the problem because they do in fact contain active and passive components You are in grade 10 so I wouldn't stress about the details, but try to take these points into consideration and write it out. Then reflect on it and make a decision if it sounds appropriate or not. Post your thoughts and someone will probably give you more feedback.

I've glanced at the Game Theory Wiki a few times and I've thought to look into the more prominent features of its application, but I have never actually done so. The Wiki suggests that it is not uncommon to apply the theories within biology. I can see how this might be applied in the field, and for my own purposes it would be interesting to see how this might be applied in terms of microbiology; cells, protists, viruses etc. Just curious if anyone has had any exposure to this?

1) Do the voltmeter, ammeter and rheostat have passive components within them? 2) Where did you get the resistors resistance from, what is its accuracy? 3) Where did the voltage come from, does it have any internal passive components? Active components?

Are there better ones that you could point at, it's hard for me to easily spot them. Some start off looking like rebuttals, but then turn into attempts at trying to prove, but then fail. Some kind of say well this big idea here and then down the page someone smacks them. I'm sure they are their but they are definitely more subtle than Swansont's new post that just says bam. And I guess his argument is easiest for me to understand because he is making remarks about structure and I have done an amount of reading on the topic. I mean if there is one or two that immediately come to mind. . . .

Could someone pretty please tell me how to do the puzzle . . .. o.o

It means that you have a maximum addressable space of 64k. If you want to break this up either you need a decoder or you divide the thing into two modules, and address one with A15 and the other with A15 not. If you choose to do it this way you will only be able to have combinations of 1-32k RAM + 1-32k Rom, or 2 of one or the other. Use a decoder what are they like $2?? It's not any extra effort. ROM*

32k + 32k invert the A15 stick it into the chip enable; one inverted, one not inverted!

Someone had to agree with him, his colleagues are on his side, his book was published. Is he surrounded by semi professionals? Swansont's is the only argument I've seen that actually details the problem as a whole without rambling or getting off topic. Is Swansont the only pro physicist in the world? This isn't snarky sarcasm in case anybody might think so. Sean Carroll's argument goes into long bits that don't really stay on topic and do not offer up near as precise statements to why this is wrong. Comments a wrought with half statements and insinuations. :/

I don't understand how to do the puzzle?

Thanks moo I'll take a look at it after English. I don't now how PG13 that was, the Otter seemed to be enjoying himself just a little too much!

How many ribosomes in the human body?

I think Brian should invite Swansont onto a live broadcast to get down at it!

Did you try the del key, stupid question but if you didn't because you were in fact unaware then not so stupid question?? I mean it is always del and has always been del so why would this change??

And I appreciate that, which is why I have never picked up a book by Stephen Hawkings or any popsci title on the market. Until recently had never read a physics book that didn't have a math equation in it. Last year I had accidentally picked up Zero Time Space: How Quantum Tunneling Broke the Light Speed Barrier by Günter Nimtz thinking it was a complex study on evanescence, which it wasn't. I'm just seeing people using the public as an argument against having thoughts and I don't feel they should be dictating how much other scientists will be allowed to scrutinize these ideas inside of science. Right now I'm literally seeing the argument, don't think outside of what we know is true, because it might create woo woo; what did we know again? Literally, we weren't quite sure what was happening in the first place, let's review but not include that thought because it might insight mass hysteria. Some might argue that the thoughts were included, but in my opinion to properly compare and contrast the validity of ideas one must also consider the case of it being right, where if it isn't we will see a proof by contradiction. And as Swansont has pointed out, there is contradiction in terms of what has been observed, but I have yet to see anyone attempt to incorporate any ideas that might explain why and I, someone who is less knowledgeable, have already come up with some thoughts on a plausible partial explanation that fits with modern approaches to systems and could be explored further. I'm sure this will not happen anywhere, any time soon; I'm really not worried about it though, just a little taken back. At any rate, I'm very happy about having been privy to the idea even though it came from a popsci source because it gave me something to think about, and it actually does affect a lot of what I'm trying to work on at this moment. It doesn't change my own stance on reading popsci material, honestly I do not have the time and I don't see how any other scientist would either. There is just too much damn work to do!

I have no idea where you are in your education but I find papers like the following helpful in gaining the knowledge I require: Mean Stress Effects in Strain–Life Fatigue by N. E. DOWLING This one builds up through application and specialization.

Why does everybody care so much about what the damn public thinks. They'll think whatever they want anyway and there will never be an end to mystics and mysticism. Why not worry more about formulation for the purpose of physics instead of formulation for the purpose of securing the public mind. I mean look at his audience . . . . oh tee hee I have shake things really fast it does stuff. The last thing that is going to affect the minds of the public is some crackpot physicist claiming he can affect an electron on the other side of the universe through an electron on this side of the universe--note the public seems to like the crackpot physicist, can't go wrong. If the public opinion is such a concern there should be more interest in putting scientists in government, even if the end consequence of this would be a public completely subdued by a handful of individuals! Excellent . . . >:| this is in fact a question, I don't get it

Yes, I've read a couple of yours. No, I was hoping for experiment logs, we want to see this, we will do something like this, and if the results were correct we were right. I'm surprised there aren't repositories for this sort of thing.

OK here is a crazy thought, what if we don't see band structure in atoms as a consequence of this underlying interaction where there is some quantization that occurs surrounding distinct bands related to certain states . . . . . In other words the infinitely outreaching bits contribute to the band somehow. I have something vested in this one, it holds with everything I have suspected for so long about the further structuring of underlying quantization and order. I kind of want to see the underlying principle hold, but I understand as it stands we see nothing like the Sodium D. <=== blinking distraught face! Just to be clear the double well thing to me still sounds hoaky, especially if it relies on a universal state of entanglement. I have serious issues with action at a distance, which includes entanglement, if such a thing implies a completely disjoint interaction.

I should do some research and write up a model, this is something I could really use and the materials and machining are things I have ready access to. I can get a really good pump for almost nothing. Just out of curiosity, was there something in particular about this posting of the video that was different from the popsci link that I should be aware of? It's good to know there is community interest. : ) Oh tank you!

It's a very cute sea otter!

Yes, my mistake. .. .

So what happens if suddenly he realizes that what he said was inappropriate, can he simply retract his statements or state that in fact it wasn't thought through well enough and reevaluate his position? Would this result in the entirety of his works being discredited. Right or wrong the idea is a fresh thought and suggests quite a bit in terms of higher thinking. We will never answer questions if we never pose new postulates; we must first assume, to prove. He even asks us to review and correct!