My communications studies professor unironically had an example presentation showing why global warming isn't human caused. How can I prove him wrong? He used the IPCC hockey stick model saying it was false.
Career advice for any chemist: make money and drink every night. Don't get old.
and read the latest organic chem journals every fucking day even though you don't give a fuck about asaps anymore and if you get a phd it will likely be is worthless in syn, nano, or anything but comp & ab initio bullshit
Kill the "scientific interest" as soon as you can and just leave it to hobby work. Get into industry as fast as possible.
Bonus Contest: Whoever can give me a source on how much nicolau makes at rice, I'll buy you something nice on amazon.
Hey, /sci/. This is a stupid question, but today I was talking about human evolution and natural adaption with my mom, and she asked me something that I couldn't really answer.
Basically she asked me, how does natural adaption correlate with genetics. Like I get over a period of time a common human ancestor stood up, because it was necessary to survive, but how did this transfer to his children and his children's children. It was a simple question that had me stomped.
>>7663606 I'm saying, give me a logically answer so I can better explain it to her. How does this happen genetically? I know kids can pretty much pick up what their parents show them pretty fast(In contrast to how long the human life is), but how does these changes impact the genetics of a human having a baby?
You're thinking about it backwards. The mutation happens randomly, and most mutations are harmful. Occasionally a mutation happens that happens to promote survival. It doesn't happen in response to behavior or environment. Then, the actual evolution (that is, the mutation becoming ubiquitous in the population) occurs as a consequence of luck and because those with the mutation can survive better and therefore are more likely to have children (because dead people can't have children.)
Just as a theoretical question... What would happen to human body, if it would have a fully-inclosed facial respiratory system (with proper athomspheric modulation) AND if it would be exposed the vacuum of space?
That is: what would happen, if you would have a functional breathing mask in space?
>>7663572 Your body would expand and almost inflate like a balloon. Capillaries would burst, underlying tissues would be damaged, etc. But as a whole, its connective tissues would be able to hold you together.
As long as the body is intact, its blood would remain pressurized. If it had any damage to your circulatory system that resulted in it no longer being a sealed system however, its blood would be pulled out through the hole while boiling.
Cosmic rays would induce dysfunction in organ systems, blood brain barrier,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7663572 You would die extremely quickly - actually faster than you would die without the mask. Your lungs would rupture due to the 1-atmosphere pressure differential between your lungs and the outside of your body, which would in turn force gas bubbles into your bloodstream and cause a massive fatal air embolism. The keyword is "pulmonary barotrauma."
Meanwhile, with the mask off, there's no such pressure differential and you'll die from hypoxia instead, which is comparatively tamer.
>>7663549 Mostly it's just popsci kinda shit. It's pretty much just based on thermal expansion of different materials along a surface. It's nothing all that new, honestly. They just made it out of graphene to get on I fucking love science.
>being past Calc 1 >STILL writing "dy/dx" meme notation instead of just y' or Newton
I can understand this if you're learning derivatives for the first time, since it illustrates what you're doing, but there's no reason anyone familiar with the concept should should be wasting ink or graphite by writing all of this out. You may as well write "change in y over change in x."
>>7663402 Now you are generalizing way too much, while Sub-saharans display the lowest frequency of high intelligence genes this does no mean that every single sub-saharan is stupid, just means they are more likely to display lower degree of intelligence with fewer high intelligent individuals.
Are there any actual sources on feasible antimatter production? Currently it's a byproduct of experiments not related to it, so the energy to matter conversion efficiency is insanely low. If we focused our energy on antimatter production, how high could we get? Any scientific works on that? Is more than 1% possible?
The THEORETICAL maximum is 50%, since the process inevitably produces equal quantities of antimatter and matter. However, you also need to get the input energy from somewhere, which means overall it's really a matter --> energy --> antimatter conversion process. And even if the energy --> antimatter step can reach that theoretical 50% efficiency, the matter --> energy step will be much lower. Apart from matter annihilation (which requires antimatter in the first place, so it's useless here) the best way to convert matter to energy is with fusion reactions,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7663415 >>7663427 I'm talking about nuclear or orbital solar -> electricity - > antimatter. I want to take a 1TW power plant and make antimatter with it. With CERN I'd get perhaps a few million atoms or antiprotons, but their main goal is research, not industrial production, so there has to be a huge window for optimisation.
1% efficiency combined with large nuclear plants would allow commercial use for antimatter.
Everything we are is quantized. and we are constantly making progress towards reaching higher levels and entering a new octave. We exist in 3rd density therefore have 4 levels of density left before approaching a new octave of unimaginable nature. In addition the body's seven energy centers or (chakras) each have their own 7 subcenters and so on. based on this theory it can be observed that the universe extend both infinitely smaller and infinitely larger. placing us somewhere in the middle of progress. we have come a long way and have a lot of time left, so why waste your... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>7663348 >Everything we are is quantized. I lean towards a similar conclusion. It isn't known i subdivision of matter is infinite, nor if time and space are granular. Subdivision could loop back on itself, for example. The smallest small being the largest large. Therefore, at all intervals, you are the smallest, the largest, and neither, at the same time. You're just unable to see the whole.
> instead we should be accepting of everything that happens and... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.