/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6797045
yeah you've struck to the quick with your question of time:
most calorimeters use insulation ( re: space ) to gain a more accurate measure of the heat ; usually we burn someone and measure the 'extra heat' we get from the matter reacting as the 'calories'.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=calorimeter&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=5YL&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&imgil=0RauSSjdark8OM%253A%253BPgydEYHbNMAXBM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fhartfordphysics.wikispaces.com%25252FCalorimetry%2525252BLab&source=iu&pf=m&fir=0RauSSjdark8OM%253A%252CPgydEYHbNMAXBM%252C_&usg=__skbITsJ_e8ECRsuVvthHRN49S-w%3D&biw=1248&bih=676&ved=0CDUQyjc&ei=FEQzVPvyDMm2igLc54GICw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=otNho6qO6VmBpM%253A%3B13t2U4rQ3mL0mM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.xump.com%252FImages%252FProducts%252FElectric-Double-Walled-Calorimeter-500A.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.xump.com%252FLargeImage.cfm%253FImage%253D%252FImages%252FProducts%252FElectric-Double-Walled-Calorimeter-500A.jpg%2526Name%253DElectric%252520Double%252520Walled%252520Calorimeter%3B500%3B500

Basically insulatation is required for accurate measurement, and the 'ideal condition' data is extrapolated as a good working estimate of real-world circumstances. However any good engineer would estimate the error out of heat-transfer ( re: using thermodynamics ) .

When something is 'hotter' then it will not lose that 'extra-heat' until it transfers it ( as mentioned in above posts ). The higher the ∆ between the two sets of matter the quicker the heat exchange will occur, and the quicker they will regain equillibrium with respect to heat (t1 = t2).

>>6797059
Someone beat me to it, but in no way is this psychology but in the most broad way possible.

>>6619211
better to spout memes than make fun of dead children.

>>6618642
very cool map, may i have an upload?

>multitude
The problem with cancer is it isn't a disease for the most part, it is simply weakness in your genetics. If you have certain point mutations you have inherited that could allow for problematic, but asymptomatic dysfunction, which could then build up greater dysfunction, then you can get a lot of cancer. There are more simpler cases like the insertion of a virus into a key regulatory protein, or a translocation of a key growth kinase (abl) but by probability it will be a multitude of tiny errors amounting in a machine that cannot control itself.

Cancer is deregulation.

>>6479968
it implies we understand how to breed for favourable traits while avoiding the unfavorable ones.

Protip: we don't

Give china 20 years and we will though

>>6467263
you KNOW what is ignorant though?
yeah, that reddit fag

>>6455134
How can anyone be this vacuous?

is everyone in this thread org-chem major?

>>6456660
>way the world works
I assume you mean how money moves around. Its the collusion of power, not making more money. You know you can legislate.

>>6456655
u a saint
>>6456664
thank dat guy

>>6456622
ok so the question is how are the carbon molecules arranged?

Draw them out with 4 connections each and see if you have enough hydrogen for that to make sense.

>>6456215
dude why do you think like this?

>>6442180
what is your point? you keep rebutting with nothing but generalized complaints regarding everyone's posting.

>>6441716
>wah wah my one word definition makes sense but you better explain it to me simply.
ok bub, go back to high school and continue thinking about getting laid all day.

>>6435378
this is not a fucking biochemical question. What makes you think sexual attraction is so different from liking anything else? Do you think animals have fetishes? Has sexuality changed since the worm?

1) Link the parts of the brain involved in the attraction process
2) study the specifics of neurotransmittor activity
3) related to potentiated affects in the long term in unrelated areas
(all which require systems math and some sort of neuronal computational model to describe well enough)
4) relate these to ideas that means something to your proposition - attraction. Let's say that one must be able to differentiate oneself from others; one must be able to recognize something as good or desirable; one must relate these ideas to another person. Further on many more factors can 'turn off' a person: similarity to self; noticing ticks/moral breakpoints/self-respect issues.

To come asking such a stupid question means you don't care about the answer.

>>6440952
The only 'treatment' I disagree with is the space/animal. That being said I don't spend my money carefully enough to be able to afford from-the-farmer free-range. If you care then I think this is a legitimate option for anyone but those who believe "killing animals" is wrong.

I have seen many videos but I do not participate in the killing of my food so I really have no opinion on it.

>saturated fat and cholesterol is bad for you
The outcomes that having a surplus of these in your body leads to can be bad for your health. Eating them at all is not. Nor is it necessarily unhealthy to eat lots of them, every day, depending on genetic disposition. However, the correlation between saturated fat and oxidized LDL seems pretty strong these days, which definitely leads to Heart attacks and heart disease.

I would argue that the preservatives (nitroazides - a touch away from nitroasasamines which are the major cancer causing agent other than benzene in cigarettes) in most red meats are the major negative factor in red meats.

>>6440800
> other animals don't have guilt
> the actions of a small subset of a population dictate your moral justifications for an entire species

Most predators eat their prey alive without any concern regarding their awareness of the situations. e.g. wolves eat the intestines of their prey first

>>6440935
>bleeding out
How is this in any way immoral for any of you? This has to be one of the best ways to kill something.

>>6440879
keep spouting unfounded bullshit you've read headlines about, never followed up on, nor reflected on. :-)

Maybe one day you'll grow up and realise that you don't care about these subjects, and then you can spend time on subjects you care enough about to learn about.

Similar signals are activated in circadian rhythms of plants, reactions to nutritional changes, growth phases and directionality of plants. The only reason this has been touted as difference is its tabloidability.

Where are the neurons captain? Setting up a loop is not learning.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/062208/do-plants-have-brains

Everything i read from "Communication in Plants: Neuronal Aspects of Plant Life" is comparisons between chemical systems. There is no control of the systems, its just programmable quorum sensing. If you knew how epigenetics works I think you would understand that this level of complexity is irrelevant to awareness.

>>6440848
hahaha try harder i've shitpost enough to fill the gullets of tryhards like you many times. If there were any basis to what you're saying then there would be specialized cells to deal with the propagation of these apparent signals. Just because someone is comparing sequestering of biomolecules (which happen to be the same molecules as humans) doesn't mean they have anything to do with any sort of long term set up.

If you knew anything about biochemistry you would understand that the nature of Serotonin and Dopamine isn't inside the structure but the fact that we have developed systems that correspond to their concentrations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541210/Are-plants-INTELLIGENT-Tropical-fern-learn-remember-despite-having-no-brain.html
The wording that idiots like this use makes it apparent that their representations of knowledge, learning, and thinking are infantile. If you applied this rationalization to almost any biochemical pathways...

>>6440837
>citations needed
So you were too stupid to read the post you responded to vehemently before? Stop spouting unresearched bullshit with pathetic rationalizations based on good/bad dichotomies.

Eat everything you want to, buy it from a source you can personally justify.

>>6440811
there are checks which could lead to apoptosis or abortion. That being said maybe given you did it by trial and error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_checkpoint

>>6440777
no studies reported, and no fuck you you're stupid.

>>6440800
>even nicotine
Ok fucktard, its not cigarettes that have been blasted it's 'nicotine', a stimulant. Yep.
>Our knowledge of nutrition and biochemistry is far to infantile
that's why there's a controversy over ecigs and everything else in nutrition.

The only semi-legitimate experiment I have seen purported to plant 'awareness' is calcium release post-impact. Not only is this not a nervous impulse it is reactive, and only changes reactively.

>>6440716
that's it? You're so lazy you can't look up references or read a book to finish a simple homework assignment? Try harder or fail in school mate.

>>6440669
>muy srs bstlity discussion
Yep, stay real Ponyfag.