Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 18. page

>>8193947
>How close
When you will be at the end of your life, we will start to make the richest of us immortal. You won't make it.

>I find very mixed answers about both.
What are you expecting from /sci/?

>we just kept breeding and we all were immortal
Human hunting seasons

>>8194129
Well, I moreso meant I find mixed answers when I'm doing my own studying on the subject.
A lot of contradictions and baseless conjecture both ways

Not very. Realize the brain is dependent on a lot more from the body than just nutrients and oxygen. If you think otherwise, then cut out your thyroid, castrate yourself, and cut the adrenal glands off your kidneys. Then remove ~70% of your liver and induce scarring where your CSF drains.

Also, remove all your adipose cells, see how readily you can tell you're hungry. Also, adipose makes estrogen, which men need to an extent as well.

Etc. It's a ways off, if viable at all.

Yes.

You'd have to be blind not to notice phenotypic variation between humans.

>>8193810
No all 7 billion human beans look exactly the same.

Are you retarded?

>>8193513
The Art of Electronics - Horowitz and Hill

>>8193519
This. Heard it's the best biik around for electronics.

>>8193513
Our name is /sci/, get it right, newfag.

File: 1465346063028.png (110KB, 356x256px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

110KB, 356x256px

no not my anime

>>8193426
If you can leave the rest unharmed, then yes

Nuclear winter is not good for animals and plants (food)

>>8193426
Who would man our call centres and provide technical support for retards?

Put a magnifying glass on it under direct sunlight to see it better.

>>8193404

it's wallbug

>>8193404

it is a penny you dimwit, just let it go and it will fall from the wall

>>8193280
You're a gorilla, aren't you?

>>8193280
I'm not very curios, but I sure am curious.

Is the monkey going to use my banana as a banana?

>>8193202
Did you make this diagram yourself?
Because it doesn't make any sense.

Yep, it's one proposed possibility, but no one knows for sure. Another possibility is the heat-death of the universe, where the universe keeps expanding until nothing collides any more and everything is "dead" (ie. no further interactions at all).

But again, no one knows-- it's one of the great mysteries in physics.

>>8193202
No. The universe will continually expand forever, as far as we know.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

pls respond

>>8192854

Are you asking if people should call nanobots "cells" when they do not meet any of the structural criteria for actual being a "cell"?

>>8193042

>>8193042
>when they do not meet any of the structural criteria

So you mean they are possible to make without the structural criteria of a cell?

That's what I'm asking

>>8192706
Amazing Atheist moving on to a new meme?

>>8192706
Is that Meth? Looks like Meth must be meth

>>8192706
Yes, because it's a well substantied, unfalsified hypothesis. Karl Popper don't lie.

>>8192571
It definitely kept me busy

>>8192571

Regardless of whether it did, the practice is better than no practice for developing an intuition.

Yes for physics

any dobsonian is the best telescope in the market

as you increase its size, it becomes better and better

aperture >>> all

any 12" dob will destroy even the most expensive non-dobsonian telescope, regardless of what it is

and a 16" or greater dob is god-tier, you will be worshiped

Following. I'm thinking about buying one, but have no idea whats what

>>8192538
So if I have an excellent view from my balcony, I can stare into far away apartments, yes?

The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence, established by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1897–1991) in 1965.

The list of the criteria is as follows:

Strength (effect size): A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.[1]
Consistency (reproducibility): Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.[1]
Specificity: Causation is likely if there is a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[1]
Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).[1]
Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.[1]
Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).[1]
Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".[1]
Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".[1]
Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.[1]

>>8191690
Has this all been verified for "man made" climate change? Not trying to be /pol/ here, just a curious layman question.

>>8191690
>Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause
But doesn't special relativity posit that there is no absolute time? So you cannot impose a temporal order on events.

>>8191577
>Wouldn't the gravity of the more massive object combine with the gravity of the planet to make the massive object fall half a nanometer per second faster?
The "proof" people usually give for this doesn't even need to be TeXed up:
F = m1 a
F = m1 m2 G / r^2
by Newton 3 the forces must be equal so,
a = m2 G / r^2 (= g)

Which I guess makes sense in Newtonian mechanics, probably not in GR, but I don't know anything about GR so we'll wait for a physicist to pop in.

File: video-undefined-22D1E93600000578-450_636x358[1].jpg (23KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

23KB, 636x358px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

see for yourself

>>8191614
This doesn't show their acceleration values measured in the nanometer scale, though.

>>8191565
I'm no chemist but we had to memorize the color of certain molecules

If I'm not wrong: permanganate __ purple.

So its a question of seeing the elements in different experiments...

>>8191565
The complexity and size of the attached molecules bend light (refraction) to generate what we see as color. Bright and vivid colors tend to be from very complexly-chained compounds. Why simple chemicals are colorless (water, air, alcohol, vinegar, etc.)

>>8191580
Continued: This also means that compounds with the exact same molecules can have a different color. This is due to a different structure. Example: if the same chemical say H10SeC5Ni had two structures. One structure was a straight line while another was in the shape of a polygon. Both would be different colors (say orange and blue). The color depends on light hitting the compound then being refracted.

OP again, I'll try to explain why I think this.

I've just completed my MSc in Psychology, and I averaged 98% in my statistics modules this year, and had similarly near-perfect scores during my BSc. So I'm some sort of stats genius right? Wrong, I'm nowhere near. Trying to deal with real data, instead of the nice datasets they give you in tests, complicates things hugely. I still have no idea what I'm doing when I try to analyse the data for my dissertation. I'm sure that I'm making shitloads of mistakes, and I keep having to try and Google answers because what I'm doing extends far beyond my course material.

That's why psychologists need to stop pretending we're capable of doing the stats ourselves (unless we study stats full-time, separately), and get proper statisticians to assist us instead. Whilst I've been studying I had to fit my stats modules in around many more psych modules, so I only have a very basic level compared to statisticians. Still, I'm technically able to be published in scientific journals (actually, data from my BSc dissertation is about to be published in EJSP). These journals are awash with research which have errors which will be obvious to statisticians, so why not just employ them full-time to improve the quality of the research? Every psychology department would benefit from this.

>>8191548
>So I'm some sort of stats genius right?
Only if you studied in Europe and not grade inflated US memeschools.

>>8191550
I'm in the UK, and did my BSc and MSc at two different Russell Group unis. Not quite Oxbridge, but Top 10. To be honest I thought that students in the US might actually be more adept at stats seeing as their courses last longer and typically have a broader focus, but that's a complete guess.