How come when it comes to genetics or genetic engineering universities don't offer that subject directly? At least they don't do in my country. Instead you study a subject that only offers genetics as a specialty like medicine, biochemistry, biology, agriculture, etc.
So what do you go for if you want to get into genetic engineering for the future? Biochemistry?
Tried looking up Bioengineering?
>>8117398
Yes, and that goes more in the direction of engineering. Like you're more an engineer with background knowledge on biology and chemistry with that.
>>8117384
Genetic engineering is a technique, a means to an end, not a subject in and of itself. Genetic engineering uses range from botany to synthetic biology. Whether you do Biochemistry or Biology for undergrad doesn't matter, you will be using genetic engineering in both. In grad school, you will have to choose a subject to study and chances are, that will include genetically modifying organisms. In industry, biotechnology positions usually include genetic modification, again.
Hurr durr, does this thing work?
Read, read, read, think, read...
Hmm...
God dammit! We've known about phenomena like this since the 20s!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
>Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity propulsion created by an electric field's effect on a mass. The name was coined in the 1920s by the discoverer of the effect, Thomas Townsend Brown, who spent most of his life trying to develop it and sell it as a propulsion system. Through Brown's promotion of the idea it was researched for a short while by aerospace companies in the 1950s.
>He discovered an unusual effect while experimenting with a Coolidge tube, a type of X-ray vacuum tube where, if he placed on a balance scale with the tube’s positive electrode facing up, the tube's mass seemed to decrease, when facing down the tube's mass seemed to increase.[2] Brown showed this effect to his college professors and even newspaper reporters and told them he was convinced that he had managed to influence gravity electronically. Brown developed this into large high voltage capacitors that would produce a tiny propulsive force causing the capacitor to jump in one direction when the power was turned on.
So yes, you can move objects with electricity and EM waves in a propellantless fashion. We've known about these effects for 100 years.
>After World War II Brown sought to develop the effect as a means of propulsion for aircraft and spacecraft, demonstrating a working apparatus to an audience of scientists and military officials in 1952. Research in the phenomenon was popular in the mid-1950s, at one point the Glenn L. Martin Company placed advertisements looking for scientists who were "interested in gravity", but rapidly declined in popularity thereafter.
>There are claims that all major aerospace companies in the 1950s including Martin, Convair, Lear, Sperry, Raytheon were working on it, that the technology became highly classified in the early 1960s.
So, all the major aerospace companies were working on it in the 50s and then it got pushed underground into black projects?
Christ! Here we are in 2016 wondering if technologies like the EM drive can work, and they've been researching this shit heavily for 50 years. Mother fucker! What else haven't I been told about science and tech.
>>8117341
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube#Coolidge_tube
Trying to learn more about quantum theory but I'm struggling to find a starting point.
Anyone who's familiar wanna point me along the right path? I know a bit from a lot of reading but I don't have a conclusive organized grasp of the theories and how they interact with each other as a whole mostly just random tidbits of information over the entire field and frankly half of it seems to be speculative bullshit.
>>8117332
Shankar - Principles of QM
Basdevant- lectures on quantum mechanics(not sure about the title tho, but this is the author)
This is top shit bro
sub-caption: Sniffing too many LIPO fumes, Musk done goes Full-retard.
Never go Full-retard. But if you do, be a billionaire, so no one can say shit.
google the holographic principle
one of the few consistent unifying theories of the universe.
>>8117298
>google the holographic principle
no thanks, I'm not retarded.
>>8117298
okay, but only because I'm retarded
Are we all fucked? This NASA-sponsored study depresses me. It basically says that we have a few more decades left. Any thoughts?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists
>>8117262
Party into oblivion my friend. Party into oblivion.
>>8117262
>we
you
I don't live in one of those countries, and I thank god for that.
Enjoy it while it lasts, people are soon going to be tired of being wagecucks and start killing each other because of how racist they are.
>>8117262
>theguardian
Yea no. Stop shilling.
> 1,480 light years away
> light dip by as much as 20 percent
> the light from Tabby's Star dropped by about 16 percent over a century, whereas other stars' light curves stayed flat
> Montet has combed through the Kepler data, and his preliminary conclusion is that the star is indeed fading.
Do you think it's just an artifact from the plates on the telescope, or some natural phenomenon that causes a huge dimming over a certain period, or is it an alien megastructure that causes the dimming ?
http://www.strawpoll.me/10376303
Why you think its natural phenomenon ?
>yfw it's probably just a huge ring system like http://earthsky.org/space/huge-distant-planet-has-rings-200-times-bigger-than-saturns
>>8117201
>artifact from the plates on the telescope
probably not
>or some natural phenomenon that causes a huge dimming over a certain period
its probably a planet during orbital decay shedding its atmosphere or some weird formation of comets
I'm wondering what /sci/ thinks about cognitive sciences. Now, it is obvious that they are different from both the natural sciences and social sciences, but what is the nature of the information they create/produce? Are they/can they be "objective" (please don't derail the thread with radical subjectivism, accept naive realism for thread's sake) like physics and be produce abstract, logical knowledge like maths, or can they not?
Of course, some of these sciences include fields based on "historical knowledge", like historic linguistics or ethnogprahy etc, I think it is safe to ignore them as they are out of cognitive science and are more close to social sciences/history.
>>8117133
>and be produce
wew. and produce* obviously.
The brain follows these rules:
1.) Particular functions are handled by particulars parts of the brain
2.) The brain stores information and related information [longterm-shortterm; abstract-literal]
3.) The brain is reactive to threats and attractions [fight-flight; attraction-attachment]
And that's basically it. The complex part is finding out:
1.) How it does it
2.) How it came to be that way
3.) The detains of storage and relationship model building
It's not some great spooky mystery and it's not a soft science, it's just harder to look at because we don't have the tech, and different people build [modify] different brains based on different experiences and environments..
>>8117161
*details [/detains]
old one is dead
is there a difference between chemical physics and physical chemistry?
as far as i know it is the same
what are other applications of complex numbers/vector calc outside of EE and circuits
>>8117077
>complex numbers
vidya games (graphical representation)
>vector calc
many
What are biology lab must haves?
microscope and beakers
>>8117024
Big dildo.
Physicist on call for all your mistakes.
>>8117032
mathematician for all your mistakes. retard
What's it like to die of a pulmonary embolism?
Pic unrelated.
pic is awesome though, what is that ?
>>8116843
One of the many fruits of googling "porn, I guess"
>>8116843
The result of an electrician with autism.
ITT I will try to solve (and in fact solve) all the Millennium Prize Problems one by one. I will do so by a new proof technique that has been proved to be quite powerful. It combined homothopy theory with algebraic geometry. Having said that, the proof technique itself is elementary though. So, let's go ahead.
1. [math] \displaystyle P=NP [/math]
By definition, polynomila algorithms admit decomposition in chains of smaller polynomial algorithms. Consequently, polynomial time algorithms do not solve problems where blocks, whoose order is the same as the underlying problem, require simultaneous resolution. Thus, in fact [math] \displaystyle P \neq NP [/math]
2. Hodge conjecture
Assuming that if a compact Kähler mainfold is complex-analytically rigid, the area-minimizing subvarieties approach complex analytic subvarieties. The set of singularities of an area-minimizng flux is zero in measure. The rest it left to the reader as an easy routine excersize.
3. Riemann hypothesis
This is a simple experimental fact. [math] \displaystyle 10^{13} [/math] roots of the Riemann hypothesis have been already tested and it suffices for all practical applications. In fact, one state a suitable statistical hypothesis and check it on the sample of, say, [math] \displaystyle 10^5 [/math] roots.
4. Yang–Mills existence and mass gap
Well, discrete infinite bosonic energy-mass spectrum of gauge bosons under Gelfand nuclear triples admits non-perturbative quantization of Yang-Mills fields whence the gauge-invariant quantum spectrum is bounded below. A particular consequence is the existence of the mass gap.
5. Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness
(To be continued)
>>8116742
(Cont.)
I haven't worked this one in such detail, but observing that
[math] \displaystyle \| L (u, v) \| ^ 2 = \sum_{n \ge 25} u ^ 2_ {2n} v ^ 2_ {2n +1} / n ^ 2 \le C\|(u_n/\sqrt n)\|_4^2 \|(v_n/\sqrt n)\|_4^2 \le C\|(u_n/\sqrt n)\|_2^2 \|(v_n/\sqrt n)\|_2^2 = C \left (\sum u ^ 2_ {n} / n \right) \left (\sum v ^ 2_ {n} / n \right) [/math]
one can easily find at leat one closed-form solution applying the bubble integral. In the equation, [math] \displaystyle L [/math] is a bilinear operator.
6. Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture
The problem with former attempts has been in the way elliptic curves have been dealt with. But this really admits a proof with a computer by checking the (finitely many) categories of curves.
I also have a simpler than Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture, but it's not worth the prize anymore
right?
>>8116744
>one can easily
why does math fag has to say that all the time. its a weird cultural thing you should stop doing. it gives no other meaning to the sentence other than some subtle bragging? wtf
The statement of the title, is, in fact, meaningless, because it tacitly assumes that we can add-up "infinitely" many numbers, and good old Zenon already told us that this is absurd.
The true statement is that the sequence, a(n), defined by the recurrence
a(n)=a(n-1)+9/10n a(0)=0 ,
has the finitistic property that there exists an algorithm that inputs a (symbolic!) positive rational number ε and outputs a (symbolic!) positive integer N=N(ε) such that
|a(n)-1|<ε for (symbolic!) n>N .
Note that nowhere did I use the quantifier "for every", that is completely meaningless if it is applied to an "infinite" set. There are no infinite sets! Everything can be reduced to manipulations with a (finite!) set of symbols.
[math] \displaystyle
\frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{3}= 0.1_3
[/math]
>>8116747
BRO 1/3 IS NOT EQUAL TO .3... YOU'RE ASSUMING WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING IS TRUE IN YOUR ARGUMENT YOU STUPID FAGGOT INFINITE PROCESSES DON'T EXISTS BECAUSE NO ONE CAN DO AN INFINITE PROCESS CAN YOU WRITE AN INFINITE NUMBER FOR ME NO YOU CAN'T SO YOUR PROOF IS RETARDED
>good old Zenon already told us that this is absurd
the fact that you can walk from your chair to the door is proof that you CAN evaluate the sum of an infinite series (halfway there, and half again, and again, etc.)
now stop posting, get up from your chair, go to the door, go outside, and never come back
Will the Riemanm Hypthothesis ever be solved? Like really, it's been around 157 years already and a million dollar bounty on it has been active for 16 years.
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not by me.
>>8116679
That doesn't look that hard.
Just find the roots for the real part, and then find the roots for the imaginary part, and then you just have to show that they're the same when the real value is [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] in the critical strip.
>>8116724
Do it faggot
Why do depressed dumb people not exist? Is a high IQ a prerequisite to depression?
>Why do depressed dumb people not exist?
bs
>Is a high IQ a prerequisite to depression?
sort of true
>>8116586
IQ does not equal intellect. Intelligence is the source of depression, which is a rationalized method of self-hatred that avoids outward action onto innocent people that surround the depressed. The more intelligent you are, the more probable it is that you will not unleash anger due to your internal self-loathing on others, thus not generating the catharsis which may alleviate the depression for a time.
>>8116586
Depressed, dumb people are very common. Stupid people make bad life-decisions that eventually cause them setbacks. When this happens, they get depressed and/or become pathetic losers. This category is highly represented in depressive people.
Is it possible to learn a semesters worth of Calc 2 in one week?
>>8116363
yes calculus is some of the easiest shit out there.
focus on ur derivatives and u-substitutions
also maybe look into partial derivatives
Ask me in a week b0$$, here goes nothing
>>8116363
Literally just did this, working on Calc 3 currently. It was hard as fuck and I had to go back and reprove a lot of it to myself but in the end I have a reasonable handle on it all.
It's possible, just hard.