Supergrunch
-
Posts
6304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Supergrunch
-
Yeah, natural sciences... I'll either go into biochemistry/geneticsy stuff or evolution I think. Talking of which, I just finished an essay on evolution... it's really interesting, but there's so much jargon. For example, a sentence that could have been in my essay (I watered it down a bit in the actual thing): "Wolbachia strains induce thelytokous parthenogenesis in haplo-diploid insects."
-
I have really strangely shaped feet... the only trainers I can find that'll come anywhere near fitting them are some types of nike ones, so I get the cheapest.
-
I doubt it - isn't that just the current theory explaining the disparities in mass between two different methods for measuring the mass of the universe?
-
Odders has yet to vote.
-
Sorry, I skipped a few lines of working there - after integrating I collected like terms and factorised. So: I = int[1,4] u^(3/2) - sqrt(u) du I = [(2/5)u^(5/2) - (2/3)u^(3/2)][1,4] I = [2u^(3/2)(u/5 - 1/3)][1,4] I = [(2/15)(3u-5)u^(3/2)][1,4] EDIT: Also realised that I put an x where I meant to put a u.
-
Yeah, presumably your point was that both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Another common misconception is that "evolutionists" believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, which is far from the case - if anything, evolution makes all animals equal. But anyway, I think evolution and religion can coexist perfectly happily. But enough talk, I have an essay on evolution to write. (no, really - sex ratios) :wink:
-
Sounds like something better than OCR Salters. Even doing university chemistry (part of my course) I haven't got to use acid anything like that strong. However, in my evolution practical today I did get to freeze leaves in liquid nitrogen before crushing them. And they let us use chloroform... apparently in the group before us, it got spilt is someone's lap.
-
I'll write your integral as below, and will generally put limits in square brackets after an expression. (we need some better maths coding stuff) I = int[0,3] x*sqrt(x+1) dx Now, the parts rule is as follows: int f(x)*g'(x) dx = f(x)*g(x) - int f'(x)*g(x) dx f(x) = x, f'(x) = 1 g'(x) = sqrt(x+1), g(x) = (2/3)(x+1)^(3/2) substituting in: I = [(2x/3)(x+1)^(3/2)][0,3] - int[0,3] (2/3)(x+1)^(3/2) dx I = [(2x/3)(x+1)^(3/2)-(4/15)(x+1)^(5/2)][0,3] I = [(2/15)(3x-2)(x+1)^(3/2)][0,3] I = 116/15 And now, the method of substitution: I = int[0,3] x*sqrt(x+1) dx u = x+1, x = u - 1, du/dx = 1, dx = du I = int[0,3] (u-1)*sqrt(u) dx I = int[1,4] u^(3/2) - sqrt(u) du (changing the limits is vital here) I = [(2/15)(3u-5)u^(3/2)][1,4] I = 116/15 Nope, that's right... see above. :wink:
-
That makes more sense... but anyway, there's currently more evidence for the big bang than for any other theory, which is why it's currently accepted. Because that's how science works, though some people don't seem to think so.
-
The best evidence is cosmic microwave background radiation, a result of red shifted light from the big bang itself. In fact, the title of this topic is a reference to how beautifully the observed data fits the theory: The error bars on this curve were too small to draw at this resolution. Further evidence is given by the fact that distant galaxies are also red shifted, suggesting that the entire universe is expanding, seemingly a result of a massive explosion. (this also had an alternative explanation - that everything was moving away from the Earth, but more complex measurements have disproved this perspective) There is more evidence than this, but these are the main two pieces. As a result of this evidence, all the competing theories were rejected, including the steady state theory. In fact, Fred Hoyle, the creator of the steady state theory, claimed it was the case until he died, and indeed coined the term "big bang" to lampoon the competing theory. Perhaps this is partly why it seems silly to you.
-
Well, the sex/food debate was pretty great, but I ended up abstaining. The best reason given was probably "buying food isn't illegal", but the pro-sex side had some good bits too, like seeing whether a banana or a vibrator fell off the table first. And when I got back from it, I wrote an essay. Only one left now.
-
Yeah, that's the main use. However, given names that don't have Kanji are often written in katakana, and lots of brand names use it. However, you get all sorts of other crazy things - sometimes foreigners speak in katakana to indicate an accent, and there's a bit at the end of the second higurashi arc where someone who has seemingly come back from the dead speaks all in katakana without quotation marks.
-
I voted undecided - that isn't quite right. I am decided that I am undecided - a zealous agnostic. :wink:
-
Ish. It has more uses - sometimes katakana is used like that.
-
And then imagine how stupid it will all seem once you go to university.
-
That post is going to be amusing if you ever change your avatar back to a footballer. :wink: Talking of changing avatars, I'm feeling like some more anime love. ...perhaps I shall make something decent when I have the time. (i.e. December)
-
Hmm, I have an essay to write, some chemistry questions to do, and if I have time after that, another essay to write. But then I'm going to a debate on whether food is better than sex, so it's all good.
-
It works fine for me, looks like the problem's on your end. Not sure what it could be though...
-
Maybe it's time to change your sig then...
-
That's the thing, it's not 50/50. The probability of winning a car is 2/3 if you switch, so it's always better to do so. This is a result of the quiz master knowing what is behind each door such that he won't reveal the car by mistake. To see why, let's look at the possibilities if the quiz master doesn't know what's behind each door. (i.e. he may reveal the car by mistake) Player chooses host reveals remaining door contains Goat A Car Goat B Goat B Car Goat A Goat A Goat B Car Goat B Goat A Car Car Goat A Goat B Car Goat B Goat A So the chance here is 50/50. However, the quiz master cannot reveal a car, so he knows what is behind each door, and is constrained in the cases where he would usually reveal a car. This leads to the following possibilities: Player chooses host reveals remaining door contains Goat A Goat B Car Goat B Goat A Car Goat A Goat B Car Goat B Goat A Car Car Goat A Goat B Car Goat B Goat A So there is a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch. This seems completely irrational to most people (myself included) - I think when it was first pointed out a great deal of maths professors complained, but it is now agreed that this is correct. Probability can be odd.
-
Change, it gives you a better chance. Can't remember the proof though, go ahead and post it.
-
Well, what with natural sciences being as it is, I'm also studying biology of cells, chemistry, and behaviour, and differential equationy things. I just changed from the physics module... it wasn't such a good idea to do it without a physics a level, and I think I'd rather do biology.
-
And Sara Matsunaga > real people. I jest. :wink:
-
Best dissection I've done was of a whole rat. It was a pretty big one too.
-
It's in the logo because that's standard - most logo's are in katakana. As for the speech, it's probably used to indicate stresses on words - teenage dialogue is sometimes written like that.
