Actually, Obamaâ(TM)s highest rating was 16% higher than Trumpâ(TM)s. Given your tone and inability to do even superficial research, I think itâ(TM)s safe to say you donâ(TM)t know shit from shinola.
The total oxygen sequestered would be far below the total amount in the atmosphere. 400 ppm worth of oxygen pales in comparison to the 200000 ppm that is already there, and ignores that the CO2 oxygen is already essentially sequestered (just as CO2).
What a load of cherry-picked statistics. All of which ignore the systematic biases that have been in place for centuries against people who have more melanin in their skin. See? No ad hominem attacks. A simple dismissal of. Specious argument as just that. If those arguments carried any water, why arenâ(TM)t they making in-roads in a more public forum? Answer: because they are terrible, racist arguments that reach false conclusions based on overly sparse, unrepresentative data points.
So I have two gmail handles: one is firstname.middleinitial.lastname@gmail.com, the other is a not uncommon last name in a certain Latin American country from which my family hails (but not my own last name, long story, but it's a nickname).
The F.M.L.@gmail.com doesn't give me too much trouble. Someone with the opposite gender has a similar name, and sometimes I get emails from Australia, mostly for clothing and housewares.
The Latino lastname@gmail.com is more of an issue. I had someone use it to start a Twitter account (which I promptly took over). I have innumerable things I've been subscribed to in both English and Spanish. I am bombarded by people who think I'm a banker, a BMW buyer, and my favorite, a medical doctor.
The best email I ever got: a woman who thought I was a plastic surgeon, and wanted a boob job for her teenage daughter. And one for herself. And a vaginoplasty. I kid you not.
While in grad school, I was lucky enough to be selected to teach elementary school science in an inner-city school as part of the NSF's GK-12 program. I team-taught with the main classroom teacher 4 afternoons a week, using inquiry-based methods. Our pedagogic approach was very hands-on, and we had to think on our feet a lot. It was not easy for us to lesson plan, but we did our best.
The results? Out of ~35 kids, all of whom were getting free lunches (and all save one living in single-parent/grandparent households), most of whom had no previous science education, roughly 55% passed the state-mandate science proficiency test. That might not sound so great, but since the previous year's class had a passing rate of about 17%, we were ecstatic. We also had good participation in a "science club" held after-school, with more inquiry-based activities. At one point, late in the year, our students even understood free body diagrams (they were about 10 years old) as part of understanding Newton's 3rd law- something my college students typically struggled with.
Inquiry is powerful stuff. It harnesses the thing that makes people interested in science in the first place: innate curiosity.
Part of my job is to design objects that will be used in a high-magnetic field environment, namely MRI scanners. Metal is not an option for me. Prototyping with traditional methods (e.g., CNC machining) is extremely cost-prohibitive.
So I use 3D-printing. Some I do in-house with an FDM machine, in ABS. A lot I outsource to a better printer that can use other materials, say polycarb, or other methods, like laser sintering. At the end of the day, I get functional prototypes that I can check for utility, than design molds for injection-molded parts based on feedback from those prototypes.
3D printing enables me to do this part of my job. Without it, there would be no prototyping, due to cost, and thus no objects in the magnetic field. Truly a gamechanger.
I'd love to read the original article. I am not sure how they detected structure, but fMRI most certainly was not it. If fMRI was used, then it can only be a functional difference, there is no way to observe a structural change with fMRI unless it is something gross (like a 5x5x5mm cube of brain tissue suddenly went missing). If T2-weighting was used, then one is still limited to fairly gross changes (lets say a cube that is 1 mm^3 in volume). Finally, we arrive at the various diffusion MRI techniques, which have no established ground truth, but whose models can provide sub-voxel resolution. Not enough information to really evaluate in the OP.
It seems to have worked pretty well, in that the only debates within physics on this topic tend to come from older scientists with political agendas. One can, for instance, look up the APS position on climate change.
The people writing the checks need to better understand that these scientists are the main reason that the US economy does as well as it does. We have had and to date maintain a significant advantage over other nation states in terms of our technological innovation. However, it is undeniable that other countries are fast catching up. Our technological advantage is not a given thing, we have to properly fund R&D for it to be maintained. Technological prowess leads to economic health.
Think of photons as the central point from which oscillating magnetic and electric fields originate. And that this point moves through space at ~3x10^8 m/s. It is kind of like throwing two stones into water and watching the resulting interference patterns, excepts that the centers of those patterns are moving instead of stationary. Hence, collision isn't really an apt description.
Disclaimer: I am a physicist who works in MRI.
MRI can be used to measure concentrations of certain biochemicals. MRI is sensitive enough to different proton-containing species that the frequency difference between fat and water causes image artifacts that can pose great difficulty.
Not all biomolecules are sufficiently concentrated in the brain, or have a spectrum that is unique enough to be measured in vivo. A good example of a brain chemical that can be measured is N-acetyl aspartate (NAA), which has a proton peak at around 2 ppm that doesn't overlap with much else. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy is very difficult, and is most easily accomplished on research scanners operating at 3 tesla or higher. The reason for this is that rather than letting all hydrogen nuclei contribute to one signal that is then spatially located, one must parse what kinds of nuclei (i.e. what their chemical shift is) within each voxel. This not only imposes technical difficulties, but reduces the signal to noise ratio, potentially requiring more signal averaging in order to see sufficient signal above the noise floor.
"The last supernova in our galaxy occurred several hundred years ago."
If that were true, we'd would not have detected it yet. If we had, we'd all be dead. Think about it.
Ohio STATE University. Not Ohio University. There is a huge world of difference. And PR is important, relying on the general media to disseminate information from original scientific journal articles doesn't work. Scientists should be the ones presenting their work, not journalists who are at best mildly fluent in the research areas they cover.
It detects the oxygenation of blood. The mechanism behind this is a different magnetic moment of oxygenated hemoglobin, oxygenated hemoglobin is diamagnetic vs paramagnetic while deoxygenated. This is called the BOLD effect (Blood Oxygen Level Dependent). The difference in the two conditions magnetic property affects the MRI signal lifetime in the near vicinity. This results in contrast developing between tissues with oxygenated blood vs tissue with deoxygenated blood. The idea behind fMRI is that when you use a certain part of the brain, it requires oxygenated blood, which will lead to contrast. Unfortunately, due to low overall signal strength/contrast-to-noise ratio, the image must be signal averaged. Hence if you were tapping your finger to see which part of your brain "lights up", you would have to repeat this action, and have your MRI scan be synced to your action so that the same part of the brian is being imaged over the same interval each time. It's tricky, but my understanding is that it's quite feasible. There are many other mechanisms for causing localized signal lifetime changes, without having RTFA, I can't be sure what they took under consideration.
Regarding gradients: The gradients used in MRI vary in *position*. Yes in time, as well, but only because they are pulsed. We can ignore ramping issues to first order. Since the field varies as a function of position, when you move around, indeed the flux is changing which can induce currents in looped conductors so as to oppose the change. This is called induction. Many people, my self included, notice a strange sensation when first entering an MRI magnet. This is because the field is only homogeneous over a relatively small volume, outside of which there are once again field gradients (these are different than the intentional field gradients used to obtain an MRI image). It is probably not axons but something in the ear that is picking this up, I am not sure. Also, field strength has *nothing* to do with this effect. It's how fast the field changes as a function of position, i.e. the gradient, combined with the velocity of the pickup object.
Regarding repulsion: Water is diamagnetic. That means that the little spins (i.e. electrons) orbiting the atoms of a water molecule tend to align *against* the applied field direction. These spins will experience a repulsive force, hence the levitation.
Have them build a clock radio, with alarm. Lots of digital logic, cheap. A breadboard is useful so as to avoid soldering, and some kits to go with the breadboard (little wire segments). If you make them run it off of wall current, they'll have to learn how to go from AC to DC. Might take a few months of working in groups to do, but you can learn a lot that way.
I LOVE inkscape. That coupled with GIMP enables just about any graphic manipulation you want. Plus, inkscape has some plugins that allow you directly enter (and in one case edit) LaTeX code. All for free. Unbelievably useful. I have futzed with LyX, but because I am used to handcoding my tags, I doubt I will start using it. I use WinEdt to create my documents, though IMO the autotabbing leaves something to be desired.
This should have appeared as a preprint on the xxx archives first, if it wants to be taken seriously. I see a bunch of math, and a disjointed argument. That sounds alarm bells in my head. I would not really pay close attention to this article until it was cleaned up and resubmitted and/or I heard the author present his ideas live, with the ability to ask questions and get clarifications.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, selling all our plutonium mines was a bad idea. You thought there plutonium mines there for a second. Fucking idiot.
Actually, Obamaâ(TM)s highest rating was 16% higher than Trumpâ(TM)s. Given your tone and inability to do even superficial research, I think itâ(TM)s safe to say you donâ(TM)t know shit from shinola.
Atmosphere is mostly nitrogen. Your post doesn't make sense.
The total oxygen sequestered would be far below the total amount in the atmosphere. 400 ppm worth of oxygen pales in comparison to the 200000 ppm that is already there, and ignores that the CO2 oxygen is already essentially sequestered (just as CO2).
....about 5 quadrillion kg of this stuff, and we will be good to go.
What a load of cherry-picked statistics. All of which ignore the systematic biases that have been in place for centuries against people who have more melanin in their skin. See? No ad hominem attacks. A simple dismissal of. Specious argument as just that. If those arguments carried any water, why arenâ(TM)t they making in-roads in a more public forum? Answer: because they are terrible, racist arguments that reach false conclusions based on overly sparse, unrepresentative data points.
So I have two gmail handles: one is firstname.middleinitial.lastname@gmail.com, the other is a not uncommon last name in a certain Latin American country from which my family hails (but not my own last name, long story, but it's a nickname).
The F.M.L.@gmail.com doesn't give me too much trouble. Someone with the opposite gender has a similar name, and sometimes I get emails from Australia, mostly for clothing and housewares.
The Latino lastname@gmail.com is more of an issue. I had someone use it to start a Twitter account (which I promptly took over). I have innumerable things I've been subscribed to in both English and Spanish. I am bombarded by people who think I'm a banker, a BMW buyer, and my favorite, a medical doctor.
The best email I ever got: a woman who thought I was a plastic surgeon, and wanted a boob job for her teenage daughter. And one for herself. And a vaginoplasty. I kid you not.
FUCK THAT SHIT
While in grad school, I was lucky enough to be selected to teach elementary school science in an inner-city school as part of the NSF's GK-12 program. I team-taught with the main classroom teacher 4 afternoons a week, using inquiry-based methods. Our pedagogic approach was very hands-on, and we had to think on our feet a lot. It was not easy for us to lesson plan, but we did our best.
The results? Out of ~35 kids, all of whom were getting free lunches (and all save one living in single-parent/grandparent households), most of whom had no previous science education, roughly 55% passed the state-mandate science proficiency test. That might not sound so great, but since the previous year's class had a passing rate of about 17%, we were ecstatic. We also had good participation in a "science club" held after-school, with more inquiry-based activities. At one point, late in the year, our students even understood free body diagrams (they were about 10 years old) as part of understanding Newton's 3rd law- something my college students typically struggled with.
Inquiry is powerful stuff. It harnesses the thing that makes people interested in science in the first place: innate curiosity.
Non sequitur: why is your name binary for the higher prime of a twin prime? Just curious.
Part of my job is to design objects that will be used in a high-magnetic field environment, namely MRI scanners. Metal is not an option for me. Prototyping with traditional methods (e.g., CNC machining) is extremely cost-prohibitive. So I use 3D-printing. Some I do in-house with an FDM machine, in ABS. A lot I outsource to a better printer that can use other materials, say polycarb, or other methods, like laser sintering. At the end of the day, I get functional prototypes that I can check for utility, than design molds for injection-molded parts based on feedback from those prototypes. 3D printing enables me to do this part of my job. Without it, there would be no prototyping, due to cost, and thus no objects in the magnetic field. Truly a gamechanger.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... This came out earlier this month. See http://www.sci-news.com/physic... for a summary.
I'd love to read the original article. I am not sure how they detected structure, but fMRI most certainly was not it. If fMRI was used, then it can only be a functional difference, there is no way to observe a structural change with fMRI unless it is something gross (like a 5x5x5mm cube of brain tissue suddenly went missing). If T2-weighting was used, then one is still limited to fairly gross changes (lets say a cube that is 1 mm^3 in volume). Finally, we arrive at the various diffusion MRI techniques, which have no established ground truth, but whose models can provide sub-voxel resolution. Not enough information to really evaluate in the OP.
It seems to have worked pretty well, in that the only debates within physics on this topic tend to come from older scientists with political agendas. One can, for instance, look up the APS position on climate change.
The people writing the checks need to better understand that these scientists are the main reason that the US economy does as well as it does. We have had and to date maintain a significant advantage over other nation states in terms of our technological innovation. However, it is undeniable that other countries are fast catching up. Our technological advantage is not a given thing, we have to properly fund R&D for it to be maintained. Technological prowess leads to economic health.
Think of photons as the central point from which oscillating magnetic and electric fields originate. And that this point moves through space at ~3x10^8 m/s. It is kind of like throwing two stones into water and watching the resulting interference patterns, excepts that the centers of those patterns are moving instead of stationary. Hence, collision isn't really an apt description.
Disclaimer: I am a physicist who works in MRI. MRI can be used to measure concentrations of certain biochemicals. MRI is sensitive enough to different proton-containing species that the frequency difference between fat and water causes image artifacts that can pose great difficulty. Not all biomolecules are sufficiently concentrated in the brain, or have a spectrum that is unique enough to be measured in vivo. A good example of a brain chemical that can be measured is N-acetyl aspartate (NAA), which has a proton peak at around 2 ppm that doesn't overlap with much else. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy is very difficult, and is most easily accomplished on research scanners operating at 3 tesla or higher. The reason for this is that rather than letting all hydrogen nuclei contribute to one signal that is then spatially located, one must parse what kinds of nuclei (i.e. what their chemical shift is) within each voxel. This not only imposes technical difficulties, but reduces the signal to noise ratio, potentially requiring more signal averaging in order to see sufficient signal above the noise floor.
"The last supernova in our galaxy occurred several hundred years ago." If that were true, we'd would not have detected it yet. If we had, we'd all be dead. Think about it.
Ohio STATE University. Not Ohio University. There is a huge world of difference. And PR is important, relying on the general media to disseminate information from original scientific journal articles doesn't work. Scientists should be the ones presenting their work, not journalists who are at best mildly fluent in the research areas they cover.
It detects the oxygenation of blood. The mechanism behind this is a different magnetic moment of oxygenated hemoglobin, oxygenated hemoglobin is diamagnetic vs paramagnetic while deoxygenated. This is called the BOLD effect (Blood Oxygen Level Dependent). The difference in the two conditions magnetic property affects the MRI signal lifetime in the near vicinity. This results in contrast developing between tissues with oxygenated blood vs tissue with deoxygenated blood. The idea behind fMRI is that when you use a certain part of the brain, it requires oxygenated blood, which will lead to contrast. Unfortunately, due to low overall signal strength/contrast-to-noise ratio, the image must be signal averaged. Hence if you were tapping your finger to see which part of your brain "lights up", you would have to repeat this action, and have your MRI scan be synced to your action so that the same part of the brian is being imaged over the same interval each time. It's tricky, but my understanding is that it's quite feasible. There are many other mechanisms for causing localized signal lifetime changes, without having RTFA, I can't be sure what they took under consideration.
Regarding gradients: The gradients used in MRI vary in *position*. Yes in time, as well, but only because they are pulsed. We can ignore ramping issues to first order. Since the field varies as a function of position, when you move around, indeed the flux is changing which can induce currents in looped conductors so as to oppose the change. This is called induction. Many people, my self included, notice a strange sensation when first entering an MRI magnet. This is because the field is only homogeneous over a relatively small volume, outside of which there are once again field gradients (these are different than the intentional field gradients used to obtain an MRI image). It is probably not axons but something in the ear that is picking this up, I am not sure. Also, field strength has *nothing* to do with this effect. It's how fast the field changes as a function of position, i.e. the gradient, combined with the velocity of the pickup object.
Regarding repulsion: Water is diamagnetic. That means that the little spins (i.e. electrons) orbiting the atoms of a water molecule tend to align *against* the applied field direction. These spins will experience a repulsive force, hence the levitation.
Large and costly magnets? Why don't we just start levitating things at the LHC?
magnets aren't nearly strong enough, that's why
Have them build a clock radio, with alarm. Lots of digital logic, cheap. A breadboard is useful so as to avoid soldering, and some kits to go with the breadboard (little wire segments). If you make them run it off of wall current, they'll have to learn how to go from AC to DC. Might take a few months of working in groups to do, but you can learn a lot that way.
I LOVE inkscape. That coupled with GIMP enables just about any graphic manipulation you want. Plus, inkscape has some plugins that allow you directly enter (and in one case edit) LaTeX code. All for free. Unbelievably useful. I have futzed with LyX, but because I am used to handcoding my tags, I doubt I will start using it. I use WinEdt to create my documents, though IMO the autotabbing leaves something to be desired.
This should have appeared as a preprint on the xxx archives first, if it wants to be taken seriously. I see a bunch of math, and a disjointed argument. That sounds alarm bells in my head. I would not really pay close attention to this article until it was cleaned up and resubmitted and/or I heard the author present his ideas live, with the ability to ask questions and get clarifications.