Here is the clip.

about 2

So I'm no longer sure what's on topic and what isn't, but where do you people get your science news?

>>6931
>superlaxitives

What are you trying to pass man? That can't be good.

>>6937
Well, I read BBC online regularly, and usually check their science & environment section as well as the health and technology sections.

If I had the time and subscriptions I would probably read (or at least skim the abstracts of) scientific and medical journals for fun. But my current method keeps me more updated than most people I know.

>>6940

Just because some solution seems more beautiful doesn't make it any more likely. All bets are off though. Maybe the universe has infinite dimensions or maybe it's 2794826958724. Who knows?

>>6941

An area is just a way of visualizing space-time that works well for the scales we exist at. Space-time is way more messy than up-down-left-right when you look at different scales though. That they can't explain "where they are" has to do with the limitations of our brains. We can't visualize more than three dimensions, so there's no way to put it into words. Only way someone can understand it is through the math.

The math is equally applicable to our three dimensions though, and our brains perception of them is nothing but a math equation. The only thing that makes the classical dimensions special is that we can visualize them, and that they seem to be the most important ones on our scales (newtonian physics).

If humans were as large as galaxies or as small as quarks, our brains would be hardwired to understand extra dimensions, because the effects would be day-to-day occurances we could observe with our own senses (try throwing a planet across a galaxy without taking the curvature of space-time into consideration). If that was the case our definition of an "area" would be something completely different.

>>6960
I'm not saying its more beautiful; I'm saying that there must be some reason why only motion through certain dimensions is allowed.

When physicists say that the universum has x dimensions, what does this actually mean?
I mean, what kind of mathematical "space" are they actually talking about and what is the relationship of this mathematical space to the universe?

That's not how ionisation works.

Wouldn't the occupants die of radiation poisoning long before they died of chlorine gas poisoning or oxygen deprivation.

Beta particles cannot turn oxygen into chlorine.

>>6784
>Mine's Tungsten. Hard, heavy, and heat-resistant to the extreme.
I hate tungsten. It has similar density to gold. One popular scam is selling gold-plated tungsten bars as gold bullion.

I'm sure other people has their own most hated elements too.

>>6933

I hate the artifical elements that are present for a few nanoseconds. They are worthless and will never serve a purpose, but they are still present on the periodic table wasting space as the IUPAC tries to figure a name.

>>6939
They have uses; they just don't want to tell you. The research regarding them is one of those "If I told you, I'd have to kill you" things.

It was pretty good yeah.

>>6921
got a link to an ebook download for it?

just downloaded it as well as a few other will read when i get time

Well, it's reversible so...

it can just go in and out and in and out and in and out....

Peptide orgasms.

I'm tempted to show this to my chem teacher....

>>6141
>>6177
>>6543
SO EDGY GUYS, WANNA GO MEET AT THE COFFEE SHOP AND TOUCH DICKS?

how is rabbies formed?
how zombies get infected?

retards.

>>6586
When you can point out how they're wrong let us know

>>6890

I know that it's a myth. Everyone knows that it's a myth. I have a feeling that that phrase was hyperbole.

>>6892
its more like clever misleading. I believe, if I remember correctly, we only consciously use about 10% of our brain, but our entire brain is always working, just without conscious control.

>>6927
I think the man wasn't making a statement regarding brain use, but rather using the literary device of hyperbole to highlight the fact that increasing someone's biological capacity for thinking, while that someone exists rather dimwittedly, will have a muted effect.

idunno, i might just be reading into it.

there are many kinds of intelligences too, technology could potentially add to the amount of information the human brain can handle at one time. But, alas. I am getting ahead of myself. I haven't even read the articles yet.

I'd imagine that this discovery just supplements the horribly inefficient iPS cell manufacturing aspects of current bioengineering.