741

Physiology & Medicine / What is the convention for naming chromosome loci?

« on: 25/06/2005 07:12:22 »

I'm reading up on them at the moment as I'm trying to learn more about Chromosome22 Ring. There's something basic that I don't understand. In the label 16p13.3, for instance, I know that the 16p refers to the shorter, upper arm of chromosome 16 & I think that the 13 is the specific locus. But what is the .3 on the end? What does that refer to? I can't find it anywhere.

742

Just Chat! / Grumble forum

« on: 25/06/2005 06:58:17 »

We should have 1 where we can moan like hell about things that annoy us & put forward suggestions on how to rectify the problem.

743

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Photons & the end of the universe

« on: 17/06/2005 12:14:02 »

Photons travel at C & nothing with mass can do that. It follows, therefore, that in the expansion of the universe photons will always outrun matter. If, as has been hypothesised, the universe may one day collapse back in on itself, what would happen to the photons that were furthest away? Would the collapse suck the whole of spacetime back in on itself or just the ordinary matter in the universe?
Also, if current theories are correct and there is such a thing as dark matter which is immune from gravitational effects (e.g. WIMPS), what would happen to that if the universe collapsed? Wouldn't you be left with a universe consisting solely of photons & non-gravitational (sorry, I don't know the correct terminology) dark matter with everything else collapsed back into a singularity? And would that dark matter universe continue to expand?

744

Physiology & Medicine / Mosaicism & ring chromosome 22

« on: 06/06/2005 13:33:53 »

A friends of mine has an autistic 10yo daughter with Mosaic Chromosome Disorder and has asked if I know, or can find out, anything about that particular chromosome. My ignorance on such a subject is total but I couldn't think of anywhere more likely to have people with knowldege of it than here. So... any offers?

745

Just Chat! / Crop circles

« on: 02/06/2005 15:06:02 »

I try to be a bit sceptical but some of those patterns are so big & elaborate, how could they have been made so quickly that no-one noticed? It must have taken dozens of people to complete them in a matter of a few hours.
And how were they done so precisely? I've seen people on TV claiming to be hoaxers who do them but they just walk round standing on pieces of wood to flatten the crops. I just can't see the feasibility of creating some of the larger, more complex designs just by doing that.
I'd be interested to hear your views.
[]

746

General Science / Don't let Blair see this!

« on: 02/06/2005 11:03:38 »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4599299.stm

747

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Photon life span

« on: 01/06/2005 21:48:50 »

I've seen it said in a few places that photons never expire. Is there any proof of that?
As I'm not a physicist or mathematician I don't understand the intricacies of the equations involved, but is the lifespan of a particle related to its energy?

748

Just Chat! / Utter rubbish!

« on: 27/05/2005 14:34:40 »

"Eth, your IQ score is 183
Recommend this test to a friend
Show a friend your result
Guess your friends' results
Eth, your IQ score is significantly above average. Congratulations! You have a wide range of exceptional skills which are much stronger than those of the average population. You are also skilled at answering the types of questions that are asked in a classic IQ test. The test analyses your strengths and weaknesses based on your mathematical, linguistic, visual-spatial and logical skills. Even though you have high scores in all of those areas, we are able to analyse your results to discover the areas in which you have the strongest abilities.


You've got a very experiential way of learning and a strong mathematical mind. You're able to whittle even the most complex situation down to comprehensible component parts. In short, you have mastered the art and science of precision. That's what makes you a Precision Processor.

For you, life is a series of equations. Your brain is naturally predisposed to intense mathematical acuity, and your understanding of numerical problems is unparalleled. It's second nature for you to cut to the heart of an issue, so that you can discover quick solutions to problems while others get bogged down in unnecessary details. One precision processor that comes to mind is the Greek philosopher-mathematician, Pythagoras. Pythagoras had a mind for numbers and, as such, could come up with previously unknown theories like his method for calculating the sides of a right triangle (a2+b2=c2). You too, can use numbers to translate aspects of the world around you -- something that doesn't come easily to everyone. Your quick mathematical mind will allow you to communicate a variety of ideas to other people, so don't keep it to yourself."

The above is the result from an online IQ test I took. What piffle! "Quick mathematical mind"? "Your brain is naturally predisposed to intense mathematical acuity, and your understanding of numerical problems is unparalleled"? They're having a laugh. Anything more complicated than 2+2 brings me out in a cold sweat!
I don't hold much store by IQ tests anyway and that 1 has made me even more cynical about their usefulness [|)]

749

General Science / Alef Quintillion Superphysics?

« on: 25/05/2005 00:53:26 »

Anyone know the hell that is? I can across it in a web search but there was no explanation [xx(]

750

General Science / Evolution of the brain

« on: 24/05/2005 12:41:31 »

I've often wondered if dogs' amazing sensitivity to smell (or other animals sensitivity to other sensory input) has been a hindrance to them developing into more intelligent creatures. In the case of dogs, not only is their brain smaller than humans but much more of it must be taken up by processing olfactory (and audio) input. Did the structure of their brain develop deliberately to have that degree of sensitivity or did that sensitivity evolve as a result of the way their brain evolved? My gut feeling is that it's the former & that its development along those lines stopped development in other ways.

Is there any evidence to show that humans ever had greater sensory sensitivity than they now have?

751

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Energy-based black holes

« on: 11/05/2005 17:25:42 »

If energy & mass are the same thing in different forms & mass is just energy "locked up", is it theoretically possible for a black hole to form from energy alone? Or how about a photonic black hole? I believe it's possible for a photon to produce gravity, so if there were enough could they produce a block hole?

752

Physiology & Medicine / Hearing range

« on: 19/05/2005 10:19:08 »

When a sound is outside of our hearing range, is it that our eardrums don't react to it at all or just that the movements are so small they are imperceptible to us?

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away

753

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Non-moving objects

« on: 17/05/2005 00:28:12 »

I've just read a reply to an earlier post of mine & someone mentioned relativity & non-moving objects. Now, being but a humble psychologist, not a physicist, I need some clarity on a few points here.
1) If space is expanding, can any object be at rest in the universe? If the space between A and B expands, does that mean that A and B must be moving or can they be stationary while just the space between them expands? Surely, if the space expands they must get further apart: but are they actually MOVING? And if they ARE moving, what are they moving relative to?
2) It's accepted that galaxies, clusters & superclusters are moving away from each other (with local exceptions due to gravity, of course, e.g. the Milky Way & the Andromeda Galaxy): but further to my 1st point, are they actually moving apart or would thay be stationary if space itself were not expanding? Do they themselves have velocity other than that of the expansion?
3) Does the expansion of space occur WITHIN objects? Red giant stars are huge & there is 1 hell of alot of distance between 1 side & the other. Does the expansion of space cause them to also expand or does their gravity counteract it? Or how about the stars in galaxies? If space is expanding, is it just gravity that stops them from moving away from each other? I assume that's the case: but, am I missing some fundamental point, or isn't it quite a coincidence that the gravitational attraction within a galaxy exactly counteracts universal expansion? Similarly with atoms. Is the space between the particles expanding? And, if so, isn't it weird that the forces within the atom exactly balance that expansion?
Am I being stupid? Have I had too many tequilas?
AAARRRRGH... my brain hurts!

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away

754

General Science / The salt debate

« on: 17/05/2005 00:42:38 »

All the government advice I've heard in recent years says that we should cut back on salt intake. Yet I remember when I was young I suffered from bad leg cramps & our GP said it was due to lack of salt. I started putting more salt on my food & the cramps stopped.
Also, I lived in Africa for 2 years & saw many tourists suffering from desalination due to sweating. When we had that really hot summer here (in England) in about 1996 or 1997, my elderly mother became very lethargic & quite poorly. Her GP prescribed a tonic which had no effect whatsoever. I recognised the symptoms from the tourists in Africa so I got her some salt tablets & within a couple of days she was fine.
So, my question is, what is the truth about salt? It obviously has beneficial effects as witnessed by its curing my cramps. Do the adverse effects actually outweigh the benefits?


It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away

755

General Science / How fast will people be able to run?

« on: 15/05/2005 23:15:31 »

There must come a time when a man runs as fast as it is possible to. Obviously, it would be impossible to just keep running faster & faster ad infinitum or eventually a race would be run in zero time.
Performance, as far as I am aware, is goverened by muscle strength & endurance, length and speed of stride, & how efficiently oxygen is circulated around the body.
Theoretically, there is always room for strength to increase & as man gets taller the length of stride will increase. I would suppose that speed of stride would eventually reach a limit as one couldn't take an infinite amount of strides per second.
So, is it circulation of oxygen and/or speed of stride that will prove the ultimate barrier to greater speed, or are other factors involved?

It wasn't me - a big boy did it & ran away

756

General Science / Boilng eggs

« on: 01/05/2005 21:37:26 »

Why is it that when I boil eggs more bubbles rise around the eggs than anywhere else in the pot?

757

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Very basic cosmology question

« on: 11/04/2005 13:41:18 »

There's something I've been confused about for years but as yet I've had no satisfactory answer to. Cosmologists say we can now see objects 12 billion lightyears away. Now, if that light has taken 12 billion years to reach us, the objects concerned must have been almost that far away (minus the expansion of the universe)when the light started its journey. But surely, 12 billion years ago the universe wasn't anywhere near large enough for any object to have been that far from any other object: so how come we see them now? Wouldn't the light have gone way beyond us by now? Can anyone help me understand this?