Molecular Biology-Physics

Helle my friends. I'm graduated from highschool. I will probably go college this year. I can go to physics or molecular biology There are other alternatives but I don't know how to choose a scientific sect. I am so confused. I want to understand universe by physic. But I want to understand humans by molecular biology. Math for computer science. I have enough programming skills from my childhood. Is there any phsicians , molecular biologist? What do you do? I need help really.

>>8930 >But I want to understand humans by molecular biology. What the fuarrrk are you talking about ? If you want to learn about humans go and study psychology or something like that, molecular biology is at a completely different level.

>>8931 social sciences. sorry i said science. Most of our behaivours hided in our genes and you're saying go psychology. If psychology is solution of sickness of soul why do people taking drugs? I don't want discussing. I really need help to understand what these sciences are

>>8932 There's no one field that covers everything humans have. There's biology, there's psychology, there's chemistry, neuroscience, likely a fuarrrkton more. You can't be a master of all trades. People are forced to take drugs because big pharma obfuscates genuine solutions. You should learn better English first Köksal, I don't usually say that but the way you write is so unbearable that I can feel my own language skills deteriorating.

>>8930 In my experience psychology is mostly thinly veiled ideology wrapped in poor statistics. You'd be better served by history or literature for understanding people generally. Neuroscience is an interesting field now as there are good genetic and computational tools for studying it but still plenty of unknowns. It is mostly molecular biology and physiology, then depending on what specific area you are interested in it can involve physics, chemistry, computer science, or the more social sciences.

>>8937 thank you for your answer.

>>8930 I'm a senior majoring in Biology with a focus on Biochemistry. Starting a PhD in Biochemistry/Structural Biology/Quantitative Biology next year. At the moment I'm interested in structural biology, hoping to work on neurotransmitter-related membrane proteins. In the lab, I do a lot of programming and crystallography. I really enjoy it, but it definitely is not for everyone. Given your interests, you may want to look for a university with a Biophysics program. Also you can do physics for undergrad and then pursue a PhD in quantitative biology if you'd like. Also molecular biology is OK, but if you enjoy physics and/or chemistry you may get a lot more out of biophysics/biochemistry. If you enjoy having a formula or hardcore data to guide you then that would be the way to go. Also also, keep up the programming. I cannot think of a biology lab that is not in need of more people with coding skill. Hope this helps a little.

>>8946 I appreciate you for your answer. What were you doing at undergrad? I dont want biology and physics at same time. If I choose molecular biology , I want work on crisrpr like gene modification. If I choose physics energy would be good for me. You are biologist and I should ask about it. How do you see future of biology? Will we increase life time , cure cancer or etc. What do we expect from future?

>>8947 >What were you doing at undergrad? I'm finishing my undergrad now (Senior year). For research: - two summers in a physics nanotechnology lab, ended up doing a lot of computer science and chemistry - about a year in a structural biology/crystallography lab, lots of biochemistry lab work (vector/plasmid creation, cloning, protein expression, protein purification, crystallization, etc.) and more recently some computer science working with integrating different available resources/algorithms/etc. for ease of use For classes: A mixture of creative writing, computer science, and bio/chem/physics classes. CRISPR stuff is OK imo, you shouldn't have trouble finding labs that are interested in working with it. The structural bio side of it (custom CRISPR protein design) is pretty sick. Dissecting gene / protein regulation pathways with CRISPR is neat stuff too. >You are biologist Hah, this is the first time I've been called one formally. >How do you see future of biology? Also the first time I've been asked this. It is a hard question to answer. I think there is no singular "future of biology", just thousands of tendrils of knowledge gradually spreading. For me, studying biology has never really been about increasing life spans or curing cancer. Personally I think "curing" cancer is an unreasonable goal, but that we will see a soykafton of powerful new treatments as time goes on (nanoparticle drug delivery seems particularly interesting). Life span extension seems more like a side effect of research than a goal, although some people are still messing with telomere extension / regulation and other stuff like that (idk much about this). I think biochemistry will continue to slowly merge with computer science, physics, and chemistry to open up a much deeper understanding of low-level biological processes. Personally I'm hoping this lets us start to dissect nerve cell regulation and in the (very) long run leads to highly accurate models of brain-signaling pathways that can start to explain consciousness as a manifestation physical events, but that's just me.

Hello again. Any physicians?

>>8961 In English a physician is a medical doctor. Someone studying physics is a physicist. That is what you meant I think. Confusing I suppose if it's not your first language.

I am a physicist. I work with computational neuroscience and biomimetic robotics. I work with TCPA like the ones modeled here http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2053-1591/aa9f3d/meta I also work on some connectomic AI projects with Prome, at prome.ai I am still pretty new to the fields but I enjoy what I do and would highly recommend physics over molecular biology. Physics sees the big picture and, in my opinion is more widely applicable than molecular biology. As cool as I think molecular bio is, I would much rather be in tune to the fundamental principles of a biological system at the level of atoms and fields, and fill in the gaps with the abstract biological view as needed, than be used to the relatively non-rigorous biological views trying to fill in the complicated bits of technical rigour for whatever project I am working on at the time... Your case may be different. Physics and molecular biology are just tool kits, you have to know what you are going to use them for before you can honestly decide which suits you better. Of course, you can always combine them and go with biophysics. Hope this helps...

>>8982 you are working on a noble subject. thank you for answering.

>>8982 Hi. It's me again. I really love robot legs ,arms. I came here for last recommendations. I can't come to lainchan anymore.

I hate myself for studying physics. Wasted fuarrrking years of my life

>>9029 Why do you hate? I like physics. I'm OP. I want to be mathematician but i want apply math to life. I dont want graduate after 4 years and cant something on real life.

>>9031 If you want to apply math to life, you might consider applied mathematics or applied physics. Really, college education is an expensive system of artificial structure and motivation. It helps as far as credentialism in the modern world is concerned, but only you can grant yourself the knowledge and skills to create the world you desire. Only you can create yourself moment by moment through the language of experience, to realize who you want to be. I guess what I am saying is, don't fret over your degree too much, just do everything you can to actualize yourself in whatever field you choose and move toward whatever goal you set for yourself.

>>9036 College education is free in my country.

>>9038 Ah, my mistake. Carry on then.

>>9038 Time isn't though.

>>9031 The degree was useless to me. And although I am interested in physics, in retrospect I can see that I did not really enjoy it, because it meant so much stress and a lot of time spent on public transport. Physics the worst combination of difficult and useless. It was expensive. I imagine all the things I could have done with all that time instead

>>9041 continued I think the best advice I wish I could give my high school self is to think of what occupation I want rather than what I want to study. The only jobs physics really leads to require a PhD; you must be very smart and dedicate your life to study. Even maths on its own is basically the same, unless you want to be a slave for some bank. Molecular biology can be more useful - e.g. combine it with programming you can do bioinformatics. Note that it's very unlikely you have many programming skills from childhood. In the early stages it's easy to miss that there is so much more to it than the basics

>>9043 What do you recommend for me? I can get a Computer Science education. I dont really llike computers but I have 1 life and I want to spend it rich and relax

>>9049 Go with computer science. Once you get your degree you'll only need a tiny bit of knowledge to get involved in computer science applied to whatever subject you are interested in.

>>9049 There's no easy way to get a rich and relaxed life. My interests changed dramatically in my early twenties so try to keep your options open. Take a variety of classes and research as many areas as you can until you get some idea.

>>9057 27 years old. I still have no clue what I want to do with my life but what I do know is I'm getting closer to understand I want to opt out of society and do any type of work away from the general public.

You will not understand the universe by learning physics, you will only just understand models of bodies, forces and fields that do not exist in that form, and of particles-waves that are so tiny that your understanding of them will feel irrelevant to reality. Sure, they are all over you, but even if you gain a complete understanding of them (which physics as a field currently lacks, and probably always will) you won't understand most things. At best you'll have an idea how phenomena and simple technology works (unless you end up in compsci). You will have no idea how the economy, politics, women, moba games, taiwanese, insects you never heard about, brains, or your roommates work. The same line of thought can be applied to molecular biology. I know where you are coming from, because I was there too; I also thought that learning physics will teach me how the world works, because it's the fundamental thing others are built on, right? Well problem is, you as a human are too small and simple to contain the corpus of physics knowledge/understanding humanity has gained. And even if you could, you'd still have to work out all of its applied forms to get chemistry, biology, etc all the way up. The reality is that you'll never even have a complete understanding of physics, and thus won't be able to reliable "build the rest" out of it. In the end you'll be stuck in the field trying to publish research and finally catch some hypothesis in an experiment, or work in a team for profit at some corp. If I were you, I'd read some epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of maths instead to see where you stand, and grow out of the newton einstein cult-fanboyism that high school implants into so many youngsters.

>>9077 Yeah it is a life-long problem for some, including myself...

>>9084 You confused me really. But I will read about phiolophy of science. I dont have much ways. I can only educate in STEM without engineering. I am really thinking about what you wrote. I am not a fan of Newton , eistein or other popular science materials but I really like science. I will think and write something but I dont have something to write now. Thank you for opinions.

I can't decide. Bump

>>9746 Holy God. I wasnt lurking on lainchan for 10-20 day or more. What a nice quincidence

>>9084 >newton einstein cult-fanboyism Most high schoolers are not even remotely interested in science farther than what they are taught in school. I think being a fan of some of the greatest mind's is a step above being a fan of most celebrities.

OP probably this information isn't useful any longer but it could help anyone else in this situation. I'm finishing my undergrad thesis rn, in physics. I during this time I have met at least 20 physicists who are working on neuroscience, and around 7 who are working in molecular biology. What I meant to say, is that when you start researching, your degree only gives you tools, that doesn't mean that you have to study "physicists stuff" only. I mean, you have the tools to research in whatever subject you want to, but with a physicist perspective. Like 8 years ago I was in the same situation that you are, and I decided to study physics cause it's so wide. So you can change your mind and researching in a very different things than what you were planning without changing your degree. Good luck anon.

>>9084 > You will not understand the universe by learning physics, Agreed, but only because academia teaches bogus theory as fact. For instance: The Universe is Not Expanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK6zHysxoCo And a near limitless source of electricity can be created literally out of thin air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENeDkGce5-4 Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity, it was already known about for hundreds of years, he just noted that clouds affected the voltage potential. Academia confuses students with this evidence (as always) by refusing to test or even entertain the null hypothesis: Clouds don't generate electricity, they're not the source of lightning. There is no known method of charge separation in clouds, not even friction: The + and - forces would just recombine in the cloud to a net neutral state. However, rain does cause an EM loop, whose magnetic vortex also contributes to formation of tornadoes and hurricanes... but you're not supposed to study EM fields in weather, and doing so will get you blackballed from gov funded academia. Truth is that the earth is vastly negatively charged relative to the sky, and clouds help "short circuit" the differential to cause "static break down" AKA lightning. Hence, the existence of "bolts from the blue" which occur with no clouds present and are more powerful due to the greater buildup of charge separation prior to the air's breakdown. The basics of the structure of our world and forces that influence it are not only wrong in academia and ignored by "Physics" courses. No, the truth about our universe is actively suppressed! Academia is censorship central. If you want to learn about reality, you'll have to avoid the brainwashing of academia. Another example: A double slit experiment is created in a pool of water + wave source. The waves create interference patterns as they pass through the slits. Then a light beam is shone through the slits and a similar wave pattern is demonstrated, concluding that the light beam is interfering with itself similar to the water waves. As an astute researcher myself, I simply removed the double slits. A laser shown through a tiny single slit produces the same "fringe" pattern. If you can create the fringe with one slit the "double slit experiment" is bogus; Obviously light does not behave like water. And yet, all of academia still uses the double slit experiment to "explain" (read: misinform) students of properties of light which are better described by light's internal structure and simple diffraction. Furthermore, the experiment whereby it seems that the light knows whether it is being "observed" (measured at one slit) is brainwashing hogwash. The "detector" is part of the experiment and influences the light, thus changing the output. This is really simple crap that tons of "nerds" and PHD educated nitwits amaze themselves with. Finally, Schrödinger's Cat is never both alive and dead. The box "observes" the cat. The universe observes the box. Only in the pseudointellectual brainwashing of academia do "multiple universes" exist. When you imagine the experiment is not part of our universe then you have created multiple universes only in your mind; There is no such thing as "superpositions", those are just algorithmic constructs that work nice on paper but do no explain reality. There. Now fellow Lains know more than academia will teach you about "physics".

>>11629 please stop spreading bullsoykaf. >The Universe is Not Expanding. then why are far-away galaxies getting redshifted? That's the observation that led researchers to believe in the cosmological constant in the first place. >And a near limitless source of electricity can be created literally out of thin air this is cool but doesn't really go against any dogmas in physics. >Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity, it was already known about for hundreds of years only children are told Ben Franklin discovered electricity. It's just American propaganda. >Clouds don't generate electricity, they're not the source of lightning. They very clearly do. The mechanism is not known. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UZb07imNLU >but you're not supposed to study EM fields in weather, really? Because I found a ton of soykaf about lightning mentioning EM fields on arXiv. >However, rain does cause an EM loop what is an "EM loop"? >Truth is that the earth is vastly negatively charged relative to the sky, and clouds help "short circuit" the differential to cause "static break down" AKA lightning. this is demonstrably untrue. The ground is very strongly positively charged relative to the sky. >A laser shown through a tiny single slit produces the same "fringe" pattern. that didn't happen for me when I was a kid. >properties of light which are better described by light's internal structure and simple diffraction. but the double-slit experiment is used to explain why we know light's internal structure and simple diffraction? >The "detector" is part of the experiment and influences the light, thus changing the output. that's literally the point of the experiment. >Finally, Schrödinger's Cat is never both alive and dead. The box "observes" the cat. way to miss the point. Schroedinger's Cat is a thought experiment which is meant to show fallacies in the idea that an uncollapsed wavefuntion is "both A and B". The cat and the particle-detecting ensemble is hypothetically strongly isolated within the box, much like in quantum computing experiments which show that such an isolation is possible for small numbers of atoms. >Only in the pseudointellectual brainwashing of academia do "multiple universes" exist. Only in your mind is that considered a consensus among physicists. It's actually a pretty unpopular opinion because it's unfalsifiable. >There is no such thing as "superpositions" then how does Shor's algorithm work.

>>11629 What's your view on biology anon. You got me interested.

Guys I'm OP. I entered exam for college, I'm waiting for results of exam. I appreciate for good recommendations for me.

>>10750 I think Lain's point was that there's this faux nerd obsession with science. Science will solve all our problems. Science will replace religion. The bing bongo theory is funny. There's tons of money in STEM. You must go to college. Elon Musk is my hero. Etc. In reality, most good researchers seem to enjoy their work more than any secondary benefits or subcultures it places them in.

>>11629 >but you're not supposed to study EM fields in weather, and doing so will get you blackballed from gov funded academia. Is this part of a HAARP conspiracy?

>>11637 > then why are far-away galaxies getting redshifted? The further the object, the more matter in the way, the more the light is shifted. It's an effect all optical mediums demonstrate. The further you look through water, or any other light bearing medium the more chromatic shift there is. The further you look through space, same thing. This doesn't mean that space is expanding any more than your swimming pool is expanding simply because further pool lights demonstrate more prismatic effect. Search "non cosmological redshift" Quasars demonstrate enormous redshift. Rather than admit that redshift may not be due to distance but intermediary medium, academic astronomers place these objects at incredible distances from the galaxies they are near. But this means that a Quasar must be brighter than entire galaxies in order to appear at the brightness they do. It's asinine. Quasars seem to be tiny bright highly redshifted galactic cores, spawned from a parent galaxy. Thus redshift may actually be due to age of the galaxy, not its distance. Imagine a hydrogen envelope around a star or galaxy. As light traverses the less dense space surrounding said more dense hydrogen envelope it will bend, just as water refracts as it crosses from low to high refractive index solutions in a tank of water. So, most of your lensing effect that is claimed to be caused by a black hole "bending spacetime" does not exist. If space time were bent by a black hole, then light traveling through the spacetime would not refract. It would stay the same hue. However, the "Einstein Rings" claimed to be created by black-hole lensing of spacetime are all blue shifted. Mainstream Astronomy has no adequate answer why this would occur; However, if the lensing were due to aforementioned refraction you would expect a blue shift, which is observed yet this explanation is dogmatically ignored in today's academic astronomy. Astronomers ignore the basic optical properties of light in space and claim everything is "gravity lensing" or "cosmological redshift" due to distance. Don't be deceived, surely light can refract and lens in space just as it does here on earth without said expansion or incredibly severe "gravity wells". As for the others, I haven't the time at present. Do seek out alternative hypotheses on your own, as most "science" today does not take the time to entertain, let alone refute, the null hypothesis. Leading to the replication crisis (it's empirically proven that most peer reviewed and published "scientific" findings in academia are bogus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Continue to blindly trust an establishment which is more likely than not false at your own peril. Finally, I leave you with a powerful magnet lensing and bending light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY7hsXxbb0Q Surely EM fields in space couldn't cause redshift or lensing of light in space? Only gravity lensing or expansion of the universe must be the explanation, says modern astronomy. If one entertains the idea that electromagnetism might play a stronger role in the cosmos than academic astronomy suggests, one will realize the truth behind pulsars, esp. irregular pulsars. Imagine an enormous spark gap. Lightning in space...

>>11788 I'm not that lainanon, but I'd like to know more. Specifically, do you have an reference on non-linear wave-propagation in medium where they discuss the frequency shift you mention. (Perhaps considering propagation in water and in a dilute plasma like the interstellar medium.) Naively, thinking in terms of linear wave-propagation, I'd expect the color of non-monochromatic light propagating through water to change mainly due to different frequencies dampening out at different characteristic length-scales. Am I right in assuming that you are referring to a different, non-linear effect on monochromatic light? Here, I assume that the monochromatic case is the relevant one for measuring redshift, since astronomers probably look at line-radiation from various atoms and molecules. Please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not an astronomer.

Hello lainons. How are you? I have chance educating about mathematics. I will go college 3 weeks later. I am happy now. I want share it with you :3 I appreciate to you and God.

>>11788 >The further the object, the more matter in the way, the more the light is shifted. It's an effect all optical mediums demonstrate. this is not true. Try illuminating hydrogen in a medium(say water). You'll find that the absorption spectra are not shifted, they are rather expanded, as light is refracted by the water. Same would apply to the interstellar medium. You seem to not actually know what redshifting is or how it is measured. >But this means that a Quasar must be brighter than entire galaxies in order to appear at the brightness they do. and this is impossible because??? >Don't be deceived, surely light can refract and lens in space just as it does here on earth without said expansion or incredibly severe "gravity wells". sure, but where do those giant refractors and lenses come from? Are they observed? You have to keep in mind that these claims you make have to be based on observations, not just thinking of something that could hypothetically explain what we see. Physicists rarely say that anything about cosmology is definite, if you ever actually talk to a physicist they will tell you there is a lot of things that are unknown. What you're doing is disputing, very ignorantly, things that are known. >Leading to the replication crisis (it's empirically proven that most peer reviewed and published "scientific" findings in academia are bogus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis funny how you claim that a scientific study has empirically proven that scientific studies do not empirically prove things. Joking aside, general relativity and quantum mechanics are some of the most replicated and well-founded fields in modern science. The replication crisis is mostly in fields like psychology, medicine, etc. where there are a huge amount of uncontrollable variables, small sample sizes, and a general lack of scientific rigor. Hard physics does not have this problem, for the most part. I believe the video you linked is of a magnet bending an electron stream. Anyway, assuming that video is indeed some kind of circular light beam being bent by a magnet, it's not of the form that observed lensing artifacts take, since the light returns to its original path eventually in the video. >If one entertains the idea that electromagnetism might play a stronger role in the cosmos than academic astronomy suggests see, you say things like "entertain the idea" a lot. Is there *any* reason to believe anything you say? Are there any observations which are incompatible with other theories, but compatible with yours? General relativity can boast many such observations.

>>12782 excuse me, I meant to say that light is absorbed by the water. Refraction wouldn't do anything to change absorption lines.

>>9028 Get involved in a robotics club. Learn everything you can about engineering statics and dynamics and become at least proficient in Mechanical and electrical design, whether through software or through old fashioned draftsmanship. Learn to code. That is about all it takes. The above and a ton of dedication. Real life engineering is a bit like fictional wizardry, you have to find a mentor, a good order, or be extremely dedicated and spend a ton of time picking up the tricks yourself. I mostly fall into the last category, I have spent more than half my life becoming who I am today, and learning what I needed to know to stand out in my field. A better analogy would be riding a bicycle. The more you pedal the stronger you get, the more you ride the faster you go. Direction is important, but at the end of the day if you dont turn the crank you wont go forward. Pick a direction, pay attention to the road, and the signs and the environment and just keep pedaling. Sooner or later you are going to get somewhere.

>>12793 Thank you for it but I decided to go college for mathematics. Educating is free in my country, I gave up being an engineer. I will specialize myself with economics.

Go study particle physics

>>12802 Great work, now pay attention to where you are headed, look forward, and keep pedaling! You will be someone great before you know it!

>>13305 Thank you. I am in computer lab now and waiting for teacher. Learning how to use Maple. I like my college and teachers. They are exprerinced and great people. They help about everything. I need working hard. My lessons are Calculus 1, Abstract Mathmetics, Analytical Geometry. Good bye , lesson is starting I have to leave.

Anyone got PDFs they could share on biology?

I'm about to start my PhD in Chemistry and looking back at it, it might be interesting for you. During the first three years (the BSc), my university covered: >Basic Physics >Inorganic Chemistry >Organic Chemistry >Physical Chemistry >Introduction to Quantum Dynamics >Statistical Physics >Molecular Biology and Biotechnology >Analytical Chemistry >Computational Chemistry Overall, I think that the field can be very interdisciplinary. This depends on your university but if it's at least half-decent, you'll have the same experience. These days, no field is an island in itself and you only start specializing a few years down the road. Seeing that your post already is a little older, so I hope you found your way.

>>8946 > I cannot think of a biology lab that is not in need of more people with coding skill. Anon, if you are still here, what language would you say would be the most useful in a biology lab? I'm a senior in biology and chemistry this year, but my lab focuses on flux control analysis of some enzymes for modeling pathways; we use COPASI and a little bit of R. I thought that perhaps if I better my skill in programming I may be able to better work in whatever lab I end up in. >>14953 In what way did they cover computational chemistry? My university has not covered that, though we do have a full course on structure elucidation which makes our students stronger than other schools for organic chemistry. It's not a very large program here, sadly...

>>14967 >In what way did they cover computational chemistry? If I remember correctly, it started by briefly introducing the key aspects of dynamics simulations like the Metropolis-Monte-Carlo algorithm. Another lecture started by trying to solve the Schrödinger equation using certrain approximations like Born-Oppenheimer one. Later, we talked about the Hartree-Fock ansatz and the basics of density functional theory. During my MSc, I had another computational chemistry module which went more in depth about the topics above and we had to code in C++. If you are already familiar with the basics of quantum mechanics/LCAO and want to check out the field, I can recommend "Modern Quantum Chemistry" by Szabo and Ostlund. It's pretty comprehensive and could be available on libgen (or as a paperback, if you have 15 € to spare). If I stumble across my old MSc script, I'll upload it here, I remember it being a pretty easy read.

>>11629 >And a near limitless source of electricity can be created literally out of thin air Sorry but, lol what. That video shows volts. You can create a ton of voltage by shuffling your feet across carpet. Voltage is nothing. Wattage is what matters. You can get 300W from a solar panel less than 1m^2, so how is it competing with that.

Anyone got books on basic biology?

>>16195 You can search for them on websites like libgen

>>8930 Science Joke (that might help focus OP). A physicist, chemist and a biologist were on a train together. They passed a field with a brown cow in it. The Biologist commented; Cows are brown. The Chemist said, that Cow is brown. The Physicist said, that side of that Cow is brown. Each discipline is examining our universe/world at different scales. Really this is meant as a snobby physicist joke!

>>16938 >HEY I RECOGNIZE THAT TEXTBOOK I wonder if my mom still has it I once talked to someone who had a few masters degrees in mathematics, but he ended up working his entire life in COMPSI (also had some sick tech collections dating back to the 60-70s to now), and he explained that really all scientific fields interoperate with one another, more like a large ven-diagram instead of as most people see them as independent of one another. While I am just a humble mechanic and am far from understanding the universe, that statement stuck with me for all these years.

>>11629 > A laser shown through a tiny single slit produces the same "fringe" pattern No this is about the interference between the 2 wave fronts... not any single one - demonstrating the additive and subtractive nature of light waves... just like water. > The "detector" is part of the experiment and influences the light Then predict where the light goes, place detector any way round... you can't even if you "account" for the detector... its the quantum nature and wave particle duality that light exhibits... You need to really understand how vastly more research established science has done than you- waaaay beyond whats on youtube! Not that youtube is bad source of science - but you have to really understand some very very heavy concepts before you can right them off so flippantly. Currently you spread bullsoykaf like a tractor... But I will say Laser saber is one of the good free energy guys - his stuff is real and does not contradict classical science at all... but you are not going to replace humanities energy needs with sky energy, unless you can harness lightning type sky energy... but even laser sabers super caps won't do that! As for the cat - its not dead - its an analogy, which you are failing to grasp by taking it too literally. Its not about the box or the cat - the box sees nothing - there is no spoon!

>>16939 >all scientific fields interoperate with one another Kinda analogous to how networking, programming and sys admin are all computing and all have some cross and ref to each other... but they are very different things in them selves.

> >Clouds don't generate electricity, they're not the source of lightning. > They very clearly do. The mechanism is not known. The known mechanism is the charge of 100 volts per meter height charge separation between the earth and the upper airs. What you're saying is that if I place a strip of tin foil in a spark gap, the tin foil is responsible for generating lightning. That's asinine. You've not watched any of the vids posted which actually explain what's going on using accepted measurements published in physics books written by Feynman, et. al. See the vid about free energy collection from ions in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENeDkGce5-4 If a cloud comes into the spark gap, you can detect an increase in potential as it brings the charges closer, but the cloud is not generating the lightning. The earth and upper airs are static electrically charged without any clouds needing to be present. >>16940 > No this is about the interference between the 2 wave fronts... not any single one - demonstrating the additive and subtractive nature of light waves... just like water. Nope. Let me hand hold you since you fools can't do any research on your own (or else you'd already know most BS you were taught in school is fake). Professor Walter Levin: Use a pool of Water with a double slit setup to show "interference pattern" in water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMdxBKRXhE&t=43m11s (43min in) Now the same professor in the same video uses a double slit experiment with light to show "interference pattern". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMdxBKRXhE&t=63m (1hr in) Now the same professor, in a different class, uses a single slit with a laser to demonstrate fringe pattern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeK0DV329mU&t=56m56s Rewind a bit if you want to hear the experiment setup explanation: A laser shone through a single slit. I guess the light is "interfering" with an imaginary second slit? Nope, you've been misled by the academic establishment. Light has internal structure and modality within itself, it does not move like water does. Even blocking half or partial laser beam with the other side open to the air can produce fringe pattern, thus also invalidating this video's claim that constriction is what's causing a "Heisenberg uncertainty". Of course the stage magician says, "Oooh this is all so mysterious and troubling" rather than just saying, "You got duped, don't look into how the trick works, no one knows, trust us". So the "I fuarrrking love science!" idiots who don't actually do any experiments themselves just eat up government funded propaganda while taking pride in derogatory labels of "nerd" or "geek", ugh. Knowledge is Power. Rulers do not give Power to Serfs. If you need slaves that can read to do your slave labor, you fill their heads with nonsense while saddling them with debt in a (re)education camp. Then tell them they're smart for regurgitating propaganda and anyone who questions the falsehoods should be ridiculed. "Gravity" is not bent space-time, time is not a dimension, it's a consequence. Gravity is Latin for "weightiness" and that weightiness is created by static electric charge: We cling to the earth like bits of tissue paper cling to a charged comb after running through fur or dry hair. Feynman notes Earth is negatively charged at 100V per meter height charge separation; We live in a spark gap, hence the "bolt from the blue" phenomenon and lightning (clouds short circuit the spark gap). This enormous charge and current flow is responsible for the tides on earth, not the moon's gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pC8rIVbyAqo This world is not as it has been presented to you. Lain of all people should know to question authority, especially government indoctrination.

>>16976 >uses a single slit with a laser to demonstrate fringe pattern Diffraction occurs when light bends around an obstacle. When light diffracts, it will create an interference pattern since the waves will no longer all be in phase from the coherent light source. Essentially the diffraction causes the interference to occur. This is different in cause to the effect in the double slit experiment. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/light-waves/interference-of-light-waves/v/single-slit-interference >weightiness is created by static electric charge Thats why my jumper rubbed balloon is so heavy? That is such a wrong statement... >"Gravity" is not bent space-time, How do you explain gravitational lensing then? (the type that is created by mass not charge) >This enormous charge and current flow is responsible for the tides on earth Amphidromic points occur because the Coriolis effect and interference within oceanic basins, seas and bays creates a wave pattern — called an amphidromic system — which rotates around the amphidromic point. Its not like current physics has these holes that you have magically patched... they explain it all. My thoughts are you are gov. disinformation trying to divide and concur us, make us argue black is white and vice versa, only to get run over at the next zebra crossing... Just like the Flat earth bullsoykaf... tell me you don't flat earth!

>>16938 I hate to be that guy but your analogy isn't describing the biologist nor the chemist clearly. I get what you're trying to say though, that different disciplines may look at the same thing but from different perspectives.

>>16984 Was not an analysis, but a joke I was told at a physics meet. But I always interpreted it with something akin to what I stated. Rather than a snide stab at the biologist or chemist, as per physics cat.

>>16978 > Diffraction occurs when light bends around an obstacle. And you missed the point? This means the double slit experiment is a stage show, a scam to create the illusion of "particle wave duality" nonsense. A single slit will suffice to create the fringe, agreed. Light does not move like water. (Unless you can show me a water wave that rotates about the axis of its travel). There's no evidence that Coriolis effect exists. The claim that Snipers must adjust to the right to correct for Coriosis effect is bogus, the bullet spins due to rifling causing a drift always to one direction, and indeed the "Coriolis correction" that long range snipers are taught is that it does not matter which direction you aim (N,S,E,W) you have to correct the same direction (it corresponds to the rifling of the gun). There is no evidence that the Amphidromic points are caused by Coriolis effect, in fact, within similar sized salt water bodies at similar latitude the effect is most pronounced whereas fresh water bodies experience little or no Amphidromic points -- salt water is more conductive than fresh. The "Moon Gravity" explanation of tides still exists, and seems not to be bothered by your claimed Coriolis effect. The Null Hypothesis means that an observation may be caused by another explanation. Hence: Correlation is not causation. If the nuclear force is so strong as to hold electrons in an atom, then how can we remove a statically charged sock from a silk robe? The answer is that there are various "modes" of charge attraction. Rubbing a balloon creates a stronger attractive force near the balloon, but it is weaker overall than the attractive force of the statically charged earth. Gravity Lensing does not exist. Academic Astronomers have completely ignored (deliberately) that Light bends as it moves through different densities of mediums -- refracting and diffracting. All light bending in cosmology is claimed to be due to gravity, and all spectral shift is claimed to be due to expansion of the universe. This is assinine. Light passing from a less dense medium into a hydrogen rich envelope surrounding a galaxy will bend just as light passing from sugar water to less sugary water will bend. A glass lens bends light because it is of a different index of refraction than the surrounding environment. Galaxies (allegedly) have much more gas than the surrounding vaccum. Light bends around them as if they were a lens. Einstein Rings around such galaxies are Blue Shifted. Gravity Lensing has no mechanism for changing the spectral phase of light, just its direction. However, if these light rings were caused by refraction, we would expect to see a shift towards the blue end of the spectrum, which is what is observed. Keep trusting the BS hucksters that lie to you about everything important if you want; However, pretending that their models aren't full of holes they refuse to address is silly. Do some more research, question the established narratives, you'll soon see see how and why you've been deceived. > My thoughts are you are gov. disinformation trying to divide and concur us. You can think what you want, that's a Kafka trap. Trying to say you're not a disinfo agent is what a disinfo agent does, eh? I'd point out that I've given links to evidence backing my claims, and have made specific claims rebuffing yours, not resorting to the "traits of the disinformation", as published by Cryptome: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm However, you just resorted to name calling and spreading FUD about my intentions... nice.

(cont) >>17200 > Null Hypothesis Here is a video of aforementioned sugar water gradient bending a laser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r441tRBmajw This is not gravity lensing. Academic astronomers have not disproved the null hypothesis that light bending in space may be due to refraction and not bent-space-time or cosmic expansion. One fine example, I've already posted above: The Astronomers who were drummed out of Academia for providing evidence that Quasars have different red shift than the galaxies they are near. It seems that Galaxies eject Quasars and that these may actually seed new galaxies (they're like pinch points in the cosmic electric charge flow, thus increasing in brightness at the z-pinch, and having different EM spectra). Modern "accepted" Academia instead claims that these Quasars only appear as if they're next to galaxies, but their redshift means that they are INCREDIBLY far away behind the galaxies they appear near, and to account for their brightness the Quasars are said to be brighter than entire galaxies.... it's asinine. Quasars usually have tendrils of gas and other stars trailing back to another galaxy. Electrical flow in the cosmos (or in water) causes the Electro Motive Force. This acceleration due to flow of charge is likely what's responsible for accelerating the movement of stars near the center of a galaxy, since current flows through these regions. I'm sure you've seen the artist renditions of a galaxy with two bars shooting out of the top and bottom... those would be changed current carrying pathways, not ejected by gravity condensing dust, but actually current that flows through a region of space and creates the rotating galaxies and stars. This accounts for the missing "dark matter": It's electromotive force that Academic Astronomers deliberately ignore and so must invent explanations to prop up their hypotheses rather than actually doing science and creating a new hypothesis.

ah yes, the "say so much bullsoykaf that nobody can possibly refute it all" method of argumentation.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think molecular biology has way more girls. Either way, just get the hell out of being a student as soon as you can, and start getting experience. Start dropping lead author papers. While at school your best bet is getting as much experience (trial and error) with the target sex of your orientation as possible.