quantum dot

I don't really get this:warped:

Firstly, very eloquent post, Coberst:) I've been pondering this same idea for quite some time (and so have many renowned philosophers, I think), and I'm glad that you brought it up. I completely agree with your opinion about understanding being a personal paradigm. Imo, each person perceives things in a unique manner. Reality is not absolute. It is subjective and relative to individual perception. That's a good question. Let's say, for example, you are with a group of people and you see a big bear that no one else sees. We will automatically conclude that you are hallucinating. If it was only you and me and one of us sees the bear but not the other, it's impossible to tell who is right. So, it's clear that we always tend to think that it is what the majority thinks, or what is normalized, is what is correct, or is the truth. I think this is true in most cases, excluding the imo theoretical "ultimate truth" that is absolute and timeless. Considering what you previously said about understanding being a personal paradigm, then I think it follows logically to say that understanding deters normalization, and not aid it. Wanting to be normal and to fit in societal norms is instinctive and has evolutionary purposes, that's why factors like peer pressure can have a very large influence. Personally, I think I'm abnormal, I usually see and understand things very differently than others.

Hey albumbase123, welcome to the forum (I'm kinda new myself). I'm an A level student as well. Okay, so you have the value of glucose solution being titrated in ml and you want it in moles, but do you know the concentration of the glucose solution? If you do have the concentration, then simply use the formula: n=c/v where n is # of moles c is concentration in mol/dm-3 and v is the volume in dm-3 Otherwise, if you don't know the concentration of the glucose solution, then you can find the number of moles of glucose by using the chemical equation of the rxn of Benedict's with glucose ( i.e.use mole ratio). I'm not sure what the equation is, but I'm sure you'll find it if you google it or something. But anyway, using this method, you can find the number of moles of Benedict's being used using the same formula given above, and in this case v will be your titre (assuming you know the conc. of Benedict's - it would probably say that on the bottle), and then use mole ratio to find the number of moles of glucose.

When I was studying the chapter about genetic engineering in biology, I read that the restriction endonucleases (restriction enzymes) that we use to cut the bacterial plasmids and the genes being inserted to make sticky ends are taken from bacteriophages which are bacteria that can kill viruses that attack them. I found this very interesting because I thought if bacteria can kill viruses in this way by destroying their genetic material? then why can't we too? I mean, since it's impossible to kill viruses using immune responses because their antigens change too quickly, then maybe killing them during reproduction when the genetic material goes out of the capsid to replicate using restriction enzymes, just like bacteria do, would be a better idea. Of course, the information I have is limited to the high school syllabus so I can't make a well-informed judgement in this regard, but from what I know, it makes sense, but of course, if that were true then I'm sure scientists would already be applying it, so i don't think it is (or maybe scientists already are working on it, I dunno...) Anyways, so what do you guys think?

Thank you Freeztar :)

Thanks moontanman, tormod and freeztar! Freeztar, my interests are science (I especially like relativity theories :eek: ) as well as philosophy, religion, politics and literature. I love debate.

Thanks for the link, I read through it but just to make sure that I'm getting this right, neutrinos are simply radioactive decay products just like alpha and beta particles, right? And because they are almost massless and chargeless they were only detected by the fact that the beta spectrum is continuous while it was theoretically supposed to be discontinuous, so they thought, okay, there must be some other particle there?

From the little I've read about them, and that's what it says in my Physics textbook, "neutrinos are particles of miniscule mass that were first postulated by Pauli to account for the continous spectrum of beta particles". I don't really get it. Can someone please explain? And if they have hardly any mass and no charge, then what's the point of them? Thanks, Sara.

Hello board members! I'm Sara, a 16 year old, Egyptian, A level student, living and studying in the UAE. I'm passionate about science and debate..umm, okay, I don't know what else to say, I was never good at the whole introduce yourself thing, but its "forum ettiquette" I guess. Well, I hope to have great discussions with everyone here. Cheers!