There's been some research into the anti-cancer potential. I strongly believe that it just helps you feel good and circulate and think which improves all aspects of health. Obviously inhaling any kind of smoke is never good. Cannabis has no additives and it's a natural expectorant. But the main reason cannabis smokers don't show a correlation with cancer like tobacco smokers: quantity. A pack of cigarettes contains about an ounce of dried plant material. Lots of people smoke a pack or more per day. I don't know many people who smoke over an ounce of bud per day...

OP is dead.

>>70928
/tinfoil/

>>71001
Archie, we hardly knew thee.

Fuck I'm worried OP.

it's that schurm. Smoke some formaldehyde.

No, electrons emit photons not the other way around.

>>71268

Yeah, it's called the photovoltaic effect. Look it up.

You might also find this interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier

>>71274
Wut.
Have you honestly not heard of the photoelectric effect?
How do you think solar cells even work?
If hv, the energy of a photon incident upon a transition metal, is greater than the energy holding the electron in it's orbital, then the electron will have sufficient energy to leave the material.
Obviously that movement of electrons is what we use to create electricity from solar cells.

>>71288
Yes, electrons are not being emitted they are being shuffled around. A photon is not creating an electron they are simply being "pushed" through the wire. As i said "electrons emit photons not the other way around." The photon is not creating an electron. You simply misunderstood stood me. Sorry about the confusion.

it's called compton effect

omg lol we totally have magnetic fields lol

seriously, i'm pretty sure all animals do. I doubt there's any usefulness about it, aside from being able to navigate, if that is truly how migration operates. Unless we get genetic mutations that allow us to strengthen our magnetic fields and move objects. That would be cool. But that's impossible. Unless we do it through technological augmentation, but that technology doesn't exist. Unless we enter a technological boom with an exponential growth rate, but then most technologies are designed to be sold by corporations and we are unlikely to get any funding put towards psychokinesis. Unless there's a wealthy anthropologist around who thinks that this kind of technology is cool, but that person doesn't exist. Now do you see where I'm going with this?

>>71248

I have a family dildo that's said to radiate longevity and strength when inserted. You can borrow it if you want.

>>71251
I would, but you probably need it

>>71248

>i tell myself a story until i believe it

>>71183
Certain gemstones are, in fact, radioactive.
http://www.classicgems.net/info_Radioactive.htm

>>71262
You;re going to have to let us know what chemicals you have access too. There are a lot of ways to make that depending on what's available.

Well, I was thinking of starting with stearic acid; 18C fatty acid; though I have no idea how you could unsaturate the bond between C2-C3 without having to protect the carboxylic acid. And then the alcohol addition would be some trouble without a proper leaving group.

>>71271
Selectively unsaturing a carbon bond on an 18C chain sounds like a nightmare. Adding on to that the hydroxylation on the end is also nigh impossible to do selective. The only synthesis I can think of would involve a lot of organolithium or grignard reactions.

>>71273

which is probably why the actual chemical is so expensive.

>>71215
The thing is, quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics, but classical mechanics doesn't reduce to quantum mechanics. A wavefunction with a large enough mass can be regarded as a classical point particle. F=ma can even be derived from the Schrodinger equation. But you can't derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics by taking an extremely small mass.

Obviously there's no point trying to describe the mechanics of a bowling ball with quantum mechanics, but it can still be described using quantum mechanics and produce accurate experimental results, whereas classical mechanics can't describe an electron.

I have recently noticed this increasing. Most people have forgotten the entire basis of Quantum Mechanics, which is that it is an extrapolation of statistical evidence. Our technology is not sophisticated enough to determine the properties of every atom within an area, let alone the sub-atomic world. We play on the idea of spontaneous emission, probabilistic nature and so forth, to deal with our limited technology. Which is the root of the problem. One can up conjure theories with current scientific knowledge but it will inherently be incorrect as it is based of statistics, once new knowledge arrives. Hence I think more efforts should be spent on the engineering side rather than pure Physics, to allow for the advancing of the field at a faster rate. But due to the complexities needed in technology to go ever deeper, more fields are required to cooperate, including various engineering fields, computer scientists and such, who are actually in some cases more important that the Physicist himself.

>>71239
Actually it has nothing to do with needing better technology. Uncertainty isn't a gap in our understanding of the quantum phenomenon. Something we haven't figured out yet. It's a consequence of the matter wave nature, the particle-wave duality. It's a fundamental property of quantum systems. There is no overcoming it. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, requiring Fourier analysis. It's not an engineering problem. The universe just won't let us, peak behind the curtain, so to speak. There will always be unknowns. In spite of this, quantum mechanics still demonstrates predictive accuracy like no other system can.

>>71239
It isn't a problem with technology, it's just an unavoidable consequence of quantum mechanical systems. Any two variables that are Fourier transform duals of eachother can't be known simultaneously.

And you don't really seem to understand the methodology of physics today. The theorists develop mathematical theories, and then the experimentalists test the predictions of the theory. So there's definitely a place for engineers on the experimental side of the process (especially in particle physics since very advanced technology is needed to test string theory), but it's not the be all and end all.

>>71239
I would add that, even if we could develop the means to see subatomic particles in real time, it wouldn't really help us. Because then you introduce a new issue. The Observer Effect. Simply by observing them we alter their natural behavior. Thus whatever information is acquired this way would be inaccurate. Uncertainty is a real bitch, but there seems to be no way around it. All we can do is allow for it in the equations. Which yields a probability value. How likely or unlikely an outcome is. Most of the time, the possible outcome with the highest probability will occur. Most of the time. Also, spontaneous emission, assuming you are referring to light, is not a theory. If it was false fluorescent tubes and plasma displays wouldn't work. If you're referring to the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs, or virtual particles, this has also been demonstrated experimentally in the Casimir effect. I know the idea of living in a probabilistic universe can be a little unsettling. However, the universe doesn't care whether we like it or not. It doesn't care about anything. It just is.

>If the circular DNA was single stranded then maybe it won't produce okazaki fragments, or something. I'm not even sure how one could say how one strand of the double-helix DNA of prokaryotes is 5' or 3' seeing as how they don't have free ends like eukaryotic DNA since their DNA is most of the time circular (with the exception of some bacteria)...

>>71225
Prokaryotes have Okazaki fragments, both leading and lagging strand primers are elongated by DNA polymerase III holoenzyme. The polymerase dimer contains a 3'->5' proofreading exonuclease. DNA polymerase I exonuclear removes the primers while the polymerase function simultaneously fills the gaps with DNA by elongating the 3'-end of the adjacent okazaki fragment, DNA ligase joins the phosphodiester bonds.
They can only replicate from the oriC locus and replication proceeds in both directions. Replication is actually slower then the time period required for protein replication so in rapidly reproducing bacteria can initiate replication on DNA loops themselves still being replicated in readiness for the mitosis after the current one. This can actually occur in up to 4 layers ready for 4 replications.

REF BIOS Instant Notes - Molecular Biology 2nd ed

>>71232
Uhm ,right. But in what case are okazaki fragments unneeded ? Is there such a process of DNA replication that does not require okazaki fragments besides single stranded DNA replication ?

>>71233
No. Not as far as I know.
You're going to have to deal with that lagging strand somehow.

In vitro we use heat to split DNA then replicate through PCR.

you can equivocate the big bang model wholly to an explosion. energy density/entropy is inverse to time of ignition

Entropy is the possibilities of a system, as time progresses in a system that
1) doesn't lose energy, if we are to believe in thermodynamics
2) increases in volume as time passes

we can assume the possibilities in that system, don't increase, but change from a predictable model. chaos is really just that, how much can't be understood

The concept of time isn't 2 dimensional, or geometric in any sense. time denotes change in a system, and as changes progress, time progresses.

this is why it is believed in extremely high density areas, time moves slower, because the density prevents chaos in that system, and the less chaos, the less change, the less time passes. time is purely change in a system

Where you to freeze something to 0 kelvin, or create a perfect vacuum, you would essentially slow the "time" in that system to near 0 also. which is also the general logic behind some super-computers. keep some of the components cooled to as close as 0k as often as possible, the more efficient it can be.

>>71222
How would making something slow make it more efficient ? Do tell.

The point behind bringing something to 0kelvin would be to freeze it in motion/kinetic energy, reallocating more energy to the dimension of time and therefor make time go faster. The reverse is true, and why light doesn't 'age', as it has max kinetic energy and 0 energy for time. Your post is novel or maybe I misunderstood due to a hangover, but it sounds interesting; tell me more.

>>71224
My understanding is also novel. but yes I see that, time moves a lot faster for energy in a non-resistant medium. but the medium itself I believe is experiencing time halt

>>71224
i'm not >>71222, but the what he said makes some sense to me. Pardon the simplicity, it's only to ease communication here: Power=(work/time) therefore by slowing time (reducing its magnitude) and holding work constant the power of the system increases dramatically. That's how I understood the position presented anyway.

What I still can't understand is how the positron is a "time-reversed" particle. My Physics prof told me this during a conversation in his office hours, and I still have no idea what the fuck that even means. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity for him to elucidate this for me when I take modern physics next fall. >>71203 Hit everything spot-on as I understand it. Shit like this is why I love /chem/.

So OP basically got sold amphetamine at the chemist? Lol

>>71146
Not necessarily. That's an actual compound and I would expect it to be somewhat psychoactive. It's not in Pihkal, though.

>>71150
But... there are few known (popular) psychoactive N-methyl phenylethyl amines.

It's listed in Shulgin's index of phenylethylamines as N-Me-4-MPEA as a subsection of 4-MPEA.

Information listed in the Index:
"Effective in releasing carciac norepinephrine"
"Isolated from Coryphantha spp."
"Found in the cactii Coryphanta ramillosa, macromeris var. runyonii and bumamma"

Synthesis was reported in: Kiefer, E.F. (1972) Rapid, convenient preparative procedure for phenylethylamines. J. Med. Chem. 15(2);214.

No info on it being psychedelic and I doubt it is really.

>>71146
Not Amphetamine, Phenethylamine. There's no alpha methyl.

>>70957
but still, you wouldn't have any source on where I could find and learn about the _core_ learnings of Physics, like in my OP.?

>>70959
i'm not quite sure what those underscores imply...
if you are just looking for straight fundamental concepts / math behind the physics,
id suggest going through the https://www.khanacademy.org/ lessons.
they are by no means documentaries, but videos teaching physics.

>>70954

Thanks, nice share :) cant wait to watch it

>>70957
TTC is Rosetta Stone tier garbage. nb.

>>71198
Why is it garbage?

You would get a lot more replies if you posted this on 4 chan's /sci/ or /b/. This board is also very very slow, so I hope your paper isn't due some time soon. Maybe you could use one of those survey-maker websites to help you gather data, too.

>>71180
Yeah, i realized this, however, I only did this board because I liked it. You know what, that's not getting very broad information if i select the groups im interested in. Didnt think about that lol, I'll go post on random, since i suppose it would be more random, thank you! :D

>>71179

Pretty much what >>71180 said, but i'll contribute nonetheless.

Alright so, I was born in Belgium but raised in Spain, I was raised to find my own beliefs, my mother was raised catholic but as she learned how to think rationally with age she turned atheist. I on the other hand have been an atheist all my life until I discovered mind altering substances such as cannabis and psilocybin. If I had to classify myself under a set of principles upheld by some religious or philosophical perspective it would probably be a mixture between buddhism and spiritualism.
My interests include vidya games, music, conspiracies, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, botanics, technology, IT, studying different cultures and the way humor works in each one as I have found every culture to have a different sense of humor (obviously individually we all have differences but I refer to the socially accepted sense of humor, you know the joke you can say in public but not about the unborn child eating his brothers embryo cause his mom was so fat). Some of my hobbies include meditating, hiking, hanging out with my close friends, working on relationships with relatives, debating anything and everything, deconstructing music mentally, appreciating all the different sounds that compose the overall piece, self studying as we cannot rely on our standarized system of education, questioning everything I learn (annoys the fuck out of people), plenty more, in short everything I personally don't consider a waste of time.
Too many things I dislike, but I'll sum some up for the sake of your paper.
This includes people, governments, capitalism, previous generations of selfish individuals in short. Consumers, defendants of unnecessary commodities, etc.
As for my policital beliefs, I think there should be no politics, governments or organizations that represent us. If you want something, work towards it, if you and somebody else want the same thing, work together. If you and someone else want different things, compromise. Just avoid being an asshole and take care of your family. Consider your friends to be family and they will do the same.
We dedicate so much of our energy and emotions to a bunch of retarded thi…

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>70819
This link doesn't seem to work. May you please upload it again ?

>>71096
Nvm. I actually thought it was a book or some such. Power point presentations don't seem as attractive to be honest.

Very relevant to me, post as much as you have because I'm currently taking Physiology for a major in Pharmacology and Medicinal Chem. Highly relevant to neuroscience and shiz.

OP im interested on how to design drugs that will cross the blood-brain barrier. So any information you have on the blood brain barrier and pharmocology of it would be greatly appreciated.

Am studying first year pharmacy. this may be of help. Thanks.