Well it still takes food and nutrients to synthesize lab grown meat so I highly doubt it will ever be cheaper than rice and beans. There's still a lower limit on how economically viable it is - caloric ratio for lab grown meat is about 3:1 or 4:1. This means it takes 3 or 4 times the calories input to get a certain output of calories in lab grown.
Still waaaaaay better than the 7 or 10:1 ratio of normal livestock and without the cruelty and environmental impact, but staples will be the cheapest forever for a reason. Especially if we can one day lab grow crops, too.
Info on the 10% food chain rule. Eating animals instead of plants will always have a greater negative impact, but lab grown will save the world before everyone goes vegan.
If you want to make an impact now, cut back considerably or go full on plant-based!
They seem like they don't belong, but dolphins actually are ungulates. It gets brought up nearly every time someone talks about the 'themes' of these brotherhoods.
https://socratic.org/questions/why-are-dolphins-considered-ungulates
The reason why they need your contacts is even worse:
>However the current version of the app requires access to my contacts as well as my phone number, and then insists that I "add" three friends from my contacts before I can use the app.
Source: https://socratic.org/questions/what-s-your-opinions-on-the-socratic-app
Water is 88% (by mass) oxygen. source
Even though there are twice as many Hydrogen atoms, their mass is so much less (~1 gram/mol) than oxygen (~16 gram/mol) that water is mostly Oxygen in terms of Hydrogen/Oxygen mass fraction.
Anything has an associated de Broglie wavelength, but the more massive it is the more energy is required for that to become apparent. A baseball has one too, but it would have to be ~~traveling absurdly quickly~~ cooled to near 0K to be detectable. Having said that, quantum superpositions of much larger ensembles of atoms than H2 have been created in the lab. As for double-slit experiments, they've been performed on groups of more than 100 atoms.
Note on baseball and electrons and de Broglie wavelengths: https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-de-broglie-wavelength-in-meters-of-a-baseball-weighing-145-g-and-tra
The chemical reaction does produce water:C12H26+18(1/2)O2→12CO2+13H2O
So hey, a certain percentage of those drops are directly from the exhaust reaction.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-limit-of-1-1-x-x-as-x-approaches-infinity-2 Not gonna lie we had it back in high-school nowadays we just use it as a rule in college, I copied past this link, it's a known formula but forgot how to prove it
That's what /r/jaa101 was trying to say, you CAN'T have a circular orbit and an elliptical orbit that share a speed.
Turns out that the orbit of a planet depends on its speed, distance from the Sun, and mass of the Sun. Does not depend on the mass of the planet.
So if you have one object with a circular orbit, and another with an elliptical orbit (different radii), then by necessity their velocities are different (their masses don't matter, as far as the orbits are concerned). Or, if you have two objects with the same velocity at perihelion or aphelion, then they have the same orbit.
Thus, when they meet, they meet with different speeds, so it IS a collision, and their masses DO affect the moment of collision, in how the momentum is transferred to the final object. But afterwards, only the resultant velocity of the combined object affects its orbit.
>approx 45 degrees can be fatal.
45 degrees is like, super-fatal. 46C (115F) is the highest temperature ever recorded in someone that survived, typically 40C (104 F) or higher is considered dangerous.
It's an unsolvable integral. If you solve this as a definite integral (0 to infinity) using complex analysis or fourier transforms, the answer is pi/2.
Here is a link to the solution where complex integration is done:
https://socratic.org/questions/integration-of-sinx-x-from-0-to-infinity
The chemical composition has already changed drastically several times throughout the time life has existed on this planet.
>It makes perfect sense
Except for the minor detail that population growth models disagree with you. The population penalty in stellaris is proportionate to the population itself, ie more pops equals more penalty. If you know the Fibonacci sequence and how it relates to population growth then you would know stellaris' system doesn't make sense.
Now that model assumes death isn't a thing which also isn't realistic. A more realistic model would be a logistic growth model, see here. In this type of model pop growth should receive a bonus until about half the tiles are filled and then the bonus begins to level off and approach zero as the pop count reaches the planet capacity.
> As a planet fills up with people...So you get diminishing returns...
Now here you start to hit on my 2nd paragraph above and the logistic growth model would simulate this very well. More to the point it shouldn't be a penalty at all, but rather a variable bonus that is a function of pop count and planet capacity.
A spider's pedipalps are not legs but appendages used for sensory functions, manipulating prey, and mating.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedipalp
https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-pedipalps-and-how-would-you-describe-their-appearance
Hmm, I don't think this is true in general. The gravitational force decreases with the square of the distance to the centre of mass of the planet, so when you're higher up, you would actually feel less gravity.
This source calculates a decrease in g to be 0.027 m/s².
I think you want to account for the mass of Mt. Everest itself. I found this page which estimates the mass of the Mt. Everest. There are two estimates, but I think the order of magnitude is the most important. We can calculate g due to the Mt. Everest and compare it with the decrease in g due to the height.
g = G*M/r² = 6.674*10^(-11) * 6.399*10^(15)/6636²
The 6636 m is approximately the distance from the top of the Mt. Everest to its centre of mass, approximating it as a cone. The answer is
g = 0.01 m/s²
Which is still less than the decrease due to the increase in height. Now of course, the above calculation may be lacking, but I think it's still more likely that g on top of the Mt. Everest is smaller than that at sea level, than that it is greater.
Yeah tanning hides was a thing long before industrial chemicals and tanning solutions came into play..
Good ol' brains and ash and a touch of bile. Perfectly natural.
Now I know folks will eat my heart for this but metal armor is not natural if you exclude the leather and hide used to bind/fit it.
If you get really technical metals like gold and platinum and even iron which is used to make steel actually originated outside our atmosphere and crash landed into our earth's crust as a super heated liquid that splintered super deep, branching off as its path was blocked or it rapidly cooled. Creating 'veins' of metal is you will.
Heh.. I get the two answers.
And, yes, you can get a 2-to-1 advantage, that's why I said you need to use the pulley in a way that makes sense. Here's an illustration where a pulley can give such an advantage.
As others have already pointed out, the first definition is
>a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
If you go a step further and look at how the word is used in science:
>Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
You may find it useful as well to understand the difference between a law and a theory:
Ions in salt water are surrounded by ‘shells’ of water molecules that don’t contribute as much to the specific heat capacity of the liquid. These shells are layers of water molecules packed around the ions in a specific orientation (depending on the charge of the ion). Therefore, they have less freedom to move around. Because of this, these water molecules can’t store (as much) heat energy. That means that per kilogram of water, there are fewer water molecules that can actually store heat. Therefore, the specific heat capacity is lower.
I found this source, which explains it with a nice drawing.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-salt-change-the-specific-heat-capacity-of-water
The answer from the site:
>As the aircraft picks up speed, and approaches the speed of sound – around 767mph (1,234km/h) at sea level – shockwaves form around the aircraft. Across these shockwaves there is ‘discontinuity’ in the local air pressure and temperature. This causes the air to lose its capacity to hold water and condensation starts to form, creating the vapour cone.
To go further:
Pressure and temperature combinations determines the tendency of phase that a fluid exists in. With the added pressure of the shockwave, the moisture of the air is forced to condense into the water particles that we can see.
This website suggests its a chemical change, and includes the above equation.
This website also suggests chemical change.
This quora answer by a chemist really breaks down why it's a chemical change
But like all things science, the physical vs chemical change idea is totally open to debate if you can bring source material or an argument as to why you think it's physical.
Try here : https://socratic.org/physics
Socratic.org has most subjects at high school level.
Also, there are several malaysian redditors who are willing to help y'all kids, not just me. Ask around.
All of the CeraVe "in the tub" should be "CeraVe Moisturizing Cream" products, which should all be the same as far as I know. The CeraVe Moisturizing Cream and CeraVe Moisturizing Lotion however are not the same (I've only seen the lotion in a pump though).
Also side note: sodium hyaluronate is the same thing as hyaluronic acid (sodium hyaluronate is known as the CONJUGATE BASE of hyaluronic acid, and hyaluronic acid is called the CONJUGATE ACID of sodium hyaluronate, same molecule though). This is just chemistry jargon to describe whether or not the molecule is protonated or not (https://socratic.org/chemistry/acids-and-bases/conjugate-acids-and-conjugate-bases). Bottom line: understand sodium hyaluronate to mean hyaluronic acid and vice versa.
Dolphins are considered ungulates because they are closely related to artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). Cetaceans evolved from an even-toed ungulate ancestor. Some have argued that the mammalian order artiodactyls needs to be combined with cetaceans to form the order, Cetartiodactyla, reflecting the close relationship between these two groups. This change is widely accepted.
<strong>https://socratic.org/questions/why-are-dolphins-considered-ungulates</strong>
Yes, pretty much.
The peptide bonds form a tight spiral but there are side groups sticking out. Exactly which side groups depends on the amino acid sequence. https://socratic.org/questions/differences-between-alpha-helix-and-beta-pleated-sheet-structures-of-proteins
Basically, nucleic acid puts the information bearing parts on the inside of a helix, proteins have their information pointing outwards.
Here more material explaining how stupid you are.
Not to pick on you but you absolutely deserve it for being an absolute asshole in your first comment. OMG you also went and edited your comment about me not having past elementary math knowledge.
You truly are some cunt complaining about name calling after that.
Yeah sure.
So the base equation would be:
vase_price + x_roses * rose_price
So for the first example:
32.85 = v + 12r
Second Example:
50.85 = v + 20r
Then solve with substitution.
If you need help for solving with substitution, here's an excellent guide on it for a seperate example equation (first answer).
Just use the same method with your own equation, let me know if you need help with that.
The distribution of land also matters. If the land is all in one continent then the climate would be similar to a few hundred million years ago when Pangea was around. Like Pangea it would be expected that you would have large inhospitable deserts within much of the interior while the coastal areas would experience a seasonal monsoon. This monsoon is known as the Pangean Megamonsoon. Conveniently, there are also some maps of possible climate distributions of Pangea which you could use to approximately define climates for your continent.
A quick thought that turned into a longer thought:
If the two stars are of different stellar classes, they will be emitting different wavelengths/colors of light. (e.g. younger stars will tend towards blue emissions, older stars towards redder, etc.) Given that, and especially in systems where the stars are from very different classes, it may be possible to make a sundial with a pointer made out of a colored, transparent material (glass, plastic, transparent aluminum) that allows light from one star to pass through and not leave a reflection, but not the other. If the star you wanted to tell time from was on the blue side of the spectrum, a red pointer would block the blue light and cast a shadow; vice versa for a red star.
Wow thanks for attempting! What I thought of was to set the right side = c (a constant) and by doing so I was sure I could find something online: https://socratic.org/questions/59e5f259b72cff6c4402a6a5 that ended up helping me out and I got an eqn that worked!
Thanks for your feedback. Humidity affects atmospheric pressure which would add to our pressure. The link bellow suggests more humidity is less pressure, so the grip formula would be: Grip = P / (C + S + H) Where H is humidity. Does that works? https://socratic.org/questions/does-air-pressure-change-with-humidity
The medium always affects the effects of gravity, whether the medium is air or water.
How Does Gravity Work in Water?
So yes, density, buoyancy, and displacement are all at work, in relationship with gravity.
Gravity is what tells the denser substances which way is down, and the more buoyant substance which way is up.
For example, in zero-g, none of the substances knows which way to go. Gravity is the force which organizes everything so that the most dense substance is on the bottom. Gravity is what determines which way is the bottom.
https://socratic.org/questions/use-newton-s-method-with-the-specified-initial-approximation-x1-to-find-x3-the-t I think this gives a basic guideline of how to do it.
f(x) = x^(5) - x - 9
f'(x) = 5x^(4) - 1
Since x1 = 1, f(x1) = f(1) = 1 - 1 - 9 = -9
f'(x1) = f'(1) = 5 - 1 = 4
Generally, x(n+1) = xn - (f(xn)/f'(xn))
Plugging in the formula, x2 = x1 - f(x1)/f'(x1) = 1 - (-9/4) = 13/4
Then you do the same for x3
f(x2) = f(13/4) = ~350.3408
f'(x2) = f'(13/4) = ~556.8320
x3 = x2 - f(x2)/f'(x2) = 13/4 - (350.3408/556.8320) = 2.6208
Depends on what the patch is made of, but they are really expensive too.
You'll probably see a black market develop, with bootleg nicotine extracted from loose tobacco, which is much cheaper than cigarettes or patches in most areas.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nicotine-extracted-from-tobacco-leaves-and-solubilized
That's probably outside the abilities of the average person due to the steam and sulfuric acid, but easy for anyone with the proper training and equipment.
Have a look
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio
The explanation there is not so good, but the graph is. (The explanation seeks a generality; the point is that the proper ratio varies, in a systematic way.)
Or google-images on
neutrons vs protons
and explore as you wish.
penguin's explanation is good. Don't try too hard to understand nuclear stability. It's based on the strong force, which is weird!
But it is plausible that more P means more charge repulsion, which means you need more N for stability.
Above some P value, there are no stable nuclei at all. The heaviest stable nucleus is one of Pb.
It's just saying there's 1 Switch for each 1 person, 1:1
https://socratic.org/questions/what-does-a-1-1-ratio-mean
As OP, linked, it was some stuff Nintendo was raving about as sales goals for the Switch and how they wanted to market it
"Pardon me" is a complete sentence in and of itself. It has an implied subject.
Check out the second example.
Ingesting is eating.
Transfusing is neither ingesting nor eating.
One of the key considerations is: ingesting blood from something killed versus transfusing something from a live and willing donor.
Well, popcorn is made of of many different organic materials, some of which (corn starch) are soluble for the reasons I described above, some others (sugar) are soluble but for slightly different reasons (instead of breaking individual molecules apart, the water leaves the molecules intact but pulls them away from each other), and some of which are not soluble at all.
I'll be honest and say I don't know enough about organic chem to go into more details.
Any acid-base reaction like this will be a protonation / deprotonation reaction. The Kb is proportional to a ratio of compounds: the protonated acid, the deprotonated acid and OH- ions in solution.
Check out the following... http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/376m/LectureNotes/acidbase.pdf https://socratic.org/organic-chemistry-1/acids-and-bases-1/ph-pka-ka-pkb-kb
Came there say this, plus source https://socratic.org/questions/what-electromagnetic-waves-are-dangerous-for-humans. Radio waves are hundreds of times shorter (higher frequency) than wifi and still not really dangerous.
Interesting question. This source says the angular size of Venus varies from 10 to 60 arc seconds. Let's use 10 to give it the best chance of surviving. That's 0.000048 radians, so about a solid angle of 2E-9 steradians, so Venus gets hit by a fraction 2E-10 of the energy, so about 2E32 Joules. Venus has a mass of about 5E24 kg, and it's mostly made of rock, which has a specific heat capacity of about 2000 J/kg/K, so a total heat capacity of 1E28 J/K.
In conclusion, the energy that hits Venus is sufficient to raise the temperature of the entire planet by about 1000 K. That's probably about enough to melt the entire thing. Of course in practice the heat won't be evenly distributed across the rock, so it will probably vaporise a large proportion of the surface rock into plasma which will be stripped into space.
“Because Plate Tectonics explains things it is a theory, Because it does not provide a means of calculation precisely when and where the plates will move it is not a law.”
Thanks, I'll take a look.
So it's because reactivity (might not be the right word) changes with temperature at different rates per ion. So with calcium hydroxide being semi-soluble in room temperature water, it might be safe to assume hydroxide is approaching a negative entropy? Whereas carbonate is likely more positive and more likely to react?
Maybe density isn't the right term, below is what I was attempting to reference: https://socratic.org/questions/why-does-calcium-have-a-higher-melting-point-than-potassium
If you ever get the chance to play one of the games or watch someone else play, I would highly recommend the first four games in the series. In my opinion the first four have the best story. Here’s a link explaining the quote: "Nothing is true; everything is permitted." What does this really mean?
Yeah Ni pretty cool, I can definitely respect it.
I don't think that's right, unfortunately. That looks like you're working from a formula derived from the ideal gas law (PV = nRT). But A: water vapor is super far from an ideal gas and B: that law doesn't have anything to do with phase transitions.
This formula is what I found to describe boiling points
As other people have said all objects made of particles follow the laws of quantum objects.
But I’m pretty sure you meant something like “what if a 3 meter sized bolder acted like how we discuss quantum particles acting, displaying the odd behavior associated with those particles? What would we observe?”
The reason everyone else here is confused by your question is that the effects we associate with quantum particles do happen with large objects, it’s just that the effects are so tiny you can’t notice them.
For instance if you wanted to talk about particle wave duality. A thing we normally associate very tiny things with is sometimes they seem to be acting like a wave and sometimes as a particle.
The thing is macro objects do this too, you just don’t notice. Even something like a bullet, something you could see and touch technically also has this property. If you wanted to calculate say the de Broglie wavelength of a bullet you could plug in the values for a bullet and you would get a valid answer, the wavelength of a bullet. That answer would be so incredibly tiny that it’s unobservable.
Here is a link to the math on that: https://socratic.org/questions/a-certain-rifle-bullet-has-a-mass-of-9-57-g-what-is-the-de-broglie-wavelength-of
So your Boulder would also have a wavelength, but you would still see a Boulder acting how you expect a Boulder to be. It would not look like a wave to you.
There's no reason for the plants to look grayish after the dunk. That really concerns me and you might want to get your water checked out.
I did side by side tests with about 3 pounds of each, unwashed and washed. I noted my preference, and the preference and comments from my buyers. My results swung in quite opposite direction of yours.
I really should make another Science Sunday post if newer growers are unaware. Leaves are actually an organ of the plant, known as an excretophore.
As the link quickly explains, leaves store both organic and inorganic waste that perspire from the leaves with help from water. Its one of the main purposes of the leaves. Iirc, photosynthesis developed later in plants, in a way to get last bit of nutrients from the waste material. Human similarity is how we adapted intestinal bacteria to break down our leafy and fibrous foods before they are discarded as waste.
Homosapiens developed increasing longer intestinal tracks to allow for bacteria, plants produced more leaves to allow more photosynthesis.
The stereochemistry is going to kill you. 4 of 6 carbons in hexoses are chiral and all 16 configurations are different sugars with different biological utility/function. Achiral synthesis will give you all 16; a Gordian mixture you'll never separate.
Compare that with planting sugar cane and extracting an immediately usable product.
If we do produce food from crude it'll be with a tailored organism.
Det er det vel ikke? Det bør for eksempel være mer sannsynlig med én 200årsflom på tre år enn én på ett år, noe det ikke blir med din metode.
https://socratic.org/questions/if-you-are-rolling-3-dice-what-is-the-probability-of-rolling-2-sixes
Her er "kaste en sekser" 200årsflommen. Som du ser er det ikke 1/6x1/6x5/6.
What you're seeing is water transpiring through the leaves. Totally normal behavior, and you'll typically see it after a plant is watered.
https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-the-process-of-transpiration-and-why-it-is-important-to-plants
I wouldn't say it's a sign of root rot, but if you see it happening a lot multiple days in a row, that's an indication that the soil is too wet, which often causes root rot. You can help your plant dry out if necessary by putting it in a sunnier spot or pointing a fan at it. Both will accelerate the transpiration process, wicking more moisture from the soil
Antimatter is created and annihilated all the time. Lightning bolts have exhibited signatures that indicate they create antimatter.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan\_antimatter/
Also, there is a nuclear decay mechanism that generates positrons (anti-electrons, ß^(+)) which then annihilate very quickly.
But that's not what you said.
You said the rope is tied to the basket and goes around the pulley.
You didn't say whether the rope was attached to a fixed point, or if the pulley was attached to a fixed point.
If you attach the pulley in the correct/best way (that makes sense), then you can get a 2-to-1 ratio
If you don't do it the best/correct way, then you don't get any advantage.
When the differences are linear, like in #34, then the general term is quadratic and we can use this method.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-find-the-nth-term-of-the-sequence-2-5-10-17-26-37
The ends of magnets are not different forms of energy. Only a different orientation of the energy field.
"An electric current creates a magnetic field. The fields attract or repel depending on their orientation."
https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-salt-change-the-specific-heat-capacity-of-water This link says the salt ions in solution are surrounded by water molecules and that those surrounding water molecules are functionally removed from the heat capacity, so then heating up the remaining molecules is easier.
Title: factoring ax2+bx2 - how to solve
Full text:
I am looking the following 2 problems:
𝑤 2𝑦 2 + 16
27𝑥 3 + 8
would I use this process to solve?
https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-factor-a-2-b-2
I dont understand i in that explanation. Can someone help me or walk through at least one of these 2 problems?
^(To help preserve questions and answers, this is an automated copy of the original text.)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cheatatmathhomework) if you have any questions or concerns.
y = (1/2)x^(2) - 1 => dy/dx = x.
A y-intercept -3, means we are looking at tangent lines passing through the point (0, -3). Here is a nicely written solution you can substitute these values into.
Use the dilution equation, which applies how there is a constant amount of solute before and after dilution.
I probably would start the same with sub of y. But after than but every term of the three in a tangent. After looking up what that's equal to I'm even more convinced this is the best way since you will never put arctan(x) or arctan(y) in front somewhere thus letting the tans cancel. the left and right side are both known identities, so if I thought this out correctly you should get a perfect equation in between two perfect values.
So
tan(-π/2) < tan(arctan(x) + arctan(y)) ...
Hydrogen is lighter. But hydrogen is highly combustible.
Both hydrogen and helium are tiny molecules - hydrogen is smaller; that means the material can just diffuse through the balloon/container/membrane, and hydrogen diffuses faster.
We did use hydrogen for a while, and then the Hindenberg put the last nail in that coffin.
That is the angular momentum of earth orbit around the sun not the angular momentum of earth rotation around its own axis.
I found a calculation of it as 7.2*10^33kgm^2/s but it assumes uniform density and that is not the case. The core is a lot denser than the mantel and crus o so it is lower than that.
So you still need an enormous amount of people. I suspect that the mass of the people would be higher than the mass of earth because the fastest humans run at 10m/s and the tangential speed at the equator is at 465m/s
A torus is just a cylinder with a height of 2piR that got a bit bent.
If you don't like that answer for some reason I spent 20 seconds googling for the integral.
Uhhmm...this does not prove your earlier statement and it confirms that they are different mechanisms.
"Both natural selection and genetic drift are mechanisms for evolution (they both change allele frequencies over time). The key distinction is that in genetic drift allele frequencies change by chance, whereas in natural selection allele frequencies change by differential reproductive succes" https://socratic.org/questions/how-does-genetic-drift-differ-from-natural-selection
"Natural selection is like genetic drift but with one major difference—it's not random. ... One major way gene flow is different from natural selection is that gene flow helps keep alleles in a population homogenized while natural selection increases genetic variation and always moves toward creating new species."
https://biologydictionary.net/genetic-drift-vs-gene-flow-vs-natural-selection/
Seriously, take care
1mL pure water at 25c = 0.99 g mass. If you have dissolved solids, temperature differences, instrument error and human error, your percent error will increase.
Try calibrating your scale and use 25c distilled water.
https://socratic.org/questions/when-does-the-fetus-develop-a-functional-nervous-system
Babies get a nervous system very soon after conception. They can feel pain after 22 weeks. Around 7,000 abortions were performed after that point according to the CDC.
Modern humans (Homo Sapiens) evolved around 200,000 (two-hundred thousand) years ago. The first phases of Homo developed less than 2,000,000 (two million) years ago. Pangea , the supercontinent existed approximately 335,000,000 (three-hundred thirty five) years ago. [1]
It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago. [2]
They got a discount, just in raw minerals we are worth about 600 The Math
But in reality JFK what the hell is wrong with your country
Here they are nice enough to suggest what change of variables you make. Replace every x in your integrand with 2sec(theta) and replace your differential dx with d(2sec(theta)), which is 2sec(theta)tan(theta)dtheta.
Now you have an integral which, by the promise of the book, will be doable using familiar rules (maybe after some simplification, especially using this ).
In other problems they might not be so nice as to suggest that change of variables...
Hmm, strange.
It does branches dichotomatically right, we agree on this? (I mean we use this expression, the meaning is an other part)
The definition says "splitting into two", but I can easily find more detailed definition that says 50-50: https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-dichotomous-branching But they are mostly for botanics.
I think dichotomaticity is only true for smaller branches (?)
I'm just a biomedical engineer, but it was thought by medical doctors.
(sorry for the strange forms of "dichotomaticity", I am not a native speaker)
I’m guess you aren’t allowed to use chain rule either.
Solve r = sqrt(S/4pi) plug into equation for V
V = (4/3)pi(S/4 pi)^(3/2) = (1/6sqrt(pi))S^(3/2)
So basically, you just need to differentiate S^3/2 by definition. See this link
V’(S) = (1/4sqrt(pi)) sqrt(S)
V’(50) (1/4sqrt(pi))sqrt(50).
Edit: fixed typos
hey thanks for the long and detailed response; this helps me a lot!
As for feedback regulation, I found this link ( https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-feedback-inhibition ) which talks about how end product inhibition (feedback regulation) is a type of non-competitive inhibition as the product will indeed bind to the allosteric site of the enzyme. Is this right? I don't think I've come across this in any of my biochemistry coures/MCAT prep material, but maybe I just glossed over this/misunderstood this
No change. It is a regular testicle. Are you sure that you got it from UTI? Did urine samples show any infection? I saw a lot here that urine reflux to the epididymis can cause this. I think you have to evaluate your condition both urologically and orthopedically. Try to remember activities you did before each bad flare ups. For me, it is definitely sitting too much. I observed it two times.
I also find some useful image for whom has non bacterial epididymitis and thinks it might be related to some nerve issues.
Pinched sacral nerve can cause groin pain. Scroll down to see areas it affects.
I have always had some numb thigh pain occasionally. But after epididymitis, it got more intense. Maybe something worsened whatever issue I had.
And also I recommend you and everyone taking painkillers and antibiotics. Be careful as you can get stomach issues Gerd or gastritis. Having stomach and testicle pain is terrible. Never drink alcohol while taking painkillers. (I recommend to wait to eat stomach unfriendly foods and drinks for a month after taking painkillers)
>fructose is a diastereomer of glucose
"D-fructose and D-glucose have the same molecular formula, C6H12O6, but D-fructose has a primary alcohol at C-1 and a ketone at C-2 and D-glucose has an aldehyde at C-1 and a secondary alcohol at C-2.
This makes them constitutional isomers, because they have the same formula but a different order of bonding."
Source: https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-relationship-between-d-glucose-and-d-fructose
If accuracy matters, you wouldn't say 1/3 = 0.3333 in the first place. It's approximately 0.3, but you're supposed to write it with a dot or line above the 3 (see here), to show that it's an infinitely repeating number.
Mathematically, you'd need to do (1/3) * Y, to be accurate. You wouldn't do 0.333 * Y.
You make up an argument or stance you think I have and then argue against that
A strawman red herring
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-a-red-herring-and-straw-man-fallacy
Electron affinity is an expression of the release or adsorption of energy that results from the addition of an electron to an atom. It can be negative or positive depending on the element. Think of freezing ice, as it solidifies it releases energy. It does this because it is forming a crystal structure that is more ordered and stable than liquid form. So electron affinity shows how stable the system is after the addition of an electron, if it becomes more stable it will release energy into the surroundings. If it doesn't particularly want the electron, then you need to provide some energy for the atom to take the electron. This would mean energy is being added.
For periodic trends electron affinity is probably the least uniform in terms of drawing an arrow because it is very dependent on the atoms nucleus, and electronic structure
There are double-angle formulas. If you have a text for the class you usually find these in the front or back of the book.
​
https://socratic.org/trigonometry/trigonometric-identities-and-equations/double-angle-identities
​
Here's a reference in case you don't have those.
​
Take note you're being asked for the exact value. Sometimes this means including radicals in your answer. Good luck!
I believe Doom Slayer would be a compound noun. Check this link for other examples of compound proper nouns. They can be two separate words that are smooshed together, or even two words with a space between that are considered a compound proper noun. the Doom Slayer is essentially the guy's title/name, making it a compound proper noun. https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-compound-proper-nouns
I’m away from a desktop right now, but I posted my work to imgur:
The idea is to rationalize it first by multiplying top and bottom by the “conjugate.” This leaves 2x-4 in the numerator. Then, use the quotient rule after factoring out |x| from the radical in the denominator.
You should get 1.
See related question: https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-limit-of-sqrt-x-2-x-x-as-x-approaches-infinity
Edit: Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. Unfortunately, you have to go through the extra step of rationalizing in cases like these where the denominator is initially just 1.
“A sign with a Question Mark indicates that there is an information center near by where you can get information regarding tourist attractions or any other information.” – This site
Ok so polar coordinates are like cartesian coordinates in the sense that they can be graphed. For this example -24 would correspond to -24 in the x and 7 on the y. This means that the angle given to you in re^(i0) is going to be the angle between the x-axis and the vector. The cosine of this angle is going to be the ratio between the x-axis(-24) and the hypotenuse pictures and probably a better explanation
> Exactly how is it child abuse?
Puberty blockers at 12 is child abuse
>That's not a "scientific fact" it's just a fact. It's a repeatable observation. I was trying to give you a sparknotes on the scientific method because you were arguing in bad faith and acting like you didn't know anything.
A little reading goes a long way in particular when you see a sentence such as "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts."
>Gravity is a law because it only describes what gravity is.
Gravity is both a LAW and a THEORY. This is a common question asked by middle schoolers. As the answer states, "So, we have both a law and a theory of gravity."
>Just wish you actually knew anything beyond what the conservative media feeds you.
Oprah fed me information as well at my old school! But let me guess, DAE CoNsERVaTiVeS R DUM?
Pretty different actually:
>One of Roosevelt's acts as president was to deliver a 20,000-word address to Congress asking it to curb the power of large corporations (called "trusts"). He also spoke in support of organized labor to further chagrin big business, but to their delight, he endorsed the gold standard, protective tariffs and lower taxes.[134] For his aggressive use of 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, compared to his predecessors, he became mythologized as the "trust-buster"; but in reality he was more of a trust regulator.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-steps-did-president-theodore-roosevelt-take-to-regulate-big-business
>Determined to curb corporate greed and corruption, Sanders would establish a Bureau of Corporate Governance at the Department of Commerce if elected. Large corporations would need to obtain a federal charter forcing their boards to consider the interests of all of the stakeholders, not just shareholders. (He called the Aug. 2019 Business Roundtable commitment to this "empty words.") Besides giving workers more rights (as discussed above), he would also ban large-scale stock buybacks by repealing the SEC's Rule 10B-18, force corporate boards to include individuals from historically underrepresented groups, protect the rights of farmers and consumers to repair the equipment and technology they purchase, develop guidelines for anti-competitive exclusivity agreements, develop stricter antitrust rules and allow the Federal Trade Commission to approve, deny or undo Trump-era mergers.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110915/review-bernie-sanders-economic-policies.asp
So as you can see, other presidents typically put free-market incentives in place for corporations so that they change on their own accord, whereas Bernie just wants to rewrite the constitution and create a "second bill of rights" so that he can force Americans to change.
I found the answer for the first one on google. It's much better than anything I could explain, I hope it solves your problem!
I managed to reduce it to cos(2a) + sin(2a) = 1/5 but im not really sure where to get from there. I saw this online for simplifying cos(x) + sin(x) = k
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-sin-x-cos-x-in-terms-of-sine
Might be a bit overboard but hey its a solution
By "tree diagram" they mean an NMR splitting tree. They're particularly important for coupled hydrogens and help you determine what's going on in a complex splitting pattern.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Organic_Chemistry/Map%3A_Organic_Chemistry_(McMurry)/Chapter_13%3A_Structure_Determination_-_Nuclear_Magnetic_Resonance_Spectroscopy/13.12%3A_More_Complex_Spin-Spin_Splitting_Patterns https://socratic.org/questions/how-can-i-draw-nmr-splitting-diagrams
Say the first self replicant uses R ribose.
When the R ribose is used to make self replicants, more R ribose will form.
Row two of the following table on Le Chatelier's principle
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-le-chatelier-s-principle-in-chemistry
Note that this may not necessarily require a self replicant; perhaps some stable nucleotide polymers may form and consume the pentose reactant, or for whatever reason like some massive crystal of the pentose forming or for whatever reason.
Humans win, even the Americas... why? The square cube.
law...https://socratic.org/questions/why-doesn-t-large-animals-have-an-exoskeleton.
The ants would be inside by their size, you'd have 5 billion dead dog sized fire ants.
Simply use this https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-integrate-int-x-2-e-x-dx-using-integration-by-parts.
Use: 1. e^(-inf)=1/(e^inf), which approximates zero, for the upper bound infinity
The last thing you wrote on the paper
> How do you get the right formatting in word problems you don't exactly understand?
is the only question that really matters here. You should look to understand the word problem.
With word problems, it's either an issue with how the problem is worded or how you understand it. I can tell you that the problem is worded very clearly.
You don't seem to have an issue with the math, you have an issue with the chemistry. You're trying to put each of the numbers in different places without any care for why they should be there.
In this particular instance, you need to learn more about mixture problems.
This website, in particular, should prove particularly useful as it not only explains how mixture problems, but also shows you how to solve the system of equations that arise from setting the problem up properly.
That last part is key. When you are applying math in physics and chemistry, always keep in mind that these numbers do not exist in a vacuum. Please seek to understand why each number is in the spot it is. It will make the subject much easier for you.
If you can't remember these, you can quickly work them out by drawing an equilateral triangle and cutting it in half:
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-area-of-an-equilateral-triangle-with-a-side-length-of-1
If the side of the equilateral triangle is 1 then the other sides of the right angle triangle are 1/2 and sqrt(3)/2 by pythagoras.
So you get sin(30)=1/2, sin(60)=sqrt(3)/2, tan(60)=sqrt(3) etc from this picture.
An organelle inside of the cell which converts sugars and a few other things into an energy source the rest of our body can use.
There is a theory- mitochondrial endosymbiosis- that they began as ancient prokaryote bacteria that benefitted from a symbiotic relationship with us, living in our bodies like some of the bacteria that still dwell in our throats and, especially our intestines, to our benefit and theirs. Gradually they may have lost the ability to live on their own and, eventually, any semblance of independence. It's crazy but not SO much. Retroviruses do something of the opposite, patching themselves with DNA of hosts to adapt to their environment. In this case the bacteria- not viruses- sort of "relaxed" and gave in, becoming a part of us rather than the other way around.
Other examples of endosymbiosis: https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-some-examples-of-endosymbiosis-1
Magnetic fields obey the inverse square law (between distance and strength), the amount of power it'd have to have to pull all the up from that far would be insanely dangerous.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-find-the-exact-value-of-cos-2-arctan-5-12
Side note:
I thought this was precalculus. I definitely remember doing these problems last year?
Also you guys haven’t done chain rule yet for derivatives?
Is your concern with proving that cos(pi/5) = (1+sqrt(5))/4, or with proving that the method given amounts to a construction of that length of line segment?
The easiest proof of the former for most modern audiences is algebraic: either use the double-angle formula five times to get a polynomial relating sin(pi/5) or cos(pi/5) to sin(pi) or cos(pi), or find a clever approach that avoids needing a fifth-degree polynomial like this one.
The classical proof is Book 4, Proposition 11 in Euclid.
Here's someone explaining it better than how I was going to explain it.
Mostly, if you graph this, you'll see that all numbers are approaching zero, some are even touching it, but it's all heading towards that number.
Not all of those Hydrogen atoms dissociate though.
In HCl, the Hydrogen atoms completely dissociate with the Cl, and you get a high Ka value.
In CH3COOH, the equilibrium favors the left side of the equation, instead of the right hand side where the Hydrogen Ions are
https://socratic.org/questions/is-acetic-acid-a-weak-acid-or-strong-acid-why
We're not fully into Acids and Bases, so I can't help with the net ionic part, but I can help with the first portion.
It's HNO3 + NH3 --> NH4 + NO3, which makes NH4NO3. Ammonium Nitrate is the final product.
Acid-Bases always involve the exchange of a H+ ion from an acid to the base. You're adding a H+ ion from Nitric Acid, since it's an acid, to Ammonia, since it's a base. In this case, ammonia gained the H+ ion to make ammonium.
There's no need to balance because Ammonium (+1) and Nitrate (-1) share the "same" ionic charge to cancel out to 0 and everything is kept under control.
ok, but where do I put 22.4 in the formula?? I found this r/https://socratic.org/questions/how-can-i-calculate-the-volume-in-liters-of-1-50-mol-cl2-at-stp but can't seem to decipher it,
I understand temperature is (T) pressure is (P) volume is (V) and amount of gas is (n)
I also know that STP temperature is 273k, 0 degrees celsius.
so in the formula for this problem we have (n) which is 1.50
for the temperature (T), would I put it in k, celsius or fahrenheit??
P would be 1
​