I thought it was True, but I was wrong (it was a question on a test).In an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
False; the control is used to compare the effect of an independent variable as nothing is used on the controlIn an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
False because the control is not altered. It is just used as a base for comparison
The control group is to maintain a known component of the experiment. The independent variable is compared to the control value to determine results. The wording of the question is very tricky!
Friday, February 5, 2010
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneous generation occurs?
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
You've got no ';following statements'; to choose from.
The idea that complex life is formed from inanimate matter (maggots from rotting meat, for example) was shown to be false back in the 17th century.
If you're talking about the origin of life, that's called abiogenesis. It's different from spontaneous generation in that it proposes that simple life arose from the complex reactions in the chemical-rich primordial seas. That life would have been extremely simple, even compared to modern bacteria, and not obviously different from the chemical reactions naturally occurring around it.
So far, abiogenesis isn't even at the level of a theory (that's the scientific definition of theory, not the common definition, look it up if you don't know what I mean). It's currently a hypothesis. Some experiments have supported it, but nothing has been proven. Take the Urey-Miller experiment, for example. It didn't propose a mechanism for how life arose... it simply showed that complex organic molecules (that form the foundation of life) could possibly form naturally under certain conditions. Supporting evidence, yes, but far from proof. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily *wrong,* just that we need to do a lot more research before we can say we've figured it our.
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
You've got no ';following statements'; to choose from.
The idea that complex life is formed from inanimate matter (maggots from rotting meat, for example) was shown to be false back in the 17th century.
If you're talking about the origin of life, that's called abiogenesis. It's different from spontaneous generation in that it proposes that simple life arose from the complex reactions in the chemical-rich primordial seas. That life would have been extremely simple, even compared to modern bacteria, and not obviously different from the chemical reactions naturally occurring around it.
So far, abiogenesis isn't even at the level of a theory (that's the scientific definition of theory, not the common definition, look it up if you don't know what I mean). It's currently a hypothesis. Some experiments have supported it, but nothing has been proven. Take the Urey-Miller experiment, for example. It didn't propose a mechanism for how life arose... it simply showed that complex organic molecules (that form the foundation of life) could possibly form naturally under certain conditions. Supporting evidence, yes, but far from proof. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily *wrong,* just that we need to do a lot more research before we can say we've figured it our.
An experiment of alcohol in the blood has a standard deviation uncertinatyof 2.0mgmL-1 and true value of a?
particular sample of 78.5mg mL-1 what is the probability that the mean value of five replicate measurments of the smaple will be greater than 80mg mL-1An experiment of alcohol in the blood has a standard deviation uncertinatyof 2.0mgmL-1 and true value of a?
And....
And....
Is it true that most experiments are conducted on college campuses? and to college freshmen?
What do you think? and what could this mean? I think its true but its not right to do. It's not a great demographic to work with.Is it true that most experiments are conducted on college campuses? and to college freshmen?
Yes it is true.
Analog ';research'; with college students is cheap, easy, and readily accessible to those who must either publish or perish (i.e., college professors). Alas, such are the ways of academia.
~Dr. B.~
Yes it is true.
Analog ';research'; with college students is cheap, easy, and readily accessible to those who must either publish or perish (i.e., college professors). Alas, such are the ways of academia.
~Dr. B.~
Is it true that most guys experiment with their male friends sexually?
I was wondering if this was in fact the case. I also wondered if most guys have an attraction to other guys, but feel as though they have to hide that fact because of the way society views this kind of thing?Is it true that most guys experiment with their male friends sexually?
noIs it true that most guys experiment with their male friends sexually?
Not unless the guy is gay. Most guys will talk about girls not there buddies who they hang with.
No.
Why would even ask a question like that. Any guy that fools around with his male friend is gay!!!! Are you doubting your sexuality?
No. Buddy if the person is sensible enough he can max speak about sex, but that too of the opposite sex and not about the same I feel only a crazy or a psychic human can indulge with sex like thing with the same gender.
Not that I know of, by boyfriend better not be attracted to no dude I beat his butt. I think guys and girls are different
Helllllll no!!
i dont know im a chick but in my case i would rather experiment with a chick before a guy just so i know im doing it right...
what do you mean about sexual experiments? like jerking off in the same room while watching porn? (not doing it with one another)
but if you are talking bout the actual act itself, then...No!!!
...only most gay guys.
this is a fantastic question. thanks for having the courage to ask it.
i think it's totally normal and okay for a guy to want to experiment. i think it depends on where you live about hiding the fact or not. i live in s.f. and it's totally okay to be gay here, or even just question the fact.
in other places, it's totally scary to explore this side of yourself. be strong. be yourself, and don't be afraid. you are who you are, and that's totally fine.
www.pflag.com has a lot of great resources on exploring these sorts of things. i go there myself....
you'll be alright, just be who you are.
hell no
A slight attraction maybe...but that attraction usually comes out of envy, like why can't I be as handsome as him, or why can't I be as popular with girls as him. However, no sexual contact. Society wise, here in Singapore it is uncommon to see such behavior between boys/mans and it is uncommon to see gays around. Generally, as a Asian country, you are can be gay etc so long you don't have sexual interest in us.
NO
Sorry, but its never crossed my mind. But I think society does allow for 1 male man crush.
Yes, it's true. They normally start off by experimenting with their male friends sexually first
No definitely not, Guys talk and brag about how many girls they have had and how good it was last night. But as far as I know they do not have sexual contact unless they are Gay.
Dr KNOWITALL
um... thats not normall! you are gay. really if you are attracted to guys...and you are a guy...then you are really gay!!!! OMG your so nasty! you freakin nasty man whore!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO that would mean your gay.
NO!
I hope not I always joke around with my man and ask him if he was with his ***** (male friend).that would be horrible.
A lot of females have their first sexual experience with another female, but I don't think it's the same for men simply because of their ego's. Girl on girl action doesn't make either of those girls lesbians, or even bi-sexuals. But men view it differently and think that experimenting will make them gay. That's just not how it works. Thankfully, our society is trying to be more accepting of homosexuality. Be who you are, and whoever doesn't like it could very well be envious of your courage to be yourself
that kind of attraction call friendship. But most of the people think that is a sexually attraction but in my oppinion it is a friendship attraction.network security
noIs it true that most guys experiment with their male friends sexually?
Not unless the guy is gay. Most guys will talk about girls not there buddies who they hang with.
No.
Why would even ask a question like that. Any guy that fools around with his male friend is gay!!!! Are you doubting your sexuality?
No. Buddy if the person is sensible enough he can max speak about sex, but that too of the opposite sex and not about the same I feel only a crazy or a psychic human can indulge with sex like thing with the same gender.
Not that I know of, by boyfriend better not be attracted to no dude I beat his butt. I think guys and girls are different
Helllllll no!!
i dont know im a chick but in my case i would rather experiment with a chick before a guy just so i know im doing it right...
what do you mean about sexual experiments? like jerking off in the same room while watching porn? (not doing it with one another)
but if you are talking bout the actual act itself, then...No!!!
...only most gay guys.
this is a fantastic question. thanks for having the courage to ask it.
i think it's totally normal and okay for a guy to want to experiment. i think it depends on where you live about hiding the fact or not. i live in s.f. and it's totally okay to be gay here, or even just question the fact.
in other places, it's totally scary to explore this side of yourself. be strong. be yourself, and don't be afraid. you are who you are, and that's totally fine.
www.pflag.com has a lot of great resources on exploring these sorts of things. i go there myself....
you'll be alright, just be who you are.
hell no
A slight attraction maybe...but that attraction usually comes out of envy, like why can't I be as handsome as him, or why can't I be as popular with girls as him. However, no sexual contact. Society wise, here in Singapore it is uncommon to see such behavior between boys/mans and it is uncommon to see gays around. Generally, as a Asian country, you are can be gay etc so long you don't have sexual interest in us.
NO
Sorry, but its never crossed my mind. But I think society does allow for 1 male man crush.
Yes, it's true. They normally start off by experimenting with their male friends sexually first
No definitely not, Guys talk and brag about how many girls they have had and how good it was last night. But as far as I know they do not have sexual contact unless they are Gay.
Dr KNOWITALL
um... thats not normall! you are gay. really if you are attracted to guys...and you are a guy...then you are really gay!!!! OMG your so nasty! you freakin nasty man whore!
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO that would mean your gay.
NO!
I hope not I always joke around with my man and ask him if he was with his ***** (male friend).that would be horrible.
A lot of females have their first sexual experience with another female, but I don't think it's the same for men simply because of their ego's. Girl on girl action doesn't make either of those girls lesbians, or even bi-sexuals. But men view it differently and think that experimenting will make them gay. That's just not how it works. Thankfully, our society is trying to be more accepting of homosexuality. Be who you are, and whoever doesn't like it could very well be envious of your courage to be yourself
that kind of attraction call friendship. But most of the people think that is a sexually attraction but in my oppinion it is a friendship attraction.
Is This True Quantam Experiment If You Look At it It Changes?
firstly, im a begginner, and my brother showed me a video that if you have 2 slits and you send 1 electron it will become distorted.
its a long descritoptino so ill try to shorten it.
1 electron goes through at a time it makes that 2 lines affect only when oberving it, and when you dont look it makes a distriributed afect?
is this true?
herse the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7o鈥?/a>
its about 2 minutes before the endIs This True Quantam Experiment If You Look At it It Changes?
Yes, it's true. Any measurement that tells you what slit the particle went through will stop the interference pattern from forming. In fact, if you have a detector that randomly works half of the time, you will get a pattern halfway between the two-band pattern and the interference pattern.
HOWEVER, the word ';observe'; is very misleading. ';Observe'; implies that a conscious observer changes the interference pattern. Really, it is the presence of the detector that matters. No people required.Is This True Quantam Experiment If You Look At it It Changes?
It's true. Google ';young's double slit experiment'; and you'll find a couple of different interpretations. In particular, Wikipedia's article on this is pretty good, though its references are to printed books, so I don't know know how accurately the article has synthesized information from the sources.
Here's an excerpt describing why an observer interferes (HA!) with the interference.
';The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, time could be required for each to interact with its detector and they would most likely fall out of step with each other鈥攖hat is, they would decohere. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected.';
its a long descritoptino so ill try to shorten it.
1 electron goes through at a time it makes that 2 lines affect only when oberving it, and when you dont look it makes a distriributed afect?
is this true?
herse the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7o鈥?/a>
its about 2 minutes before the endIs This True Quantam Experiment If You Look At it It Changes?
Yes, it's true. Any measurement that tells you what slit the particle went through will stop the interference pattern from forming. In fact, if you have a detector that randomly works half of the time, you will get a pattern halfway between the two-band pattern and the interference pattern.
HOWEVER, the word ';observe'; is very misleading. ';Observe'; implies that a conscious observer changes the interference pattern. Really, it is the presence of the detector that matters. No people required.Is This True Quantam Experiment If You Look At it It Changes?
It's true. Google ';young's double slit experiment'; and you'll find a couple of different interpretations. In particular, Wikipedia's article on this is pretty good, though its references are to printed books, so I don't know know how accurately the article has synthesized information from the sources.
Here's an excerpt describing why an observer interferes (HA!) with the interference.
';The detection of a photon involves a physical interaction between the photon and the detector of the sort that physically changes the detector. (If nothing changed in the detector, it would not detect anything.) If two photons of the same frequency were emitted at the same time they would be coherent. If they went through two unobstructed slits then they would remain coherent and arriving at the screen at the same time but laterally displaced from each other they would exhibit interference. However, if one or both of them were to encounter a detector, time could be required for each to interact with its detector and they would most likely fall out of step with each other鈥攖hat is, they would decohere. They would then arrive at the screen at slightly different times and could not interfere because the first to arrive would have already interacted with the screen before the second got there. If only one photon is involved, it must be detected at one or the other detector, and its continued path goes forward only from the slit where it was detected.';
Help creating true psychology experiment?
I have to write a psychology paper for my class that presents a research proposal. Right now my general hypothesis is that teenagers that smoke face higher levels of depression. My other hypothesis is that teenagers who face high levels of anxiety tend to smoke to self-medicate. Could these be better stated?
Two independent variables must be included. One of them I have included is anxiety and I have no problem operationalizing that. But I'm having trouble thinking of ways to operationalize smoking in an experimental setting. How would I go about doing this?
Depression is my dependent variable and operationalizing that should also be easy.
This research will not actually be conducted but how would I use random assignment to assign people to either smoke or not smoke if they are not willing to smoke? Could I say that the participants would be informed that they may have to smoke in the experiment?
Any help is greatly appreciated.Help creating true psychology experiment?
why dont you do a simple memory experiment where you have 2 groups of participants.
One group remembers words in black
and the other group remembers words in colour.
The results of the experiment is that participants memorising words in colour remember more than those who memorise the black words.
This can be used in everyday life through revision techniques.
(people should revise using colour in able to remember more)
;xo
Two independent variables must be included. One of them I have included is anxiety and I have no problem operationalizing that. But I'm having trouble thinking of ways to operationalize smoking in an experimental setting. How would I go about doing this?
Depression is my dependent variable and operationalizing that should also be easy.
This research will not actually be conducted but how would I use random assignment to assign people to either smoke or not smoke if they are not willing to smoke? Could I say that the participants would be informed that they may have to smoke in the experiment?
Any help is greatly appreciated.Help creating true psychology experiment?
why dont you do a simple memory experiment where you have 2 groups of participants.
One group remembers words in black
and the other group remembers words in colour.
The results of the experiment is that participants memorising words in colour remember more than those who memorise the black words.
This can be used in everyday life through revision techniques.
(people should revise using colour in able to remember more)
;xo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)