User talk:Futurechemist1

Hi there why did you change the statement on the rate equation page to exclude mention of Eulers constant when the calculations clearly support the idea? While I am quite open to debate on the idea I believe it should be out there for people to check out for themselves. Eskeptic (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the difference between rate and rate constant becomes quite obscure when you delete the equation that relates them in the explanation. Which is why I am curious about your edit

"In a first-order process, the rate (r) of disappearance of a reactant is proportional to the amount of the reactant present (A0). + In a first-order process, the instantaneous rate (r) of disappearance of a reactant is proportional to the amount of the reactant present at any given time (A).   :$$r=kA$$  :$$r=kA$$ - Therefore the kinetic constant must represent the fraction of the population of reactant present that will breakdown in a given time period and the fraction must be less than one. For rates that are very small in comparison to the total population the traditional equation works fairly well."

I also take some issue with the use of instantaneous rate which you replaced the entry with, as it seems to convince people that a change which is observed over time is dimensionless in regards to time, rather than realize that the change is inherently exponential and whether you want to draw tangential lines to the curve at any given point all the rates determined that way still relate to an exponential relationship in th end.

But I guess time will determine the outcome of this argument.

I'm also sorry you had issue with my BBA paper as a full yeah of editorial fighting and rejection left me with a last minute edit that forced me to remove half of it but it did allow for a second paper to be submitted thank god for small blessings. I'd be interested to hear what issues you and your supervisor have with it as for obvious reasons there is alway lingering doubt and more questions to be asked.

Eskeptic (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Frank your suggestions sound resonable and I have no objections to wikipedia changing as that what its here for. As for the text you mention I have not seen it but doubt that it is similar to the equations I am suggesting as the equation in this paper is an expanshion of the publication I put out in 2007 where I basicly challenged the concept of inhibition types in enzyme kinetics and proposed an equation that could describe all the noncovalent types of enzyme inhibition and also activation, which has been quite ignored so I'm sure it isn't likely to be found in a 2004 text, but the current work was an attempt to expand that work from my masters and see if these susposed pseudo steady state equations could be used to describe time course kinetics. But the work I did in my masters was on cholinesterases enzymes that are quite more complex that the β-galactosidase classical MM kinetics described in the 2010 paper as they are subject to substrate activation and inhibition but these equations can be modified to describe their working too, which hasn't really been done before but the reviewer insisted get cut from the paper before publication. But good luck with the phd got to stop playing with this kinetic stuff myself and focus on getting mine done, hopefully by the end of the summer just have to keep all the summer students out of my hair. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskeptic (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Larry Just had a thought
I think this argument can be broken down to hunting turtles with arrows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

although for a better explanation I would suggest the book Pyramids, by Terry Pratchett

"There was a notice on the dune. It said, in several languages: AXIOM TESTING STATION. Below it, in slightly smaller writing, it added: CAUTION—UNRESOLVED POSTULATES…. Teppic carefully poked his head over the top of the dune. He saw a large cleared area…. In the middle of it were two men – one small, fat and florid, the other tall and willowy and with an indefinable air of authority. They were wearing sheets. Clustered around them, and not wearing very much at all, was a group of slaves…. Several of them were holding tortoises on sticks. They looked a bit pathetic, like tortoise lollies.

“Anyway, it’s cruel,” said the tall man. “Poor little things. They look so sad with their little legs waggling.”

“It’s logically impossible for the arrow to hit them!” The fat man threw up his hands. “It shouldn’t do it! You must be giving me the wrong type of tortoise,” he added accusingly. “We ought to try again with faster tortoises.”

“Or slower arrows?”

“Possibly, possibly….”

“But I still don’t understand about the tortoise,” Teppic said with some difficulty….

“‘S quite simple,” said Xeno. “Look, let’s say this olive stone is the arrow and this, and this—” he cast around aimlessly—“and this stunned seagull is the tortoise, right? Now, when you fire the arrow it goes from here to the seag—the tortoise…. But, by this time, the seagu—the tortoise has moved on a bit…. So the arrow has to go a bit further, doesn’t it, to where the tortoise is now. Meanwhile the tortoise has flow—moved on, not much, I’ll grant you, but it doesn’t have to be much. Am I right? So the arrow has a bit further to go, but the point is that by the time it gets to where the tortoise is now the tortoise isn’t there. So, if the tortoise keeps moving, the arrow will never hit it. QED.”

“Are you right?” Said Teppic automatically.

“No,” said Ibid coldly. “There’s a dozen tortoise kebabs to prove him wrong.”"

Eskeptic (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)