Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Has anyone ruled out the usual confounding variable that people overlook in doing correlations? Many nobel prizes were awarded quite a long time ago. Acknowledged atheism was rarer in the past. . If you looked at people who won awards for playing the serpent, a disproportionate (by today's standards) number of them would be theists simply because it's a medieval instrument and most players were around before atheism was common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(instrument)
  3. Today
  4. The peace prize is just one type. Most scientists win prizes relevant to their field
  5. I have read the PNAS paper which is interesting, but by golly, I do dislike the blurbs some people come up with (and I was so sure that it would happen like this). Anaerobic multicellular life forms have been described earlier. As a matter of fact, about ten years ago, where it also went through the news and you can find frigging Wiki pages on them. The authors of the papers write: How hard can it be to write a blurb after reading at least a few sentences of the intro to get the context right? I should also add that this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and may not be considered as critical as others. Many students and even young scientists have the tendency to only dig up and cite recent papers and as a consequence kind of re-invent the wheel multiple times. This creates a kind of community-based amnesia that sometimes publishes rather well known phenomena as something surprising or new. While it is rarely happening in the leading journals in the respective fields, I (subjectively) seem to find an increasing number of them in more multi-disciplinary areas, which I kind eminently disappointing.... (OK end of rant, I promise). This part is a bit trickier as laypersons often conflate, aerobic respiration, anaerobic respiration, breathing and similar terms. Part of it is because sometimes scientists like to use simple terms to make things more easy to understand and it is understandable that most folks probably do not learn much about anaerobic respiration (i.e. the use of electron donors other than oxygen). However, considering that the authors specifically mentioned aerobic respiration and made few assumption regarding how the organism obtains energy I would have welcomed it if the author of the blurb would have either stuck to the fact that without functional mitchondria (actually they specifically lack mitochondrial DNA; membrane structure remnants were still observed) they are unable to use oxygen and left the breathing part out, or used the space to explain the context in another one or two sentences or so. But I acknowledge that this is a minor issue.
  6. You experience space and you experience time. That is four distinct dimensions ( as per the definition of dimension ) that you experience ( unless you live in 'flatland' ). If you consider yourself 3Dimensional, you are experiencing 'groundhog day', always at the same moment in time. ( you do repeat the same thing, over and over ) Who said anything about returning ? The fact that it is now, today, does not change where you were yesterday ! Space and time are relative; space-time, as per the block universe, is not.
  7. I agree with curious layman. If you are a believer or not, it has nothing to do with rather you a scientist or not. It could be that more Nobel winners are believers because they are trying to change the world. It is the Nobel Peace prize, after all.
  8. Perhaps you thought I meant the right was objecting in a reasonable way? I didn't. I meant that the right, since it's practically required to deceive its own, strawmans Sanders' position by suggesting he likes everything about Castro or the Sandinistas, that he embraces them. The few candidates left of Sanders (no major ones) and the centrists don't need such tactics. They object for reasonable reasons, so I disagree with your false equivalency.
  9. https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/welcome/ Scientists Find The First-Ever Animal That Doesn't Need Oxygen to Survive MICHELLE STARR 25 FEB 2020 Some truths about the Universe and our experience in it seem immutable. The sky is up. Gravity sucks. Nothing can travel faster than light. Multicellular life needs oxygen to live. Except we might need to rethink that last one. Scientists have just discovered that a jellyfish-like parasite doesn't have a mitochondrial genome - the first multicellular organism known to have this absence. That means it doesn't breathe; in fact, it lives its life completely free of oxygen dependency. more at link..... https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/02/18/1909907117 the paper: A cnidarian parasite of salmon (Myxozoa: Henneguya) lacks a mitochondrial genome: Significance Mitochondrial respiration is an ancient characteristic of eukaryotes. However, it was lost independently in multiple eukaryotic lineages as part of adaptations to an anaerobic lifestyle. We show that a similar adaptation occurred in a member of the Myxozoa, a large group of microscopic parasitic animals that are closely related to jellyfish and hydroids. Using deep sequencing approaches supported by microscopic observations, we present evidence that an animal has lost its mitochondrial genome. The myxozoan cells retain structures deemed mitochondrion-related organelles, but have lost genes related to aerobic respiration and mitochondrial genome replication. Our discovery shows that aerobic respiration, one of the most important metabolic pathways, is not ubiquitous among animals. Abstract Although aerobic respiration is a hallmark of eukaryotes, a few unicellular lineages, growing in hypoxic environments, have secondarily lost this ability. In the absence of oxygen, the mitochondria of these organisms have lost all or parts of their genomes and evolved into mitochondria-related organelles (MROs). There has been debate regarding the presence of MROs in animals. Using deep sequencing approaches, we discovered that a member of the Cnidaria, the myxozoan Henneguya salminicola, has no mitochondrial genome, and thus has lost the ability to perform aerobic cellular respiration. This indicates that these core eukaryotic features are not ubiquitous among animals. Our analyses suggest that H. salminicola lost not only its mitochondrial genome but also nearly all nuclear genes involved in transcription and replication of the mitochondrial genome. In contrast, we identified many genes that encode proteins involved in other mitochondrial pathways and determined that genes involved in aerobic respiration or mitochondrial DNA replication were either absent or present only as pseudogenes. As a control, we used the same sequencing and annotation methods to show that a closely related myxozoan, Myxobolus squamalis, has a mitochondrial genome. The molecular results are supported by fluorescence micrographs, which show the presence of mitochondrial DNA in M. squamalis, but not in H. salminicola. Our discovery confirms that adaptation to an anaerobic environment is not unique to single-celled eukaryotes, but has also evolved in a multicellular, parasitic animal. Hence, H. salminicola provides an opportunity for understanding the evolutionary transition from an aerobic to an exclusive anaerobic metabolism.
  10. Can anyone identify if these factors are close?

    i realize that the numbers are huge. I am facing the same problems as you trying to see if this works.

    The goal is not to destroy RSA and those ciphers that rely on factoring. That would cripple SSL certificates. We probably don’t have any encryption the NSA can’t break.

    Instead finding patterns in factorization finds new patterns and series.

    I would like to find patterns in biological organisms, but I no little of genetics or cell biology.

    There are mathematicians and physicists looking for patterns in diseases. I am neither of theses, but finding pattern is the most basic math. If if you don’t understand the theories or notation you can still visualize the series. I am not saying it is easy to add to the field, put anyone can understand patterns.

    That is how I feel. Let’s find patterns in factoring.

    1. StringJunky


      "We probably don’t have any encryption the NSA can’t break."

      If that was the case they wouldn't be pissed off with Apple.

  11. By the right, left of him, and centre... Gets harder and harder to make honest factual statements these days.
  12. If "flying" in time is so much different from "moving" in space, how can we compute mathematical theories where the one rotates to become the other? Is it possible that "flying" in time corresponds to Copy? When we all know that a move in space is a ... move.
  13. See, that is the difference between you and me (and Eise). You are supporting the concept that objects are 4D. That I am extending in time from my birth till my death. Eise said that no, spacetime is full of events, not objects. You are saying that spacetime is full of objects. You are disagreeing with the concept of 3D entities "flying" in time. You prefer the concept where entities are "extruded" in time.
  14. Why not ? You can occupy only a single space co-ordinate at a specific time. Or you can be at a specific place different times. But you're not understanding the concept of space-time. If you were at a specific location at a specific time ( say at the mall by your house, yesterday at 1 pm ), you will always be there at that time. The next day your location for the previous day at 1 pm will NOT have changed ( or else you'd remember it differently ). The next year, or 50 years from now, you will still be at that location, yesterday at 1 pm.
  15. My point is: since we all agree (do we?) that we "fly" in time, each one of us occupies only one single spacetime coordinate, objects are not 4D extending back & forward in time. If you are in the present, you are not in the past (anymore) and you are not in the future (yet) As a consequence, if we are using only one set of coordinates, then the other sets are free.
  16. The fact that America needs to sort out its healthcare system isn't really the point here.
  17. It makes no sense to say you aren't there anymore, referring to a 4-d coordinate — you are giving two pieces of information about the time. It only makes sense of you use a 3D coordinate. Events are probably what we have to refer to.
  18. From Wikipedia about chloroquine: It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.[5] It is available as a generic medication.[1] The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.04.[6] In the United States, it costs about US$5.30 per dose.[1] Does not matter if cheap, will squeeze wallets no matter what :
  19. And not to say that the signal of the event is spreading at c all around, leaving the coordinate completely empty. What all observers will agree with is the signal that they will receive from the event.
  20. I am not there anymore. There is no object at this spacetime coordinate. There is only an event: Michel was there.
  21. I'm not sure what you mean by coordinates being "empty" If you were at location x1, y1, z1 at time t1, that won't change, even though your current coordinates are different. As you say, you can't change the past.
  22. No. As far as i see it, even in my interpretation, there is no physical way to change our own past. It is not observable and not reachable. But the question is still there: If we are "flying" along the time dimension, if the spacetime diagram describes what I call a path, what Eise calls "process", then does that mean that our past coordinates are empty? And that all our future coordinates are empty also? Or are they full, as presented by the Block Universe concept. From what I understand from Eise's post, the past & the future are full of events. Objects belong solely to the present. Am I correct in this or am I putting words in his mouth?
  23. Exactly. But each of the "steps" (0 to +1, +1 to 0, 0 to -1, -1 to 0, etc) are 90° apart. Which is what the OP said. I just wanted to understand your point (and this discussion was off topic in the original thread). Quite.There is so much that is actually wrong in the original thread, which is why I picked you up for arguing about an interpretation of the word "apart".
  24. Just wanted to point out that I got the data wrong. The above numbers are for the province of Hubei, not city of Wuhan. For Wuhan currently there are only 33530 active cases (47441 cumulative).
  25. Which you agreed to a post or two back. Something that has an extent in space also has an extent in time. The way around that issue is is to only consider points, and be consistent about it, so as to not introduce needless complications. Is there some interpretation of time where changing the past is possible?
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.