All Activity

Are there simple methods for extraction of chitinase from food such as bananas, avocados, kiwis, chestnut, beans and so on? That is, the extracted chitinase need not be entirely pure, just in significantly higher concentrations than in the food material the process starts with. It does, however, need to avoid degradation that permanently compromises chitinase activity. Temporary inactivation during the extraction process is acceptable as long as it is easily reactivated afterwards, but degraded homologs derived from chitinase that merely retain other attributes such as chemical similarity and allergenicity won't do it if their chitinase activity is permanently lost. Since the question is about simple methods, specialist reagents or chromatographs are not the answers the question seeks. Are there simple methods based on simple "reagents" such as water, ethanol, common household chemicals, easily extracted DIY substances and other easily obtainable chemicals? That is, the product need not be pure but it should increase chitinase levels compared to untreated food.

Here 'tis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon they're the light shining through the spaces in front of large white blood cells randomly stopping while trying to squeeze through tiny capillaries. This momentary halt results in an empty space just ahead in the vessel before the cell again moves with the flow and fills the gap. There are a whole variety of strange things going on in the eye, so to say, that are hiding in plain sight. Once you know how to look at them they become obvious. Otherwise known as Scheerer's phenomenon, 1924. He was an ophthalmologist, so some people took his observation seriously. Other name, 'blue sky sprites' I like that.

You might want to check the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

You never know! All kinds of people come up with all kinds of wonderfully unique descriptive words - either because the context is or at some time was significant in their culture, or because one of their poets or jesters coined one that everybody considered worth repeating. There is a Hungarian two-word phrase for spilling food down the front of one's clothes. There is no way anyone could ever have thought that was important to note, but somebody said it and it's funny, so people keep using it. I've heard there is a word in Japanese for the urge old people get to pinch a baby's cheek. It's not that significant, but somebody noticed it and named it. People talk about feelings in many ways, but we share the feelings pretty much all around the world.

Don't know why I thought emotions came in packages.Therein lay my confusion. Maybe that is related to my self assessment as a literalist -or maybe I just don't have the patience to think things through.(unlike my dinner plates) (I know what you mean about the Icelanders- I wonder what is the culture most centred around gastronomy and introspection-I don't think the French would have that kind of vocabulary-maybe the Belgians? )

That is sad All you have to do is make a report, no claims are necessary to labeled a nut.

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue. If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken.

inflationary gravity waves Weak field limit transverse , traceless components with \(R_{\mu\nu}=0\) \[h^\mu_\mu=0\] \[\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu h^{\nu\mu}=0\] \[R_{\mu\nu}=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}T^\rho_\rho g_{\mu\nu})\] vacuum T=0 so \(\square h_{\mu\nu}=0\) transverse traceless wave equation \[\nabla^2h-\frac{\partial^2h}{c^2\partial t^2}=\frac{16\pi G_N}{c^4}T\] inhomogeneous perturbations of the RW metric \[ds^2=(1+2A)dt^2-2RB_idtdx^i-R^2[(1+2C)\delta_{ij}+\partial_i\partial_j E+h_{ij}]dx^idx^j\] where A,B,E and C are scalar perturbations while \(h_{ij}\) are the transverse traceless tensor metric perturbations each tensor mode with wave vector k has two transverse traceless polarizations. \[h_{ij}(\vec{k})=h_\vec{k} \bar{q}_{ij}+h_\vec{k} \bar{q}_{ij}\] *+x* polarizations The linearized Einstein equations then yield the same evolution equation for the amplitude as that for a massless field in RW spacetime. \[\ddot{h}_\vec{k}+3H\dot{h}_\vec{k}+\frac{k^2}{R^2}h_\vec{k}=0\] https://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-inflation.pdf

Then people who want to know what is going on are never going to know because its a random event? And by the way, I do not claim them to be alien, I claim them to be unknown, I specifically said they look like technology, the question is who's tech is it. I never assume aliens, if nothing else I do know the phenomena cannot be shown to be anything specific at this point. Personally I have wondered since I was a kid if these things might be some sort of natural atmospheric phenomena we simply do not understand. The only way we will ever know is for the phenomena to be studied, all we currently have are reports, pics, and videos from regular people... does that mean we should simply ignore those people's reports? Tell them they are nuts? Call them liars? There are some really good well substantiated reports out there, do we ignore them because I scientist didn't manage to measure them with special equipment? If so then we will never know. One thing I believe to be relevant, simply saying a photo is irrelevant because a scientist didn't take it under controlled conditions is how science dies.

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor? It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard. If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless. You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds. But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. Because that’s all there is under these circumstances

Trump thought he had Pecker in his hand... (he's a one ball man, he's off to the rodeo)

Very good points, I doubt very seriously we will get a definitive explanation here from videos of unknown providence but it is all we have to work with. I have to admit that the second one does look an awful lot like a mylar balloon, the first one is probably a drone, ( the idea of drones threatening aircraft is scarier than aliens to me) but this is not the point. We will have to look at a lot of frogs to see a prince and just maybe there is no prince, knowing something is a frog is as useful as not being able to explain it. The military will not share its files with anyone, scientist or not, everything we regular people do is dismissed out of hand due to unknown providence. We have no idea what if anything the military has or knows but we do know they lie their asses off out of hand, probably a habit from the cold war. How are we supposed to investigate a report if it is rejected out of hand because a scientist didn't see it while using instruments that conform to scientific rigor? Its very frustrating to see all the reports and know that no matter what they will be dismissed due to not knowing what were are looking at which is the very question we are trying to answer. This is important because there are reports, pics, videos of inexplicable things that have not been explained adequately but were dismissed due to what is basically "unknown providence" age or both. How does not knowing what something is negate trying to figure it out? Could a discussion even be possible under the current requirements of scientific rigor? I think the assumption that they cannot be real is interfering with any real investigation and this leaves it all to crazy people on you tube to expound on the reports and bla bla bla, crazy stuff, look at the pic, bla bla bla, more crazy, while all but ignoring the meat of the report... ie someone saw something, they filmed it, then the media gets hold of it and a circus results. This will do nothing but harden the idea that all UFOs are just insanity incarnate. I suggest that we try to critique the actual sighting, at least initially, independent of what Joe Rogan says or some other person who's career depends on likes on their channel. Are these two reports the end all be all or even the current best? No they were just two that came up recently, a deep dive would require considerable effort culling through the media circus surrounding this current situation. There is a lot of shady BS going on around this, I have to admit that while I do not like it much some of the the people who are involved in this have an agenda and that agenda is chaos not understanding. As an example Skinwalker Ranch is a con, a grift, nothing more than a source of chaos for Bigelow Aerospace and conning the gov out of millions of dollars. I'd post a video of that report but its just a youtube video. The grifters having such a strong interest in this is driving me away from et as a explanation, seriously I have been wrestling with this, I think the people behind atip are grifters. A more troubling report that is or was dismissed involved a B47 bomber and a several page long report.. I posted it here but the report was from too long ago to excite anyone evidently and of course the original info is in the possession of the military and they aren't talking. I honestly feel like there is something going on here that needs to be monitored at the very least. It looks like technology, the real question is who's is it, that is what needs to be answered, with all the obfuscation going on around this thing by the military, congress, and even science... it honestly makes me wonder if something extraordinary is going on... I just can't say what. I'll say this, when I post a report here it is not an attempt at a gotcha, not a hey look at this hahaha. If I see something that makes me go Hmmm, I want others I respect to tell me what they see, so I post it. Unless new info cames in I think the first one is most probably a drone, the second one... I'm not so sure about but unless new info comes in, I think that one is iffy, but probably a balloon. Other takes on this are welcome! There are a couple more I want to discuss but I'll have to either edit them out of a video or post the entire video and post the time stamp. Ah hates auto correct!

Just to add for acceleration involving change in direction will involve transverse redshift. Just to add some useful relations more for the benefit of any readers not familiar with the types of redshift. \[\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=1+\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}\] Doppler shift \[z=\frac{v}{c}\] Relativistic Doppler redshift \[1+z=(1+\frac{v}{c})\gamma\] Transverse redshift \[1+z=\frac{1+v Cos\theta/c}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\] If \(\theta=0 \) degrees this reduces to \[1+z=\sqrt\frac{1+v/c}{1-v/c}\] At right angles this gives a redshift even though the emitter is not moving away from the observer \[1+z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\] From this we can see the constant velocity twin will have a transverse Doppler even though the velocity is constant. The acceleration as per change in velocity is straight forward with the above equations as the redshift/blueshift will continously change with the change in velocity term. The equations in this link will help better understand the equivalence principle in regards to gravity wells such as a planet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment The non relativistic form being \[\acute{f}=f(1+\frac{gh}{c^2})\]

There have been numerous surveys among natural scientists back in the 90s and 2000s, when teaching evolution was heavily attacked by the conservative establishment in the US. The overall trend was overall lower religiosity when compared to the average population, but also interesting trends depending on discipline. IIRC the questions were more general, like "do you consider yourself religious" rather than asking things specific to a system (e.g. god or gods). I believe biologists had the lowest number of religious folks whereas, mathematicians and medical folks had higher. I am sure they must still be available somewhere.

Could just be a vestigial thing from parents encouraging a clean plate (or no pudding!). Maybe as we get old, ancient memories and responses from early life surface in our minds. And create such peculiar emotions that are hard to identify. (x-post with Peterkin)

Not bleed so much as shade and commingle. Only the very urgent, overpowering emotions are ever pure and simple - fear, rage, grief. Hate is made of several identifiable emotions, plus some personal over/under tones. That feeling of glut when eating more than you really want is accompanied by other things. Childhood guilt over wasting food [undertone] - yes, even the unenjoyment itself produces some guilt: You should appreciate what you have. Rue: Why did I leave this stupid potato till the end? A tinge of shame: Why did I take more than I needed? and embarrassment: "Is anyone looking?" A touch of anxiety: am I becoming a compulsive eater? Will I put on weight? A little bit of anger at the adult who made you feel guilty and at yourself for being unable to resist their influence. I'm not aware that there is an English word for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese or Icelanders or somebody had one. For just about everything people can feel, somebody, somewhere has invented an expression. Almost certainly. I know I've had it. I'll respect that, but it's a good one! Now I'll go analyze this feeling I have of wishing I could steal it, even though I have nothing to stick the title on, and resisting the temptation to do something that wouldn't benefit me.

I am curious why you would not answer, if you don't believe in a personal creator being, in the negative? Why not just say that you see God as a human symbol of those moral teachings you see as universal? This whole topic is fraught with multiple definitions, which makes surveys shaky. I wonder if some people who do not believe in a creator being, which would fit the term atheism, call themselves agnostic simply because they can't rule out some kind of pantheism or panpsychism. Or, as iNow likes to suggest, they are afraid of driving away religious people (who dominate their community) by identifying as atheist.

All redshifts and blueshifts ultimately have the same cause: Consider some arbitrary spacetime in which there is an arbitrary trajectory of an emitter and an arbitrary trajectory of a receiver. From the emitter, consider two infinitesimally separated future-directed light-like geodesics that eventually intersect the trajectory of the receiver. Then the ratio of the proper time along the trajectory of the emitter between the two light-like geodesics, and the proper time along the trajectory of the receiver between the two light-like geodesics, is the Doppler ratio (redshift or blueshift) that the receiver observes at the instant of receiving the two light-like geodesics from the emitter. From the above, one may consider more special cases where the cause of the redshift and blueshifts can be differentiated between relative velocity, acceleration, gravitation, or cosmological, as well as combinations of these. For example, constant acceleration in the Minkowskian metric can be considered in terms of relative velocity, whereas the same constant acceleration in its own frame of reference can be considered in terms of pure acceleration. In other words, the change in metric, even though the physics has not changed, leads to a change in interpretation. But in all cases, the above applies. And note that the above has been expressed entirely in terms of invariants.

It seems to me the pew study, like some others asks the wrong question, and consequently the results are too undefined. I've read the report, and it appears they asked whether or not the respondents believed in God. That's a poor question. Were they asking about belief in a Moral Being created by men to guide behavior? Or were they asking about a physical being that created everything? I believe that people created the concept of God to teach moral behaviors, so you could say I believe in God, but I sure don't think there is some creature out there pulling the strings. I make this point because I have been asked by people "do you believe in God" and I answer in the affirmative but certainly don't mean I think there is some creature who created everything.

😀 Yep, global shutter is still pretty high-end for CMOS. Generally, phones have moved away from CCD (which do have global shutter) toward CMOS due to its lower cost and other technical aspects like direct pixel access. Generally phone cameras have a lot of distortion because of both CMOS rolling shutter and the choice of wide-angle lenses which leads to barrel distortion. And also pincushion distortion if a zoom is used.

The time dilation is not simply a function of g; it’s the gravitational potential that’s important. for constant g, the dilation is given by gh/c^2. The distance matters. As md65536 points out, a larger wheel with the same g will have a larger dilation. v^2 is bigger. Or, if you want to view it via the acceleration, ah is bigger.

Are they distinct or do they bleed into one another? The thought occurred to me as I was finishing my meal and my plate was almost ,but not quite empty. I have the habit of nearly always finishing what is on the plate and yet ,in this case I had had enough but still did not want to leave the plate unfinished. So ,I plucked up the remaining half of a baked potato and continued remorselessly to put it into my mouth and chew it even though I took no physical pleasure from the action. I could feel with every swallow that I was increasing my over satiety. What,I wonder now was that feeling? I can't remember having had it before. I was kind of doing something in spite of my inner wishes but nobody was forcing it but myself. Is that a confluence of indistinct emotions ?Does it have or can it be given a name? Is it a kind of emotional syndrome? For my next treatise ,I am reserving the title of "Remembrance of Appetites Past"

Are you claiming the acceleration is a direct cause of the differential aging in the twins' paradox?

What groups are these that American scientists were finding themselves in, in 2009, that would prevent them replying with honesty to an anonymous survey? I cannot envisage how that would work.

What is extraordinary about it? The talking head claims it was flying fast, but there’s no analysis given, and AFAICT no way to validly conclude this. We don’t know how big it is, and so we don’t know how far away it is. The plane is moving (as TheVat points out) so for all we know this was basically stationary with respect to the ground, and the plane flew past at several hundred kph. Perhaps this was a Boeing and something fell off the front. Can we discount this possibility? Same problem as with basically all videos that get posted - there’s no way to get any useful information from them, thus they remain unidentified. So not like this, if it were in the foreground and blurred a little, and at lower resolution? What maneuvers? Joe Rogan even points out that the plane is moving. As for the shape, wind will do that, and phone cameras use a rolling shutter which distorts objects moving with respect to the camera. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-rolling-stutter/