Leaderboard

January

@Bmpbmp1975 When reading papers please not that the jargon may be intended for readers with extensive knowledge about the specific topic. This may be confusing when reading about "change" "recent" and similar. Make sure you distinguish theoretical changes in a model from physical changes to universe itself. Example: Neutrinos were long believed to be massless, recently that has changed and in current models neutrinos have a tiny masses. That does not I repeat NOT, imply that any cataclysmic event happened in cosmos in 20th century that made neutrinos gain mass. It means that scientists made better measurements in 20th century and updated the models with the new knowledge. Neutrinos did not change, they stay the same. Example: Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass; the possible recent phase change discussed above. If that happened it was a real event in the universe, affecting neutrino masses back then. It is not an ongoing process that drastically changes the properties of the universe now. Note the differences between the two above. Side note: Earlier large scale changes, where one example is the possible decay that generated neutrino mass are not bad. My opinion is that the changes that resulted in a universe where galaxies, stars and planets can form are good events.

You have no idea what it means I am a professional Cosmologist telling you what it means.

Probably NOT the gullible audience you thought. Your photos look like every UFO picture ever taken, except you had the luxury of a non-moving target, one you could position just right and take the best photos of. The only ones in focus are too far away to see details. This is the best you can offer? This seems very implausible. You find something you think is a diamond from space, and you HIT IT WITH A HAMMER?! Again, this seems very implausible. Could a rational human make such a monumentally short-sighted mistake?

Well, since you ask; can I take it back and get a refund? It rallis isn't what I was hoping for.

The key, I think, is "what is flowing/moving?" in the two cases. Is it the solvent or solute?

Oh I am sure he just needs to blame it on Obama and he is golden.

I am not sure what you mean here. Perhaps some clarifications (in case that is the issue). An antigen is basically any substance to which antibodies can bind to. Once antibodies bind to the foreign substance they can eliminated following a number of pathways. An artificial antigen would essentially be the same protein (or parts of it, technically you just need a good epitope) but synthesized in vitro, rather than taking a virus and take fragments of it. However, the structure and sequence would identical to the real thing (for the biding site) in order to work.

! Moderator Note OK. The OP is clearly not able to defend the claims about this system. This thread is closed. Do not bring this up again. If you want to discuss your thermal vent idea, start a new thread. But be prepared to put more effort into it than this one.

After SARS folks started working on therapeutics and vaccines. However, quite a few studies were ended or stopped once it became clear that SARS appeared to be fairly contained, so research funding stopped or was severely reduced. The clinicals are the expensive bit so often if money is lacking, they do not continue. The good news is that current therapeutics in pipelines are often based on previous data collected on SARS-CoV or other coronaviruses. Otherwise the start would be much slower. It depends on what is being the antigen. Often folks concentrate on essential proteins such as the spike protein as if that one changes significantly, the virus may have a harder time to infect. These essential proteins are therefore often conserved (which means that the amino acid sequenece of the proteins is going to change less than non-conserved proteins).

Seems you took some time thinking on the subject so I will point out a possibility you are not considering at all. What about if all life's problems are related to the particular values of the Physics' parameters of the Universe? They at the end determine the entire Nature and lifeform isn't it? Assume God planned some ideal values for them for an ideal life be possible but, for some imprevisible reason, the current real running values are different from those ideal ones. Then, God's intervention would be needed to fix them. Only God could alter the Physics' parameters. No way humans could do that isn't it? Then another question arises: why didn't God already did that? And even long time ago. Here is where the proposition that God is in big troubles come into place and we, as intelligent humans naturally ask ourselves: isn't there something we could do about? Could we give a help someway? At the end we are seriously affected and need the things to be solved, isn't it? Got it? Yeah, and just sit down to watch a cowboys film, that would be much better isn't it?

In an electric motor, for instance, no "virtual particles" are seen. That model actually doesn't work with practical things like an electric motor. You think. I will wait for them to analise that properly. We cannot discuss then.

I don't want to.

I did it challenging things of Science and things of Religions, of course. I have developed a small site for that but I'm not allowed to publish the link here, right? But it is in my profile in the Forum. You can visit it and take a look in the site if you want. But is not possible to discuss everything about it here in this thread you know… And I guess you won't like what you will find so useless to discuss about...

Right. I disregarded some rocks of the Science's mountain and took some others of the Religion's mountain to make my way in the valley. That's why I am here now. That's why I could be a problem for you now… 😄

No, silencing as a limited duration, though it is often hard to predict how long. It depends a lot on how effective the RNA is for a given cell line, how much is being used etc.

Wow, you found that in space??? That's awesome bro...

! Moderator Note I am closing this thread as it is obvious that the OP has no interest in understanding the science.

Paper does not specify timeframe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum Other decay modesEdit Decay to smaller Vacuum expectation value, resulting in decrease of Casimir effect and destabilization of proton.[6] Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently).[3] Decay to vacuum with no dark energy[4]

Strange, don't lie to favour your misconceptions.

That’s not what the paper says false vacuum decay and it mentions it happened recently, it is also mentioned in the wiki page of false vacuum also a decay in the vacuum is pretty much vacuum decay. So basically vacuum decay happened somewhere recently and the neutrinos gained mass because of it.

That’s not what it says though and even the wiki page claims the same that false vacuum decay recently happened

There is only one type of false vacuum decay, the one that destroys everything. The paper states that this is what happened to change the neutrinos mass that they viewed. So that means if it happened it’s in the process of destroying everything. the paper shows the calculations and the conclusions states it.

The only, valid, hypothesis you can make is, it fell from the sky. I wonder what plane it fell from? The negs in this thread are a badge of honour... 😊

So it’s on its way to us then?