Jump to content

Function

Senior Members
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Function

  1. Sounds amazing when coming to an absolution studying for the exam coming up Friday
  2. In fact, lots of chemotherapeutic agents aim to damage DNA and block DNA repair mechanisms to force even malign cells into apoptosis. (Radiation therapy works in a comparable way)
  3. You give us a reference from 2001 (for those who are still aghast by hearing from another point of view: 16 years ago). In a domain such as oncology, that's way outdated. Oncological research is evolving so fast that you'd at least need a reference from the last 5 years. On the same subject. If not, forget about it. It's unthinkable that no other person with time, money, and the task to do so, has already thought about it and researched it. Old articles (yes, 2001 is old) may provide you some general concepts and insights in the fundamentals of oncology. But when it comes especially to genetics, and whole protein families, you can't rely on something that old for researching something new.
  4. Justified distribution of resources. About in the centre of East-Flanders. Not having a thermometer right here, Google indicates 32 °C atm.
  5. Not possible: the virus will replicate incredibly fast, whether it be real or bait T-lympho's (BTL). How were you planning on extracting each and every BTL from the body without even leaving one infected one? Moreover, the virus will still bind to CCR5's on regular, real T-lympho's, there's no way in directing the virus towards the BTLs, unless you would inject more BTLs than we would have regular T-lymho's, and have thousands, if not millions of CCR5s be expressed on their cell surface.
  6. See the difference? Those things are clinically relevant.
  7. Hadn't seen you're from Belgium, too! "Interesting (pure scientific)" ... But why? Why would you - physics aside - want to know something that doesn't matter in the end and of which trying to change it would pose great ethical problems? A professor of ours who taught us principles of scientific methodology always said that he has 1 favourite question he always asks at the defence of Master's theses, after the "defendants" have concluded their results: "So what?" Implying the need for relevance. Knowing that modern diet or stress would influence the outcome of sexual orientation in a foetus, a child, an adult - what's the point? I'm not saying that we should live peacefully forever in ignorance, but why should we waste resources on pointless research?
  8. There's one question we have to ask ourselves in this modern society, if we're even considering the influence of "modern" factors here. Does it even matter? I see that the pdf attached to the op includes "Potential therapy" in its subtitle. So that's where I draw the line.
  9. Exams incoming. Brace yourselves!

    1. koti

      koti

      Break a leg!

    2. fiveworlds

      fiveworlds

      Good luck I have 2 of mine done already :)

    3. Function

      Function

      Thanks :) good luck to you too!

  10. We can't change the CD4 (which I guess you are aiming at) in our T lympho's, since then they simply won't work as desired anymore. The way HIV infects and destroys CD4-positive T-lymphocytes is by their CCR5-receptor. If you find a way to modify T-cell stem cells to lose their CCR5, be my guest. Fun fact: around 1% of the total population is naturally CCR5-negative, so they won't be able to develop aids from HIV.
  11. So in order to find the correct amount of time, you'd have to integrate g' twice for dt?
  12. I would've gotten that far, but what about the time element. studiot, I wasn't going to "abandon thread", but I'm having a 4-day internship so I'm short on time Basically I got the same formula in a similar way by using Newton's F = G*m*m'/r² = m' * a so a = G*m/r²
  13. I'd have to know first if an object is indeed at all times attracted towards the same initial centre of mass?
  14. I have some fundamental questions regarding the gravitational acceleration ... It cannot be constant, can it? The deeper the ball rolls, the smaller the mass causing the ball to roll towards the centre of the earth and the larger the mass causing the ball to be attracted to the opposite direction. According to Newtonian gravity, that is. So it'd be necessary to Determine, in function of the distance the ball has been rolling from A to B, the mass of the part of the earth "below" a line cutting the earth, perpendicular to the line connecting the ball and the centre of the earth Determine, in function of the distance the ball has been rolling from A to B, the mass of the part of the earth "above" a line cutting the earth, perpendicular to the line connecting the ball and the centre of the earth Unless ... A projectile piercing through a body is still attracted to the centre of the whole body and not its individual parts ... Which sould be the case, no? So my drawing is not correct. Why is it incorrect? I think it's incorrect because, if you'd place an expandable, flexible, heat-resistant point at the centre of the earth, it will not expand (let's neglect heat causing expansion), correct? It will just float in place in the centre, right? On the other hand, one should ask himself the question that if indeed an expandable point would be the subject of an infinite amount of forces, defined by the gravitational forces of each time 2 half Earths and their respective centres of mass, defined by planes through the point, in all possible directions, it would either expand until it reaches the centres of gravity of all of these infinite amount of half Earths due to forces stretching it out in a sphere-like manner, or be at rest due to a net null force. Does this even make sense to anyone here? Is it clear what I mean? Basically the picture below is what I mean, but only in 2D, so in one plane. Imagine an infinite amount of these "half earths", defined by an infinite amound of 'parasaggital' planes through the centre and thus, an infinite amount of radial gravitational force vectors pulling the centre point to their respective centre of mass. So we have the earth, then we would have another sphere defined by the centres of mass of all half earths, and another sphere defined by the vectors defined by the gravitational force of each half earth on the point in the centre of the earth. I simply guess this is not how it works? Well ... This is too hard for me. Good luck, guys!
  15. Well then, no time to lose! Let's build a computer that will provide us the correct question in some million years. But now for the real question: did the honourable Lewis Carroll really use feet and miles? On a second thought ... It cannot really be 42.5 minutes for all points A and B, can it? What if the distance between A and B is smaller? What if it becomes larger?
  16. Are you insinuating that the line connecting A and B is the diametre of the Earth? If so, Alice's buddy at the end of the tunnel will have better things to do than to wait for her ball to reach him. If not, the same applies and the ball will most likely stop at a point which correlates with the perpendicular projection of the centre of the Earth on the line connecting A and B. Basically, this is what I think ... Knowing the honourable Lewis Carrol, this must be a trick question. It's a matter of perspective, though: the only thing moving the ball would be gravity and perhaps a femalish push (no sexism pun intended). So imagine the ball rolling towards the Aussie guy. If we watch the world from his perspective, the ball can roll down again towards Alice. Of course, this can't keep going on so that's why the ball must stop at the centre of A-B. So this is the cycle of the ball: If even those last 3 occur? I think image 4 (alice4) can still happen due to momentum? alice5 and alice6 would be a bit overkill, I think. If alice6 would be able to exist, then you should imagine being the Aussie. And suddenly, a ball would jump from a hole into the air. Which is very unlikely. I think.
  17. That information immediately rules out some things but is very suggestive for other serious problems. None of which directly correlates to an ophthalmic pathology. Medical advice from non-professionals impending pleads in favour of a lockdown of the topic. OP, I'm very sure she's not willingly lying to you. But we must really consider the idea of her problem being a shout for attention or help, rather than a genuine somatic problem. I'm not going to give any medical opinion or advice, which is the only way to help her in the future. The story didn't add up, but your last message (isolation, the absence of a decent social safety net and other signs that might indicate a psychiatric problem) solves a lot of unsolved questions - or, at least, gives an indication of possible answers. It's not your fault, but you are not able to evaluate her both physically and mentally from where you are sitting (don't take this personally, but no one from your age is able to do so, let alone without any decent medical or health professional background), so I suggest that you remain open to possible alternative problems here, rather than the actual physical (ophthalmic) problem you cite. Only thing I can say is that a psychiatric problem might be at the base of the problems that are cited in this topic and that the girl in question is advised through the OP to consult her general practitioner or a psychiatrist with the problems she's struggling with. A last advice to the OP: I'm not saying that she's unstable, because I don't know her whatsoever. But if ever you get a serious feeling that there's an emergency situation impening, regarding her mental status, and you might get any indication that she's possibly going to hurt herself, please call your local help services and give them information about her whereabouts. That being said, I think I just crossed the line for medical advice myself, for which my apologies, but I really see no indications to leave this topic open.
  18. "Neither of us know" Then she either has been operated by some crazy maffioso (because really, any doctor these days is bound to informed consent), or either she's genuinely trolling you and you need to start opening your own eyes. I'm sorry to tell you but there's no such thing as some sort of surgery which can "fix" a color inversion sight, if that even exists in the way you have described it. Since the problem is alledgedly solved and we're getting no where further with this thread, I suggest that it be locked. OP is not able to give us evidence-based approaches for the problem and is in my opinion not flexible enough to consider multiple possibilities that are more probably lying at the base of the problem he is reaching out for.
  19. Are you derpin' us, Derps? If she didn't chronically swallow large doses of sildenafil (Viagra) and got her vision turned all bluish and just guessed the colours wrong, I think you're genuinely trolling us. Or she is.
  20. Well, that's that. Solves my question. Thanks!
  21. Hello everyone Let me be brief: APA guidelines report most statistics (all except for the confidence interval, CI) in italics: mean M, standard deviation SD, p value p, t, ... So what if I introduce my "own" statistics with their abbreviations, following these guidelines? Would I also put them in italics? E.g. gross tumoural volume, GTV or GTV? Tumour-to-brain ratio, TBR or TBR? Positive likelihood ratio, LR+ or LR+? Sensitivity, SN or SN? ... ? I know contents are more important, but aesthetics (and consistency and corectness of layout) of a document/book/thesis have major implications on the way I do or do not enjoy reading it. Thanks! Function
×
×
  • 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.