YaDinghus
-
Posts
342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by YaDinghus
-
-
On 5/14/2018 at 5:21 PM, frankie_c said:
I am an amatuer geneticist trying to better understand my own DNA. Can someone help me understand gene frequency?
For example. I have a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that is listed as having a frequency of 48.7
Does this mean that 48.7% of people have this SNP?
Thanks!
What does the test description say about it?
0 -
On 5/19/2018 at 5:43 AM, RocketSloth said:
I see, but why is it unrealistic tho ?
And are there any possibility for that to work ?
I once read something about when an old wise scientist sas somethjng is possible, they're usually right, and that when they say jt's impossible they're mostly wrong.
That being said, we know now more than we did last year, but that's not much. Before we think about radically changing our body plans, we might just want to work on regeneration. We know it should be possible to regrow a severed limb because some animals can do so as adults, but we don't even know how to pull that off in any adult mammal,let alone a human. The challenge may also not be purely genetic
0 -
44 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
They need energy to reproduce, for one example. I'm sure there are others.
Proteins are constantly breaking down and cells need to produce more of them at a more or less constant rate. Proteins aren't particularly stable, they denaturate at a rate depending on temperature, and the body temperature of mamals is at a balance to ensure constant readiness for action and low protein denaturaration rate. Muscles aren't action ready beneath a certain temperature.
And, of course, they also need energy to reproduce. I don't know which takes up more energy of the two. But protein recycling is a non-negligible aspect of metabolic upkeep.
Proteins can be processed for energy, as can other energy-rich substances. Pretty much any intermediary product of the celular respiration chain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration like acetic and citric acid can be directly be processed for ATP recovery.
1 -
26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
It's 'try' which relates to it having 3 legs. The prefix 'tri-' means three, as in triangle. English is a pain because it has French, German, Latin and Greek roots and a sprinkling of other countries. The rules of pronunciation and spelling are consistent, more or less, within a words source language.
Don't forget scandinavian influences from the norse settlement of northeastern GB in the 9th century
0 -
5 hours ago, Ten oz said:
Nothing any conservative wing in operation today, that I am aware of, advocates for anything new
Of course they don't. Conservatism is all about using time-honored methods.
I was not talking about the the conservative ideology being right as a whole, but that select ideas are worth keeping for the time being.
Keeping a small military for defensive purpouses for instance seems prudent. When people ask me why self defense is sensible, I tell them that as long as not everyone is a pacfist, every pacifist needs to know how to defend themselves.
A market economy is also a conservative principle - or at least the conservatives claim this principle for their portfolio. Whether or not this is the case - I am for remaining in a market economy, just not a natinal one, and I am also in favour of some strong government oversight and strong social measures to ensure a good life for everyone. But work still needs to be done, and people need to want to work, so the redistribution can't be so strong that it makes no difference whether you work or not. This is also a conservative concept, and it will be usefull for as long as human work is needed. Once fully automated factories and harvesters take that away from us, and we are left with science and culture, this can be abandoned, and perhaps even a market economy, because I could do science and culture all day long for fun
0 -
2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:
The newest Star Wars game (Edge of The Empire) uses custom d6, d8 and d12s. It's a good system in that it feels like star wars: storm troopers never hit anyone. Not played as a Jedi: the GM didn't like my idea of a Hutt Jedi. I never played the older system.
The new Star Trek system looks very good but i haven't played it yet. I hope it's not derived from DnD 3.5: too cumbersome.
I like my players in real danger, so I'd probably modify the ST's rolls. My brother's characters are always the first to die un battle because he runs headlong into danger trusting that the GM won't let him die. Jokes on him...
0 -
46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:
Does it matter?
I wouldn't think so, either. I am not from the UK, but I have many friends who are, and some family living there, so I'm well tuned in. Though they are mostly on the liberal-labour end of the political spectrum, so a tory would say my perspective is somewhat biased. I would hold against that the fact that I grew up in the military and you get plenty of conservative there.
My personal opinion is that there are useful conservative ideas (useful to peace and prosperity for all). But the rhethoric of conservative politicians, and those who these rhethorics are aimed at, are beyond provocative on the verge of incendiary. It's like they are preparing a reverse revolution, which is pretty radical.
0 -
21 hours ago, Prometheus said:
That's true, Star Wars, has much better computer games. In terms of tabletop games i'd say they're about even, though there are just more Star Wars games.
Afaik both p&p rpgs use the d20 system derived from dnd 3.5
0 -
31 minutes ago, CharonY said:
Well and Weidel is the supposedly establishment-friendly front of the AFD. I mean, there is also Gauland who does darndedst to downplay the impact of the Third Reich (among other things).
You mean his recent fauxpas concerning the 3rd Reich and Vogelschiss?
0 -
1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:
Over here in England there has been a sharp increase in the liberal left becoming ‘offended’ by others freedom of speeches. By using the trope ‘in all fairness’, I was referring to the fact that our news hardly ever mentions these ‘religious bakery’ type cases (I can remember two over the last ~5 years), but our media is awash with the ‘offended snowflake’ types of case. So by using ‘in all fairness’, I was reflected that in the U.K. today, you are far more likely to hear of the liberals complaining than any religious types (I’m not sure we have many religious types here, it certainly seems to have taken a back seat recently). Hopefully that makes sense to you:)
I know it because in Germany the AfD thrives upon the same sentiments as UKIP in the UK. Let's just say I'm neither a fan of Nigel Farrage, nor of Alice Weidel, and leave it at that.
0 -
On the plus side for Star Wars, there are some really good SW games for PC and consoles. I'm only aware of one Star Trek game. Haven't tried it out so I can't say anything about its quality
0 -
3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:
But what role would you cast him in? I can only imagine him as the Emperor or Obi Wan. I'm not sure he'd get enough screen time in a film to develop a character beyond a trope though.
True. He would take up the whole film. That's just how good he is ;-)
0 -
3 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:
In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).
Where's the fairness in that?
0 -
2 hours ago, Prometheus said:
Anyway we all know which is better, we just don't all agree on it.
Patrick Stewart makes the difference. If Star Wars had Patrick Stewart instead of Star Trek, Star Wars would have won
Also: most annoying characters. Jar-Jar-Binx vs Wesley Crusher
1 -
10 minutes ago, MarkE said:
I'm not a particle physicist, but I really would like to understand what mass is as a non particle physicist. I'd like to understand it as intuitively as possible. Could you recommend a book/youtube video/anything to take a first step in order to understand what mass really is? (Hopefully without too much maths).
Quantum Field Theory: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNBpDZPejCHGzxyfgitj26w9
1 -
55 minutes ago, MarkE said:
but the only thing we know for sure is that it loses mass, not energy.
You might have heard of the mass-energy equivalent from SR? E = mc^2? Ring a bell?
57 minutes ago, MarkE said:That being said, you’re arguing that energy is conserved because a black hole releases the same amount of energy as it evaporates
And that's exactly what it means
58 minutes ago, MarkE said:Mass can be transformed into energy, yes, but that’s something different
No, it's not
1 hour ago, MarkE said:We still don’t fully understand what mass is, since we don’t fully understand how the (5 sigma) Higgs boson gets its own mass, whether the graviton exists,
We've got a pretty good idea. Most of the mass in our atoms is due to energy bound between quarks by gluons, not by the Higgs mechanism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson:
QuoteThe presence of the field, now confirmed by experimental investigation, explains why some fundamental particles have mass, despite the symmetries controlling their interactions implying that they should be massless. It also resolves several other long-standing puzzles, such as the reason for the extremely short range of the weak force.
1 hour ago, MarkE said:whether the graviton exists, or how to explain the rotation of the celestial bodies without a new exotic form of matter we have coined the term ‘dark matter
Gravitons, if they exist, don't give anything mass; they would only govern the attraction between masses, or accumulations of energy. Also, we may not know what Dark Matter is, but we do have some pretty good observations of its behavior that track with what we know about mass
1 hour ago, MarkE said:We seem to need (new) particles to explain mass over and over again, but I’m not convinced yet that it's only matter to be able to have mass in the first place, because mass and attraction might be the same thing. What causes the attraction? The curvature of space-time
You seem to be confusing general (physical) attraction with gravity. Gravity is the attraction of masses to other masses. There are other attractions, like the electromagnetic attraction between reverse charges. Or quark-quark attraction via gluon. We need more partjcles to explain matter, but that's just the process of refining theory. No serious scientist fooled themselves into believing the Standard Model was the end of discovery in physics.
1 hour ago, MarkE said:I’ll give you an example: if you want to move your arm, you’re exerting a mental force onto your body, which initially has started somewhere in your brain as an intention, which causes your arm to move. Where is this force coming from? Not from particles such as electrons themselves, because they are well described in models that describe how atoms and subatomic particles behave. An electron or a photon can’t change its trajectory by itself, their wave functions are described by Maxwell/Schrödinger, and are bound to a field, and can’t just deviate from that… unless acted upon by an external force. The conclusion therefore should be that the Standard Model of particles can’t describe everything we observe in the Universe, as well as our own human behaviour here on Earth
A mental force? What's that supposed to be? Are we going to talk about free will(y) now?
When you lift your arm, your motor complex sends out a complex and coordinated series of electrical pulses through your neurons to your shoulder, which then excite your muscles and cause them to contract in a manner that raises your arm. This has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics.
1 hour ago, MarkE said:"Most of the ingredients of the standard cosmological model are poorly understood in terms of fundamental physics".
In terms of even more fundamental physics. We'll always poorly understand the more fubdamental physics of the most fundamental physics that we understand
1 hour ago, MarkE said:"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
We already know that the CMB has a blueshifted band in the direction that the earth is travelling and an redshifted band in the opposite direction. That doesn't indicate anything about the 'center' of the universe. The earth is not an inertial system, it is constantly being accelerated toward the sun. Because of Orbital Mechanics, we have a stable orbit and are not falling INTO the sun. Btw just shooting nuclear waste would be a lot more complicated than just shooting it at the sun. You actually have to shoot it retrograde (and it's even more complicated than that) or else it will just take a stable orbit and possibly even collide with earth in the near future.
1 hour ago, MarkE said:Let me answer your question with another question: how would you qualify the moment at which a sperm fertilizes the ovum, and when it becomes a zygote, well before it is developed into an embryo? Do you consider this stage to be a living human individual already, or is this a pre-life stage, and real actual "life" will be manifested into it at a later developmental stage?
Even if we got into this debate here and now, it would not settle anything about whether there was anything alive to cause the big bang or whatever else you want to say.
1 hour ago, MarkE said:Because I have no reason to argue against the idea that life is inherently related to energy itself. I simply have no need for something else to add to this energy to achieve "life", because life is energy, and energy is life. That doesn’t mean that all atoms have consciousness, far from it, but it’s a matter of hierarchy, just like the hierarchy between humans and lower animals, and how atoms are related to other atoms. Even though all carbon atoms are exactly the same, some of them are part of neurons inside your brain, some of them are part of your liver tissue, and others are part of a chair. Nothing has changed to the carbon atom, only how it is used and what force is acted upon. Human being are made of atoms only, and nothing more than that.
THEN WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY????????
1 hour ago, MarkE said:On 6/4/2018 at 6:37 PM, Strange said:QuoteAttraction, caused by energy and gravity, is all we need to understand any movement (which in my opinion includes all good/bad human thoughts and feelings).
Energy doesn't cause attraction.
Where did I say that energy causes attraction
You literally included the part where you claim that energy causes attraction in your own quote
1 hour ago, MarkE said:On 6/5/2018 at 1:23 AM, Strange said:On 6/4/2018 at 1:46 PM, MarkE said:Isn’t Hawking radiation also ignoring conservation laws?
No, because the black hole loses mass.
We can talk about the scientific understandable part of the Universe, sure, but that’s like talking about a human emotion such as for instance ‘jealousy’, by referring only to the neurotransmitters, blood flow, the limbic system and others that are involved in generating this emotion. But it’s caused by some external event. By describing these biological effects of that event, you’re making the correct observations, and you're not making any mistake, but you’re still missing the point, since you’re only focussing on half of what’s actually going on
This IS the kind of furom where we talk about what is known about nature and the universe and argue over new ideas with our knowledge of nature. Deal with it.
0 -
3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:
In this case, he was refusing to have a part in something his religion doesn't allow, as opposed to simply being discriminatory. It's not the racism or discrimination based on race in and of itself that is wrong with such cases, instead it is that someone is being refused service. This case is different in this way though, making it justified for the refusal of service.
Maybe it's different, but it's still no justification to my mind. Now, I don't sell cakes. I sell my skills and my time. I don't deny services based on your person, but I deny orders that I consider unethical. I can't imgine a cake bing used for something unethical.
0 -
14 hours ago, swansont said:
But you said it was that: "One example would be a shadow cast by an object."
And then I offered another example:
19 hours ago, YaDinghus said:The 'opposite' phenomenon resulting in the same apparent paradox is a (very strong) laser pointer being aimed at the moon and the point moving faster than the speed of light from just wiggling the pointer a few arcsecs
So far pseudo objects as I referred to them seem to cover projections only. Maybe that's all they are. I was wondering if there were other phenomena that at first glance violated the laws of physics - which holes clearly do not - and appeared to be objects. If nobody can think of any, that's ok and I'll take projections
0 -
4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:
The rules to Machi Koro, or the rules to personal finance?
Personal experience is relevant here because that's generally how we learn to manage our finances. That's why i think games would be useful - they give experience in managing resources. I think games could help with the discipline part too: saving for a large capital investment that itself will give possibly give a large but delayed return. You also get to see how often high risk strategies fail. Stuff like that.
I should have been specific that I meant the rules of basic finance. And you are right that you can learn a lot from games. Edutainment has been an emerging branch of game design for the better part of the past decade
0 -
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Tolerance is a very strange word, its meaning is easily understood by all sides, yet it seems doomed to be ignored by all of them.
+1 BTW
True that. One of my signatures was "don't tolerate intolerance" in a long deprecated message board, but it clearly shows the limits of even the most tolerant people
3 minutes ago, Strange said:I just read a bit more than title and ...
it is total insane drivel. Not Time-Cube level stuff but totally f-ing bonkers.
I gave up when I realized that the scroll bar on the post was only a single pixle on my cell phone screen...
0 -
On 5/29/2018 at 11:30 PM, iNow said:
What’s an appropriate age to begin educating a child about finances?
So many of us as we mature look back and think, “gosh, if only someone had mentioned that” or “if only I’d known that sooner, imagine what I could’ve done differently.”
In financial terms, examples include:
- Save 20% of every paycheck
- Compound interest is one of the most powerful wealth generation tools available. Summarized: The sooner you start the better
- Maximize 401k contributions
- A company match on retirement savings is basically free money
- Getting the lowest possible interest rates will allow you to both pay off the loan sooner and make smaller monthly payments until you do
- Pay off the highest interest debt first, and always prioritize debt payoff if your savings earn a lower interest than the debt interest you’re paying... earning 2% on savings is a net 3% loss if you’re paying 5% on debt of the same amount (see also, point #1)
- Etc...
There are countless foundational finance basics like this out there and countless times I’d wished someone had introduced me to them sooner.
The question then is: how soon is appropriate to introduce them to a developing human? What’s an appropriate age to begin educating a child about finances?
I’m thinking maybe 5, but TBH feel that’s perhaps a bit ridiculous since most 5 year olds don’t even tend to know basic math yet.
What say you?
On 5/29/2018 at 11:41 PM, Prometheus said:I think learning by play is the way to go: something like Machi Koro - resource (money) optimisation, simple risk vs benefit decisions, investing and planning for the future and cardboard coins. Played it with 8 year olds before, they were able to understand some of their more stupid mistakes by themselves. 5 might be too young but better than giving them an abstract list. I'm sure there are simpler games out there suitable for 5 year olds which still cover some very basic concepts.
Now this comes from personal experience so CAVEAT but I figured the rules out by myself by like the age of 10, but I didn't start following them until I was in my 30's, mostly because I didn't learn to value money as a kid. Money just came out of the faucet so to say until I finished college at 27 and then I suddenly had to work for my money. Figuring out the principles was easy; training myself in discipline to be able to follow these principles was the hard part
0 -
6 minutes ago, Silvestru said:
Do you think that in opposite land, crazy physicists are posting speculative scientific papers "proving" that God doesn't exist on christian forums?
Because as far as I know that doesn't happen in our dimension (C-132).
Imagineable. That is if it's the kind of religious society that generally tolerates physicists as just having their own strange perspective
2 -
53 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:
I was only responding to questions asking the basis of my beliefs.
Besides, I already have stated that I would be discussing the existence of a higher power in a different thread when asked such.
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:The rules don't mention woo.
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:Seriously? Religion has it's place to be discussed on this forum. Even woo has a place in the speculations to be discussed.
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:It is really not woo if it involves a higher power of some sort. Are you going to call the beliefs of the billions of people who believe in a higher power woo?
A higher power is an acceptable idea to believe, and it doesn't have to be categorized as woo.Numerology or synchronicity are consistent with the idea of a higher power. It doesn't have to be scientific to be true.
I will definitely be making threads about this, and I will have a basis for my ideas, whether reasoning or otherwise.
On 6/4/2018 at 7:01 AM, Endercreeper01 said:You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power. It means giving your heart to a higher power, entrusting with that you not only exist, you exist with a purpose and a reason. It is all about giving trust in your existence and reality itself to a higher power and giving yourself to it.
I might have, but I think the OP said something like this:
19 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:My definitions are supposed to be describing faith in a certain way. Faith in a higher power can be described as a trusting in a certain sense.
Faith can still be described with the idea of trust, in a way that describes the way that faith involves a personal connection to a higher power.
19 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.
17 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. It can be based on reasoning, and also involve an observation of naturally occurring synchronicity in reality.
16 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:What I said was there is a difference between evidence in scientific contexts and evidence in other contexts. What may not be considered evidence in science could be considered evidence elsewhere.
I am referring to synchronicity in reality itself, with a significant alignment, pattern, or number appearing throughout in reality, where it would have a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power.
16 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.
9 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:You can only call what I am saying woo if I am pretending that what I am saying is science, which I am not. The term pseudoscience only applies when something that isn't science is being presented as science, when I am not doing that. I have stated that I am discussing a topic outside of the limit of science, but is still reasonable to discuss.
Evidence can be used in a different context to show the validity of an idea without being rooted in scientific thought and still have a basis in reality, which is the point I am trying to make.
It's not about small probabilities, it is about synchronicity that would have had a very small chance to occur without a higher power. I will be making a thread on this soon to explain more where this phenomena appears.
A higher power can be described by it's effects on reality, but it is hard to describe exactly what the higher power itself is, without any other knowledge other than that the higher power has power over reality.
I haven't explained myself yet, I have only explained that I have an explanation that I will and can explain.
I will be making threads explaining synchronicity more, and discussing my reasoning behind a god. For now, I will only say that there is basis for my ideas, which I will be discussing in detail in those threads.
And I wasn't referring to anecdotes as evidence for synchronicity, if you thought I was.
8 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:Yes, I will definitely be making threads about this soon. They will go into much more detail and explanation.
It's not that I lack logic. I haven't really fully explained my reasoning in detail yet. I am making threads about the topics soon, so it will show how and why there is a basis for what I am saying.
On 6/4/2018 at 6:05 AM, Endercreeper01 said:Faith is not only about belief, it is about trust. True faith is when you have trust in a higher power and you personally connect with the higher power.
A collection of your contributions on this thread so far. I could let the evidence speak for itself, but I'll say it anyway: you are deliberately obtuse, imprecise and repetitive, sometimes evasive. You don't ever present anything that resembles evidence, only assertions based in a logic that you refuse to lay out. It is beyond frustrating trying to commubicate with you! I could convince a steel concrete wall to fall over before you budge to reason
0 -
14 minutes ago, Silvestru said:
Why is this (Insert adjective and noun here) under physics?
Adding several expletives as well
0
Si-Based Life
in Inorganic Chemistry
Posted
Something similar to water can still work as a solvent. Bear in mind that it doesn't have to contain Si to be a solvent, after all, H2O has no C either.
Similar to water in this context would mean that it is amphoteric and spontaneously bounces around charged particles in its liquid state. Now I'm being deliberately unspecific regarding the structure of the charged particles. Electrons and protons are what we're looking at in water-solvent redox and acid/base reactions, which are literally vital to life on earth. I would imagine that if Si-based life is possible this should be the case as well. It might however also be small molecule ions transporting the charges in the solvent. However I don't know quite enough about chemistry to truly fathom such a solvent and the small molecule ions involved.