Dagl1

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Dagl1 last won the day on June 23

Dagl1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Good

About Dagl1

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sendai, Japan (currently)
  • Interests
    Science; molecular biology (RNA and neuroscience (synaptic plasticity)), (quantum) physics, programming, behavioral psychology.
  • College Major/Degree
    2-MSc biomedical sciences (molecular biology) Maastricht University --- Tohoku University
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Molecular biology
  • Occupation
    Researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

1833 profile views
  1. Could you please enlighten me and tell me what: "negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule" is. Additionally, could you post the research you have published (as you say reject the notion of circumventing peer review, yet you didn't show any peer-reviewed publication, you just linked an article without your name. So does that mean you TRIED but got rejected?)? -Dagl
  2. So when you say "we", do you mean yourself (you aren't in that paper right?)? Also I don't get it, if you have shown these things, then just like the article you have linked now, you can publish it? I have no clue where you could submit it, but I presume there are plenty of journals that publish papers in this field. I don't really get what you are saying to be honest; Either you have done revolutionary experiments and have produced great results which lead you to propose new models (all of this is publishable), or you have done experiments and couldn't publish them, or you haven't tried publishing. So what is the point of putting it in your books if I can't even find these terms in scientific articles. Another question: "negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule" means what exactly? Could you provide citations when you say "it was discovered that"? -Dagl
  3. So what I am wondering is; Why not (I am assuming not, but if you did then please post the articles) go through the peer review process and publish your findings instead of writing books where you cannot really be criticized for any potential mistakes you make? From your amazon page it seems you are a rebel against the scientific consensus etc, but... you do realize that there is a benefit to peer review (although it isn't without its flaws)? If we would have to believe every "genius" that has come up with a revolutionary theory, then we would be sitting here all day doing nothing. For some reason almost all of the people with new and novel ideas, which they do not let go through peer review, talk about how the current scientific community doesn't want their work to be published because it would go against their dogma. I think it would be a lot better if you go and write some articles, publish them and see if what other scientists think of them, instead of basically just promoting your books on this forum. Especially since your response to "show us your model" is "look at the books you can buy on amazon that I wrote".
  4. While I am not a physicist or anything, but... isn't black body radiation and the amount of radiation from CO2 measured and confirmed? I have never heard that these measurements go against the expected amount according to current models. Also could you provide references for well. The things you are stating;p? -Dagl
  5. Maybe I am just not understanding your point; but you said that you would expect those that complain about harassment (technological) and are suspected to be schizophrenic, to be people with varieties of left/socialist/social democratic views (the way this is phrased to be me implies; more than other political ideologies). So why is this something you expect? If I misunderstood you, my bad. -Dagl
  6. What relationship is there between left/socialist or social democratic views and... schizophrenia? Why would you expect them to be related?
  7. I suppose we are interpreting this question differently; I would say: OP is asking about perfect crystals, proteins don't form perfect crystals. Why don't they form perfect crystals? And this seems to be true (although slightly irrevalant, yes proteins don't form PERFECT crystals, but is that needed?) But maybe we are talking past each other, if that is the case, my bad!! -Dagl
  8. Hmm, I feel like I am missing the link between this post and the OP's post (and the general topic), it SEEMS (I am not trying to misinterpret you!!) that you seem to disagree with either Strange's post or your own link. But seeing as I have seen a lot of posts of you before, I doubt this is what you mean, so my bad if I am (most certainly) misunderstanding you. -Dagl
  9. Generally, as far as I see it, usage of materials is reduced when making stock solutions (especially when using enzyme which is quite sticky for instance) as there will always stick a little to your pipette tip. (of course, don't mix the different primers, but primer pair #1 with 3 samples can be done with 1 mix >>> add DNA/water to tube, add pre-made primer/enzyme/buffer mix). What TMX is saying regarding consistency; I have to disagree, using separate mixes when trying to compare samples is a way of introducing errors, as you do not pipette accurately all the time. Regarding primers, yes all primer pairs will have a optimal Tm and should be calculated, the temperatures you will use in your PCR will be based on the enzyme you use and the Tm. When you see non-specific bands, you may want to consider optimization using additional DMSO, different MgCl2 concentrations, usage of a different buffer (in case your primer has a high (> 60-70%) GC content), or usage of a different enzyme. Primers are (in my opinion) not very expensive, when comparing with the enzymes used. Reasons for not seeing bands could also be due to bad (c)DNA quality (although I personally think it is a bit unlikely) or non-working primers (but if they work for some samples and not for others, than that isn't the problem). I personally would go about it in a primer-by-primer kind of method; find the optimal conditions for each primer pair and note them down (both from Tm calculations, DMSO/MgCl2 concentrations for GC content and product length, and from experimental evidence seen in your gels) then once one works perfectly, do it for all of them. Yes it is a lot of work, but I suppose with 20 primers, it is quite a big project anyway. Please take a look at PCR troubleshooting, and of course try to understand why certain chemicals effect your results and how the different enzymes work (sometimes changing enzyme can solve issues and personally I sometimes don't understand WHY this solves the issue, but it does). https://international.neb.com/tools-and-resources/troubleshooting-guides/pcr-troubleshooting-guide (or any other troubleshooting guide, this one is just the first one that came up on google). Hope this helps, please discuss with your professor as they will be more knowledgeable and may disagree (while I have done my fair share of PCR, I wouldn't consider myself an expert). Goodluck! -Dagl
  10. As iNow mentioned; it would be nice to have some citations regarding these claims. But I would like to look at your hypothesis and the method testing it; your null hypothesis would be that ravers are of equal IQ as the general population; and you would want to test if those that go to these raves are of higher IQ. But your initial idea is that this is dependent on drug use, yet not everyone at a rave uses drugs; thus it could be possible that all of the higher IQ people at a rave are all non-drug users. Such an experiment is quite poorly planned. I do agree that it would be interesting to ask WHY drugs are used by people, but I think for most of the assumptions/tests here, you are jumping to conclusions. In science, an important question is; what ELSE could explain my data & what data do I expect and what does it mean. It would be more suitable to design a specific experiment to test this instead of testing the IQ of people at a rave (also I suppose there is quite the debate about the correlation of IQ and intelligence, so I would suggest sticking to 1 of the 2 terms, probably IQ as intelligence is more difficult (if possible at all) to test). -Dagl
  11. I think Michel is asking the question (please excuse me Michel if I misinterpreted you) is it the act of observation (by some sapient observer) or the act of measurement. With my limited knowledge I would say it seems to be the act of measurement and sentience or sapience have no role in this (other than setting up such a measurement etc etc etc.) But I think quantum "stuff" is, for many people, so vague that the idea of the "observer effect" points at a sentient observer and not at the measurement itself. Personally, I am quite interested in arguments on both sides (as I do know (cannot remember where or when) some people talking about how evidence points towards a sentient observer and not the act of measurement, but these arguments seem to come from less science-inclined people). -Dagl PS. Again, I would like to mention that while I think THINK Michel's question is regarding this, I A. could be wrong and B. do not want to imply that he, in case that is what he meant, thinks that a sentient creature is needed for measurement.
  12. Question, but how is vitamin D Absorbed in the skin? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29025082 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25367187 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643801/ My search term, I am not sure if my google is adjusted more to articles (as I search for articles daily): -Dagl
  13. The term you are looking for is Ex Vivo; https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpfsm/5/5/5_373/_pdf paragraph 2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499085/ So it is possible, myoblasts cultured and differentiated can also be seen to contract sometimes (however these are single muscle cells so not useful for your purposes, but just an interesting thing). -Dagl
  14. But using antibodies and a secondary which contains a fluorescent probe works for your experiment or do you want to specifically not use anything that directly binds it?
  15. Question, when you say "tagging" with a fluorophore, do you mean things like FLAG or HISBIO tags or do you mean; "I don't want to anything to bind to myosin"? You could just use a regular antibody and a secondary with fluorescent or histochemical activity (although I am not sure if IHC can be used for live cell imaging). If you mean you do not want anything to be bound to it (possibly because it may inhibit the movement of myosin?) you could also see if there is any other protein bound to myosin which you could instead target with antibodies. -Dagl