Jump to content

Dagl1

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Dagl1 last won the day on January 7

Dagl1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Good

About Dagl1

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
  • 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, cell biology
  • Occupation
    Researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

2195 profile views
  1. Thanks! The big one of that is the self-interacting part, I had trouble imagining it (and now that I see the answer, once again, I should go and study the maths for a real answer). @Mordred Thank you very much for this gem of information! Like always, I understand about half. But I also don't understand the mechanism by which two cables interfere with each other (I never stood still by that, but always assumed it was because both wires induce a magnetic field and that (for whatever reason) 'annoys' the signal that is travelling through both). From your explanation I think I do get that I can't think of the self interaction as turbulence. The wave itself changes the curvature of spacetime and that is why it pulls on/interacts with itself? Thanks again everyone! Dagl
  2. Right but several physicists seem to disagree with you, what is the point of saying: "I consider the gravitational field as x " when they are TELLING you that that is not the right way of looking at it. You don't discuss or give counterarguments to their whole posts, and instead you tell us what you consider, but why? Are you here to learn or to discuss or postulate, if its one of the first 2, it may be a good idea to: if you believe something different from what physicists are saying, to provide A LOT of evidence. One thing they have over a lot of laymen like me, is that they actually look at and understand the math. So why not post math to prove your point? You are currently saying that basically the whole of special (? that is the one that sets the upper limit as c and also that anything mass-less can only travel at c, right?) relativity is wrong. So for that you have to provide a lot of evidence. As far as I understand the general consensus among physicists, GR and special relativity hold up particularly well, so if what you say is refuting GR/SR, you will need extraordinary evidence. (I of course could be wrongly interpreting what you say as refuting GR, so I hope someone who actually knows physics can correct my mistake if SergUpstart's comment falls well within SR/GR). -Dagl
  3. Addition: and here is another source about it, its quite interesting, thanks for asking! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938800/ -Dagl
  4. At least from what I have seen myself, a lot of fields within biology use little to no chemistry and only a little math. Of course, during your studies you will probably have courses that focus on these two topics, but in my experience, if you aren't planning on doing something that specifically uses concepts from chemistry/math to solve certain problems, then you just need to get through some courses and after that you won't encounter it too much. Definitely don't think that you wouldn't be smart enough for biology, I think biology is in a lot of ways like history. There's a lot of jargon and specific details that are handy to know, but the general concepts of almost every detail are not too difficult and most of the time can be translated to some analogy that is easy to understand. Just be interested, curious and study a lot and all will be well (oh of course do follow hypervalent's advice, just wanting to point out that I really think everyone can learn biology;p). -Dagl
  5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00232-014-9760-y This is what you are referring too? I may be thinking too simply but wouldn't the reason that this happens just be energy-conversation? If rotating sideways in the x direction allows protons to move from a higher (potential?) energy state to a lower one, and that energy is then bound to ATP. Then if you want to do the opposite, the rotation will also be in the y (the other) direction. As now we want to use the energy contained in ATP to produce protons with higher (potential?) energy. I think after a brief look that the reason is the difference in structure, bacterial flagellar motors have quite a different structure and contain a specific 'C ring' which acts like a gear (think of setting your car in reverse). Also it is important to note that they only move clockwise for a few rotations and then change back to regular counterclockwise rotation, if I have interpreted this right. Oh I recommend adding sources to your questions, it makes it easier for people to look stuff up and help you! https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037019302338#bb0010 (source of the ATP synthase picture: https://www.nature.com/articles/46193) -Dagl
  6. Thanks! That sounds really cool (and currently way too complex to really understand. There is something specific I can work towards to understand). If anyone else comes along and wants to add some information, I find it quite interesting that gravity waves could travel at a speed lower than c (even if the wave interacts with itself, shouldn't whatever (particle??, graviton?) the wave is, travel at c at all times since is mass-less(?). Even light in a medium only has 'apparent' reduced speeds due to interaction/absorption with atoms right? Thanks again for the interesting answer! -Dagl
  7. Thanks Swanson, Just to be sure, in general I should, open a new thread myself if I feel like it will require it to be split? Sorry for being lazy hahaha;p
  8. This may require a split, but I have two questions that came up when reading this thread: Are gravitational waves affected by gravitational lensing, I found some random (not very sciency) websites talking about how gravitational waves will affect light (by changing the amounts of gravitational lensing). However I was wondering, will these waves also change 'apparent' direction (light goes in a straight path but it is space-time that is curved, which we see as 'apparent' curved paths, right?)? @Markus Hanke Could you attempt to explain how wave-tails emerge from non-linear interactions (at 1.5 post newtonian?). I looked up some articles about it, but realise this is currently quite far outside what I can easily understand. https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07601 Thanks in advance! Dagl
  9. Hi there, Please see the following paragraph of the Book [I don't want to bias anyone so I can't post its name, will do after a few answers], and the relevant radiation-related claims in the research article (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1432-0436.1991.tb00872.x): I tried looking up sources for gamma-radiation-mediated enucleation, but can't find any. And in the articles he/they don't talk about "absence of genes' or 'DNA destroyed'. I think I have enough (lack) of evidence to say that the Book is misinterpreting/spinning the story, but wanted to check here just to be sure, before I accuse the Author of doing so.Because this is the main argument of the first 'scientific' chapter in the book. Thanks in advance -Dagl
  10. I think it is because you are given sources, but then do not watch them, while still talking about 'alleged' temperature changes, as if that's not kind of shown at this point? Questions are fine, but it may be good to first fully consider the answers given.
  11. I have only a superficial understanding of this, so it may be wrong. But as far as I understand, there is no medium needed for particle/wave functions as they are not true waves. Or possibly, but again, this is just me guessing, the medium is the field(s) from which the particle(s) arise? Interesting question, hopefully the physicists around here will know!
  12. An simple example I could think of is on the level of (brown)fat production. Brown fat produces a lot more heat than ATP, when compared with the usual fat oxidation (I think?) mechanics. Having mutations in genes with as a result increased brown fat production, that person would most likely also have increased metabolic rate. When we look at people with overactive thyroids, we see that they use a lot more energy, so any gene that is involved in the thyroids function will possibly change basal metabolic function. On the cellular level, any mutation that leads to a less energy efficient enzyme, or less/more energy production will also affect basal rates. If you want to know specific genes, you will have to search the GWAS studies/data yourself, or maybe someone will feel like reading them and tell you, but I think the question is quite complex and a lot of genes will slightly affect metabolic rate, so its difficult to find causal relationships or even strong correlations. -Dagl
  13. I completed that 6 years ago (it was my high school math curriculum), so back then I understood/knew most of it. Now is a different story. I think from the other replies and the videos/sources I found, that I understand it well enough (for now). Thanks though!
  14. I have a question, do you recognise that people have attempted to explain that particular thing to you? Is it A that you don't accept their answers, B that you don't understand their answers or C you just ignore them intentionally? If it is not C, then its maybe a good idea to go back to figuring out where your thinking is in opposition, and how you could potentially learn more about, instead of immediately saying everything has failed. Honestly, you are doing a horrible job at learning anything, you don't seem to grasp or are intentionally ignoring a lot of explanations and instead you keep asserting whatever you think to be right...
×
×
  • 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.