Dagl1

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You really have to twist everyday logic to the extreme to make that case. This thread is about the oxygen supply in the atmosphere. How much of that oxygen in the atmosphere do you calculate was generated WITHOUT the normal corresponding intake of CO2?  

Wikipedia must surely give a clue :   

I don't agree, but let's just agree to disagree on this;p.

@studiot Thanks for the reply

I also assume that the fluid contains the spores, but to be fair, in the way that it's written it could of course be interpreted in either way (although logically it will be the fluid and not the SCP itself). 

The way you have rewritten the sentences is similar to how I would have done so, but I am surprised that there is not a clear rule that is easily found on the internet. 

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

It's easy to understand. It's like shooting someone, and claiming you weren't involved, because all you did was pull the trigger, it was the bullet that killed him. 

The two actions are separate in time and space. I've never heard such rot. 😅

I really don't see it that way now that I understand the whole thing, but I had the same feeling before looking into it and with the full explanation.

Do you not feel that because, as said, in some cases, the two cycles are independent, it is fair to say they are not (necessarily) involved with each other. Of course the word "involve" is vague, but from my perspective it seems like you are saying that two reactions that CAN be independent are still involved with each other, which is not true for ALL cases. Is digestion "involved" in the killing of the person (in your example). In some far fetched way it is, because digestion is necessary for you to have the energy to pull that trigger (this example is not a direct analogy to the light-dependent and -independent reactions, it is meant to indicate that the meaning of "involve" can be stretched). 

Not saying either interpretation is right or wrong, just my interpretation.

-Dagl

Hi, 

I've been searching online but have not managed to find an answer to my question (most likely due using search terms that lead to unrelated answers). When using "which" in the the case of:

Rule 2b. Which introduces a nonessential clause (also known as a nonrestrictive or nondefining clause), which adds supplementary information.

Example: The product claiming "all natural ingredients," which appeared in the Sunday newspaper, is on sale.
The product is already identified. Therefore, which appeared in the Sunday newspaper is a nonessential clause containing additional, but not essential, information.

In this usage of "which", are there any defined rules for what "which" points too? In the following example, "which" does not point to the last named noun, but instead to the subject of the sentence, this to me seems wrong, but I could not find any rules that point out if such a thing is okay or not.

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid containing reproductive spores, which is often transported by insects. [Bold & underline by me]

Due to the usage of "is" it is clear that which points towards the "fluid" and not to "spores". Is this usage of "which" okay? How would one distinguish if "spores" became singular?

Kind regards,
Dagl

Source of pasted rule 2b: https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp

Source of example sentence: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4380 

Edit: I am not sure if this (Other Sciences) is the right place to post this, if we do have a linguistics subforum then this should be there.

Try chemspider, or a similar program, I am getting an error but this is the code (I may have made some mistakes, check yourself or draw it yourself, there are plenty of online resources to find out which molecule something is)

@CharonY thanks for the interesting + in-depth reply!

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

There is no hard and fast rule about what can be called a 'state' Supercritical could be so considered since it is a condition where there is no distinction between liquid and gas.

Moore (Physical Chemistry) calls this a fluid. FYI the meniscus is the boundary between liqid and gas when there is a distinction.

Note that 'super' in this context means above - it is the temperature that is above the critical temperature. It does not mean 'extra special'.

[Picture]

Thanks! I will read it again and let the information sink in (I feel it's not intuitive that density of a vapor increases when temperature increases, but I suppose that is the result of the Ideal gas law, just conceptually I don't get it; if volume remains the same, why would the mass/volume increase if I heat something, kinetic energy doesn't contribute to mass right?) 
Please excuse my general ignorance on this topic, I've only recently become interested in these things and should have paid a lot more attention in high school;p.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Another question, related, but which possibly should become a different thread (I'll let the mods judge that), could you explain why water's density is highest at 4 degrees in a, conceptually understandable manner? (I've read: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-water-more-dense-at-4°C-than-at-0°C?redirected_qid=12443275#!n=12 but I find it difficult to follow + I would like to understand why the maximum of the density temperature graph is 4 degrees, what fundamental properties are behind (why is it not 5 degrees etc.), from the explanation on that website, if I leave 4 degree water for long enough without introducing new kinetic energy in a room that is exactly 4 degrees, it should eventually become ice... ?) 

edit: reason for my last comment regarding ice formation [From the website: "At 4 °C, the clusters start forming.The molecules are still slowing down and coming closer together, but the formation of clusters makes the molecules be further apart.Cluster formation is the bigger effect, so the density starts to decrease.Thus,the density of water is a maximum at 4 °C."]

-Dagl

On 9/24/2019 at 12:00 AM, studiot said:

Here are a few states recognised by Chemists.

The crystalline state
The gaseous state
The metallic state
The amorphous state (charcoal, elastic, rubber etc)
The vitreous state (glass, supercooled boron trioxide)
The liquid state
The dissolved state
The disperse state (colloids)
The ionic state
The interfacial state
 

I'm glad you found phase diagrams because that was on my list of 12 little pieces ( not yet finished but here are some more)

(3) Binary mixtures , phase diagrams, eutectics, the phase rule.

(4) pH, pOH and p(X)

(5) Chemical applications of polarised light.

(6) The Boltzman distribution

(7) Metallic bonding and Fermi levels

(8) Electronegativity v electron affinity

Most of the content in this thread goes over my head (for now), but I am wondering, is his answer regarding super critical fluids not considered a distinct state (I did not see it in your list (looked up SCF but did not spot any different name presented on the wikipedia that corresponds with your given states). Apologies if I missed it!

Thanks!

-Dagl1

@CharonY, I am not super familiar with these reactions (high school was the last time I have heard about the Calvin cycle), but after reading up on them I am wondering if I understand this correctly; 1. the light-dependent reaction (oxygen production) could occur and continue forever in the absence of the CO2-dependent Calvin cycle, if it would be efficient enough to produce sufficient quantities of ATP (2. the function for the Calvin cycle being mainly to convert unstable NADPH (+ other stuff) into (more) stable G3P which can then 3. further be utilised in respiration reactions to produce ATP and I am not entirely sure about this last part 4. but more O2 is produced than later used in respiration reactions or is the net production of O2 a result of the fact that more energy is stored in G3P than is used by the plants?) Then 5. if we would supply unlimited NADPH and ATP, the Calvin cycle could continue forever in the absence of light-dependent reactions?

If my interpretation is correct, then I think I also understand the dispute regarding "involved".

Thanks in advance!

My apologies Phi (and to other forum members), I did not mean to stifle discussion, but I feel that, in some cases, learning is better facilitated through direct conversations (I explain X, person responds with how they understand it, but does not completely get it, I explain X in another way, etc.). Secondly, while I personally really like this forum, I feel that especially for new learners, this environment may not make them the most comfortable, which could lead them to not follow up on questions as much as they would like to. Oh and of course the formal nature is a little bit of a barrier (see example below, which I had to heavily edit to remove typos and sentence structure). Nevertheless, I see your point; below are parts of our (ssandlin and me) conversation, I have only copied my own text, out of respect for ssandlin's privacy, and left out some responses as they would reveal specific questions that were asked.

I would like to hear if people have corrections, comments on or additions to my explanations:

_______________________________________________

Enzymes by definition are proteins, there are some RNA-enzymes called ribozymes and DNA-enzymes have been artificially made but are not present/functional (as far as we know) in the human genome; they are called deoxyribozymes. RNA enzymes such as the cores of ribosomes (RNA enzyme = ribozyme) are a lot more functional than DNA, mostly due its chemical structure.

Coding = translation, non-coding DNA is just all DNA that doesn't encode for amino acids (although even when looking at the "coding" DNA not all of it is encoding for amino acids). [editing note: Untranslated regions, introns, promoter regions etc. I could be incorrect but I thought these were all considered “coding”]

[editing note: in response to ssandlin’s comment on “purpose”]: Look up retro transposons, it may give you a new insight in the idea of "purpose". There are whole regulatory systems designed to stop retro transposons from killing us, and they are in our DNA, our bodies just can’t get rid of them (easily)
[editing note: in response to the idea of DNA “doing” things] I don't know of any evidence where DNA functions as an enzyme, however DNA structure does affect things: I saw a paper about something similar (but not really the same) a few days back: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30952-3
in case your university VPN doesn’t allow you to open this or you don’t have access to one right now:
[editing note: @mods, in case sharing of sci-hub is forbidden, please edit it out, I am not sure what the rules are regarding sci-hub] https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30952-3

Proteins are strings of amino acids that fold themselves (and/or with help of other proteins) into functional "machines"; these can range from structural roads/cell skeleton (mircotubuli) to gates (transporters/uniporters), to receptors (things that react to something binding to them and then do something) and enzymes (things that facilitate a specific reaction or set of reactions). Since proteins are a string of amino acids, they are encoded for by the DNA each amino acid is encoded by 1 or several combinations of triplets (ATC ATG TGC AAA etc.)

So a protein is just a string of amino acids, which is encoded for in the DNA with triplets of letters (1 amino acid triplet = codon). You can think of the DNA as the Master blueprint for a building, however each worker/machine requires some blueprint to build anything, so in order to create 20 windows, you would have to give the window-makers the blueprint 1 at the time; that’s A very inefficient and B, what if the blueprint gets damaged? That is why DNA is present within the nucleus, where it is (relatively) safe, and RNA polymerases transcribe the DNA to (messenger RNA (mRNA, there are other types of RNA, but mRNA carries information for protein production). A single blueprint of DNA can make many mRNA's which can then be given to the window-, door- and wall-makers, this mRNA can be spliced (i won’t go into detail, it’s an interesting and important thing to look up though), these mRNA's are then used for the construction of proteins.

DNA is the entire blueprint for the building, a gene encodes for 1 (not entirely true, but that requires knowledge of alternative splicing) protein, which would be any component of the whole building, think a window, or a bolt or the cement of a wall (with other proteins being more regulatory and assisting in the placement of the wall (in case the wall itself does not say: "I have to be placed here and here")) DNA doesn’t DO anything; it’s like a book or blueprint that is read it requires proteins and ribozymes (but just consider those as proteins for now) to be useful. [editing note: I understand that this sentence may be not entirely correct, however I felt like at this stage it is better for one’s understanding than going into minutia]: DNA on its own is inert. 

However there are specific proteins that can read the DNA, other proteins that interpret this reading and produce mRNA, then other proteins which transport the RNA to the place where again other proteins make (translate) the RNA into new strings of amino acids=proteins, which are then moved to a sorting location (Golgi) by proteins and made ready to do their function.

[editing note: same thing applies as before; this is not entirely true and should not be seen as a textbook answer] [In response to the name “Junk DNA”] Yes, so because only a very small % of the DNA encodes for proteins, and we didn’t know of a lot of regulatory functions and/or non-coding RNA, it was seen as useless. But as complexity of organisms (single cell vs. animals for instance) increases, the number of genes does not increase linearly, however the amount (quantity/size) of non-coding DNA does.

A lot of the non-coding DNA can be seen as additional IF-statements (if you are familiar with programming), or conditions which can direct the coding genes for specific moment. A "simple" organism may not have to deal with as many variable conditions as the cells in an animal body. Another example would be: as a business/corporation grows twice as large, it won’t grow twice as many DIFFERENT jobs, but it will require twice (for the sake of this example) as many managers and people that direct the extra workers for newer situations.

But of course in the end these are all analogies or metaphors, once you really understand it, you will be able to distil what is true about such analogies and where they fail to explain how cells truly function.

What I would recommend is start by looking up (Wikipedia and Youtube for now, on Wikipedia, search every word you don't understand and follow every link, eventually it will all fall in place): enzymes, specifically kinases and the MAPKKK pathway, get comfortable with the names and what they do; this eventually leads you to: what a gene is, promoters and transcription factors (which CAN be activated by kinases), from there look up the receptors (GPCR's AND ion-channels) as this will lead back to kinases and then to promoters, and give you a decent idea of how signaling works within cells. The CREB pathway is the one I like the most to go from receptor to gene (pictures are great for pathways).

Then it is time to tackle splicing and alternative splicing; lastly epigenetics, the overhyped thing that's important to just get an idea about: understand Agouti mice and DNA methylation, and understand that histones exist and why (specifically) acetylation leads to increased chances of transcription (by making it easier for TF's to bind promoter regions and facilitating RNAP II). You don’t need to understand what all things such as H3k4 (tri)methylation does, but if you understand the concept of acetylation, then other modifications will be understandable as they are conceptually similar. This will also have introduced you to post-translational modifications.

Remember, all of this is Wikipedia, Youtube videos and Google images, once you are comfortable with these things, then it’s time to start with articles. I personally have a not very popular approach to this (but one that leads to way better understanding down the line IMO): find an article (such as the one I linked, or one about something you find interesting (within this field) and go through it. EVERYTIME you don't understand something, look it up, if there is a reference to a mechanism you don't understand, look up that article and continue with the new article. Then when you find something you don’t get in that article (with a reference), go to the new reference. In the beginning, even with good knowledge of the stuff discussed before, you are looking at probably 20 articles before you can come back to that first paragraph of your first article, and then you may find another 5 or 10, afterwards.

This approach requires a lot of work, but once you have finally finished your first original article, you will understand that specific part of the field well [editor note: More likely they will realise that there is an unbelievable amount they do not understand]. Produce in-depth notes (see pictures), it takes longer, but it WILL save you so much hassle and allows you to look up things, even as you may have forgotten the details (e.g. "Ahh there was something with this protein, quick Ctrl+F and there it is; Oh Ye! That’s what it was).

When I say understand everything from an article, it includes the methods (of course, you don’t need to know the super duper in-depth stuff, but you should be able to look at like (depending on the paper) 70% -100% of the graphs and understand what the graph says (and thus come up with your own interpretation). Don’t get annoyed if you don’t get it, some papers are very difficult and the writers are (sometimes) more busy with doing science than taking the time to explain their results in detail.

Attempt to get a good feeling of what was done, why and what it means; basically, interpret for yourself, don’t just get told what you should see, but find out if you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the authors. This requires basic understanding of how (mechanically) the methods work.

Lastly understand the basics of P-values (what they mean and what they don’t mean. P<0.05 is NOT the be all end all) and T-tests/ANOVA. I can help you with it as it’s a subject that’s even for a lot of senior scientists not well understood).

[editing note: this last part is directed towards ssandlin, but goes for anyone] During your reading, feel free to explain what you have learned, ask for feedback, questions or whatever, but do try to find answers yourself first; and when asking questions, do so by explaining what you think and what the consequences of your line of thought are (and thus, lead you to the point where your thinking and whatever a source says don’t logically match, that way you get a good feel for the problem (instead of : I DONT GET IT) and I [other people] can help you more easily).

Picture 1: notes from a long time ago (in my opinion bad notes).

Picture 2: notes I make nowadays (good/better IMO).

 -Dagl 

I currently do not have the time to answer in depth, but would like to stress that, at least to me, it seems that your fundamental understanding of how DNA works and operates. I would recommend looking for more information and understanding before going off in the speculation direction (not that speculating is bad, but generally; total or at least a lot of understanding comes before new ideas). Additionally, it would be good to use more specific jargon, I presume that by DNA splitting and coming back together you mean unwinding and rewinding by helicase activity, if that is the case, then the reason why we know its the same helix is because, generally, nucleobases (ATCG) bind to their complement (A<>T, C<>G) nucleobase and it is highly unlikely a strand of DNA that is complementary to the just unwound strand is present. 

After rereading your message, you may mean doublestranded breaks? If so, how would non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination fit into your story? 
I am not sure how junk DNA could "account" for Trisomy 21, could you elaborate?
Additionally, how would junk DNA's "code" be communicated, there are of course non-coding RNAs located in parts of the DNA that were, originally, considered "Junk", but I think I can speak for at least a portion of the scientific community by saying that the term "junk DNA" is inaccurate at this point.

If you want to discuss things like this or learn more about it, you can send me a private message and we can have a more interactive talk (as I said before, I feel like the current depth of your knowledge is not adequate for new hypotheses (we don't call them theories) regarding specific functions, but you can of course get there! 

-Dagl

3 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

Quantum mechanical mishmash explanations of black body radiation are pointless. They do not depend upon objective data. My inability to repeat the mishmash is due to a desire not to waste time. I thank "Sensei" for his further illumination of the "laser cooling" theory. If you have stated before that the 3.6 eV 0f 365 nm black light could be combined with "already present 10.2 eV" to create 13.6 escape eV  I might, at least, have understood your argument better. Two things I need to say about that. First the quantum dimensional model of electron orbitals is not the Bohr model. The lowest orbit is the "1s" with an electron voltage of  "0.065 eV." I am using the shell/subshell model of electron orbitals which is used by the Periodic Table of Elements, not the Bohr model. Secondly, it is not only the subdivision of the root frequency by "2² "which creates fluorescence and cooling. It is also the subdivision of the root frequency by "3²  "which fluoresces and cools. This is infrared at 820.3 nm with an electron voltage of 1.511 eV. I doubt if your theory can explain the fact that all direct subdivisions of the root frequency produce florescence and cooling. The simplest explanation is often the correct explanation.

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

31 minutes ago, Lawrence Dawson said:

"Perhaps your daughter can show us the math." I suspect you do not understand how geometry works. It is built upon a set of propositions. Showing you some of these propositions for quantum dimensional geometry is showing you the math.

As to refusing peer-reviewed science, I reject the charge. We have conducted two revolutionary experiments with significant outcomes based upon quantum dimensional mathematics. We  have identified and measured the negative radiation predicted by Soliton nonlinear mathematics ("Negative radiation pressure exerted on kinks" Phys. Rev. D77:125012, 2008). We showed that the loss of temperature which occurs when 365 nanometer Black-Light bathes cotton. 365 nm is a direct sub-division of the root wavelength. The frequency does not represent a negation of subdivision orbital which the quantum requires. Since the quantum cannot provide the orbital energy, then energy from the nucleus must be supplied to reach the direct sub-divisional orbital and the molecule will cool. This energy  is output as the florescence caused by the Black-Light. When quantum mathematics were applied to the energy lost via temperature drop, Planck's Constant was derived with an accuracy of seven thousand of a percentage point. It was discovered that, in a negative-radiation sensitive hydrocarbon molecule, the loss of temperature is a function only of Plancks Constant and the number of the hydrogen bonds in the molecule. What peer-reviewed Journal would you suggest I submit this study to?

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

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".

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

20 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I didn't claim it does really exist... I said about people who complain about technological harassment and SUSPECTED with schizofrenia.

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

58 minutes ago, Moreno said:

That is strange. And even unexpected. I would rather expect that those who complain for harassment and have increased "schizophrenia occurence" are people with different varieties of a left/socialist/social democratic views. It is surprising if not...

What relationship is there between left/socialist or social democratic views and... schizophrenia? Why would you expect them to be related? 

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Practically no crystals are prefect.

 

Proteins, and even entire viruses can form pretty good crystals.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/231608?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

So the opening post makes no sense.

It's like saying " how come we can't build brick walls/"

Andyet, rather than saying - "we can build them", people don't bother to check.

They draw up elaborate explanations for things that are not actually true.

Hence my questions

Why do people insist on trying to explain things that don't actually happen ?

Why do people insist on trying to explain why things that do happen, can't happen?

 

 

 

 

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

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Why do people insist on trying to explain things that don't actually happen and why things that do happen, can't happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_crystallization

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

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

4 hours ago, Midnighthypothesis said:

Do people who are more intelligent crave stimulation, at all?

But I have always wondered if this is why intelligent people are more likely to use drugs, specifically cannabis and stimulants.

If the brain craves stimulation and its not getting it, as would be common with high intelligence, it would get that stimulation from stimulants, especially amphetamines and MDMA, as intelligent people have shown to be more likely to use.

I am curious to see a study that looks at the correlation between individuals who participate in raves and IQ. If the IQ of "ravers" is higher than the general population, that could support the hypothesis, as raves tend to be drug and stimulation packed, which would mean intelligent people should be driven to them, if the hypothesis is true.

The problem with the studies that have been made so far is that they havent asked WHY the drugs were used. Was it bordem? Coping? Thrill seeking? 

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
 

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

Same thing, really.

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.

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

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

2 hours ago, Alison said:

Thanks! But I believe it is not possible to use IHC for live cell imaging.

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?