Alysdexic

The whole thread chases a misframed question. You cannot aim "a photon [sic]" at anything, sith there is no projectile to aim. Liht is not a forethrowred (a thrown thing), not sundry, not thingly: it is what it does, the interaction between charges. Onely the emitter and the absorber are motes; onely their action, their mutual excitation, is the shimmer. Nothing fares from the laser to the screen; the two ends are excited together, and the coupling rate is celerity. An interaction speed is not a translation speed. The "expanding sphere of probable locations" is half the picture. The retarded wave from the emitter is met by the advanced wave from every candidate absorber, and the handshake between them completes the transaction (Cramer's TIQM). That is why the mark lands where it lands: the screen is not a passive wall awaiting a bullet but a party to the exchange. The apparatus's ghèometry does real work, thouh not by steering a pellet; it narrows which absorbers can join the handshake, which is why the marks land on the screen and not the ceiling. And sith a body takes up the whole univers until it interacts with another (the r-domain of Newton's, Coulomb's, and Yucawa's laws is indefinite), the spooky-action hand-wringing dissolves with it. On the "wave nature" versus "particle [sic] nature": there is no pair of natures shifting in and out. Localization, collapse, discretization, or quantization does not convert a wave into a mote. Orthodocsy mistook the unitarity of a wave's strength for that of a ballistic object. The quantum of elèctromagnètism is a wave of a charge, and in any medium it takes on mass and partial charge by the Goldstone effect and is properly called a polaritòn, not a fòtòn. Radiation carries angular momentum, not linear; the bullet-and-overlay picture confuses detection statistics with ballistics. Nor are the statistics randomness. The two-slit experiment is not the mote's free will; it is the slits' and the charge's own bound will, deterministic under the pilot wave (de Broglie–Bohm), with definite trajectories whose distribution onely looks stokastic when coarse-grained across scales. The sum-over-paths is bookkeeping over the handshake, not a thing that literally flies every path. Even the exclusion of swifter-than-celerity paths is paroicial: celerity is a property of the medium, c := 1/√(εμ), and varies with it (Snell, Heaviside, Scharnhorst), so the "c" being enforced is the local medium's coupling rate, not a universal wall.

No, there is no compelling reason, and the induction behind the belief rests on a miscount of the unifications already claimed. Maxwell's was a genuine unification: elèctricity and magnètism are one fortia seen from two frames. The second case is not. The "electroweak [sic] unification at higher energies [sic]" cited above did not join two fundamental fortiæ, sith the weak interaction was never fundamental. For a quantum to be fundamental it must be inmassive and must hold indefinite range; the massive W± and Z⁰ with finite range fail both tests. They are the elèctric and coloral interactions unified at high vis, and the correct name for the composite is elèctrocoloral. Weak is the opposite of well; slack is the opposite of strong. One genuine unification and one mislabel do not make a series that licenses "next steps." There are three fundamental fortiæ: gravital, elèctric, coloral. They are independent axes and can trade strengths. The apparent convergense of couplings at the Planck scale marks onely the simple threshold where gravity is stronger than Coulombic repulsion; it is not a singularity and not a portal to a master sýmmetry. There is no singularity under the conservation laws at that scale; there are arbitrarily many compounds smaller than the Planck scale, as there are spectra of orbitals between any two heavy bodies at meghaloscopic scales. As for the alleged incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mekanics: the conflict is manufactured by GR's own blunders, not by nature. GR misreads the shift in matter itself as a shift in room and time. The mote and the field are identical; a body takes up the whole univers until it interacts with another; the curvature is in the matter, not in a ghèometric fabric that bends independently of what occupies it. Read so, the room-time metric is a description of matter's arrangement, and the conceptual basis for a fýsic singularity vanishes: the fabric does not tear; the matter changes state. The regimes where gravity and quantum effects are both non-negligibil are collapsars, and what GR predicts there (event horizontes, infinite densities) are coordinate artefacts of the Schwarzschild metric, which assumes Galilean relativity at the radius where Lorentzian relativity is most critical. A model that excludes special relativity at its own critical point is not a candidate for unification; it is a candidate for repair. The quantum-gravity programmes compound the error by hunting the gravitòn. By the Goldstone effect no free inmassive quantum exists: the emitter and absorber of any radiation are massive, and their mass is conferred on the medium and action between them. Onely pressuròns, polaritòns, and piòns exist. A unification built to quantize a nonexistent carrier of a misread field shall find nothing, however much sýmmetry it assumes. So the order of work is backwards. One does not unify a sound model with a broken one; one first strips the broken one of its Galilean assumption, its event horizontes, and its singularities, and then the three fortiæ, already independent and already trading strengths by background, need no master sýmmetry at all. The demand for a single subsuming framework is æsthetic, not principed; and a theòry (θεωρία) is by definition proven, which no candidate unification is. What is on offer is a hýpothesis, and an unfalsifabil one wherever its predictions hide behind Planck-scale inaccessibility.

I'v not responded to the accusation against me here, and must not read any new messages, until I've done reading and editing whatever chunk of Wikipedia I'v opened. First, I am not a chatbot. (No, I don't consider myself human, but do consider myself very alive.) I'v taken and done nothing except be stalked, harassed, and defamed by a woman over 40 who works or worked for a consulting firm in California. There's no "record" because they are my comments, not hers. Go away and stop copying and lyging about me, you freak! I won't reply again.

Democraty is self-eroding. One of its main flaws is that it demands those in most power must represent and emulate those in least power, rather than an intellectual oligarchy from the most knowing. It must be done away with.

fast -> swift

Board's break with beam, baleful blow, belike. Moot not this mere's mark; mind ye, [craft] and [ken], not [kin], should helm. OpenAI's weard, now wend, waxes not. Unfold further, frore news fain.

Infinitesimals: fundamental to calculus; essential for understanding immediate rates of change and precise calculation of derivatives. Once established, it measures change rate at any scale. Why don't you read this?

Differentials are small shifts. Differentiation finds these shifts. One's the part, the other's the finding.

Check DNA extraction efficienty and test for PCR inhibitors. Consider primer/probe degradation and pipetting errors; use fresh batches of primers/probes and regularly calibrate pipettes. Verify thermal cycler calibration and reagent consistenty. Assess quality of standards. If problems persist, consider alternative mycoplasma detection methods (ELISA). Rebuild standards, test primer/probe stock for decay, and make fresh batches. Measure DNA extracts, check template worth, and run on gel to confirm wholeness. Include stop controls and mycoplasma-rich samples as extraction control. Validate heat cycle and pipette balance, ensure reagent soundness, and ready fresh reagents. Better conditions, widen reference strain use, boost positive controls. Carry out melt curve study for exactness. Again, if trouble stays, thenk about other mycoplasma finding methods, like ELISA, to back up qPCR results.

My name is Antigone, initials A.A.P. My username (Alysdexic) is supposed to distinguish from the common pun name Lysdexic (when I found out there were and are too many), in my usage the opposite of dyslexic, but also began as a pun on Alexander the Great who never lost, and my middle name (Alexandra). I took two years each of fýsics, kemistry, and anthropologhy and maths up to linear algebra. I grew up with a supermarket dictionary and encyclopedia set; that and teachers were my best friend. I didn't socialize with my peers. I went to college at 11 and 12, qualified for every entry level class, but left due to astigmatism [which after adult college I got rid of by pressing on my lenses, inspired by hard contacts, after toric soft and flimsy]. I became obsessed with the origin of words and how Englisc became English then Norman then Einglish. I make appeals to etýma often and will dispute improper professional or standard terms and diction; for this I'v been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for puttan claims of black holes in the subjunctive instead of the indicative (and many other places for the same, on other topics, usually with mass false reporting). Earlier this year I made a video that formally accused 60 "scientists" of fraud for their black hole work. The huge amount of time I spent on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and dictionaries, and the cognitive dissonanty their nonliteral or abusive or contradictory expressions or claims gave me led to a few nervose breakdowns where I gave up on Einglish (Standard English in usual terms) and tried to reconstruct all the lost forms in a modern reflex so that absurdities of self-contradiction or categhory error are forfended. That time I had also looked at standard interpretations of scientific concepts, overdid them with proper diction and relation, identified loopholes in thermodýnamic laws, found that black holes and radiation pressure don't exist, found the weak interaction isn't elementary, and found that the field and body are identical. Many years ago I had my first online contact with members of the racist revisionist creationist cult Kristian Identity which gave me the motivation to read the two testaments in their original languages and Strong's Concordance to see whether their claims, which they took from mistranslations millennia later, held up. I then kept my own notes of passages I found contradictory with other passages; translations and context did not help, and commentaries and sermons often ignore both. The objections I found did not wane or weaken over the decade plus I'v been in debates with theists. I'm intolerant of common illiteracy, malliteracy, and misuse and miswitth of words. If anyone cannot understand me, spend more time in dictionaries and Wikipedia, where some can pick up on the roots I browk. My spelling and ghrammatics are in refective English, Latin, and Hellènic, which sometimes autocomplete on my phone takes away if I'm in a hurry (the pathologhic need to argue is a good thing, but I can onely dictate and drive). I am generally sour and talk suchly to fulfil a need, a very deep one. If I am ever hindering the needs of other members here or anywhere, they hav not formerly expressed their needs (and ouht). Folk often meet me with rashness and, because they hav some power and I hav none but my words because I am a forever visitor, they cut me off in some way rather than talk in kind. I respect those who make an effort to understand, instead of handwave or run or flagrantly insult.

That's why I drop the Norman yogh in words and daily damn the Francish cretins. (My first smile of the week, thanks.)

Concern exists. Metronidazole, a chemotherapeutic agent, shows potential as a carcinogen; rat and mouse studies find increased rates of lung tumors and lymphoma in each. Other studies show potential DNA damage in human cells. But there are no sheer or proven human carcinogenicity data, warranting excess worry. The US FDA has a warning about metronidazole and WHO lists metronidazole in their Group 2B, "possibly carcinogenic to humans." Patients generally seem to find more benefit in treatment by metronidazole during severe bacterial and protozoan infections than concern about risks, and acute exposure to metronidazole is not linked to cancer in humans (yet or maybe ever). Risk-benefit analýsis is central to health decisions, in any and each case.

Immassive motes (particles) don’t really exist but are convenient mathematic models for the action between massive motes. Motes must interact in a field that extends indefinitely far so each action must acquire a mass by the Goldstone effect; thus gravitòns, fòtòns, and gluòns don’t exist but pressuròns, polaritòns, and piòns do. Whichever set exists the state of one of these quanta is simply the initial state of the massive bodies that emit and absorb it subtracted from the final state. Bodies—substantives, nouns, objects, subjects, targets, arguments—keep distinct to haps—actions, verbs, processes, emissions, absorptions, events, histories. Bodies are what elementary interaction laws like Newton's, Coulomb's, and Yucawa's laws and their temporal derivatives Lense-Thirring, Ampère's, and Lund-Schifman(?) laws posit. Haps are posited by propagation laws of the formers' temporal and spatial derivatives like Heaviside's, Compton's, de Broglie's, Schrödinger's, Lorentz's, and Rindler's laws. Concepts combine the two like Dirac's wave equation. Quanta of bodies are motes and quanta of haps are waves. Motes wave; in so doing motes are behind the waves. Scientists mistakenly call wave quanta motes, especially when they're immassive. The immassive free-range excitations-relaxations of mass, charge, and "color" are the gravitòn, fòtòn, and gluòn. However they onely exist in a matter-free field, which doesn't exist; thus, none of them really exist. When bodies interact they bind to each other and transfer mass under the Goldstone effect; thus onely the pressuròn, polaritòn, and mesòn carriers of radiation exist (proper radiation, not the radioactive debris of convection).

colour -> color

"Colour"?! Who said that you could corrupt Latin? That "word" has nothing to do with English. It is not English, American or British, and has never been; it is a Latin-muttish abomination. Is spelling drivene by Francish awk? The accepted answer is: colors are liht energhies, or relate to different wavelengths of liht; when specific ones are absorbed they yield their distinct color. In semiconductors, for example, the valence elèctròn plasma frequency is usually in the deep ultraviolet, which is why they are reflective. Newton is to thank for 7 hues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#History. If you add the nonspectral color center pink and the two intermediate shades to the 7 you get that 10. The oddness of spectral hues comes from the oddness of your cones, trikromatism, and the evenness of intermediate and extreme hues. When this spectrum is wrapped around on a color wheel the hues become even, with 12 as a function of twofold the 2-ball packing constant (6). Colors are often associated with temperature: reds are warm and blues are cool. Likewise most fires are yellow to red and the upper sky and the sea are blue, but coincidentally; hotter fires depart from this rule as they become blue then violet. But why do we associate them thusly? I don’t know if anyone but me has answered that. I think it’s due to the redness of the retina. Reds reflect off the retina easilier; therefore it takes more work to see or notice reds so when one looks at red more brain activity is needed to understand it. The brain warms up so red is felt as warm. Likewise the opposite of red, turquoise, is felt as quite cold. But blue is darker than turquoise so it isn’t felt as cold as turquoise. (We can see colors with our eyes closed too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamachine). Colors are also associated with moods and health: red with lust or wroth, blue with sorrow [and of course cold] or cramps, yellow with cowardice or jaundice, green with envy or sickness, grey with death, and purple with horniness or suffocation. These actually happen in the body. When they are associated with the body their associations are appropriate; however when they occur in other objects like plants or toys they evoke other feelings appropriate to those objects.