Leaderboard

There is so much wrong with this... In the first place, the fictional light clock and atomic clocks work on completely different principles, so I have no idea why you throw them in one bucket. Secondly, you should not forget that SR is based on 2 postulates: one is the invariance of the speed of light, and this is used in the example of the light clock. The other postulate is that there is no physical experiment that can show you that you are in absolute rest: observers in all inertial frames see exactly the same laws of physics. But if clocks based on other principles than the light clock would run at different rates, one would have a criterion to say who is at rest, and who is moving. The light clock is just a nice example to easily explain time dilation to lay people. But there are derivations of SR that are much more fundamental, than this. (Why do you think the original article of Einstein was titled 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'? There appears no light clock at all in this article.) Do not think that SR is based on the example of the light clock!

I thought this was everybody's favourite statistical mechanics story... An exam question "Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?" "First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze." Obviously, I pinched that from the web. :-)

You are right, it was my mistake. I was thinking of capsids as I am more familiar with those as vaccination targets and have muddled up things, including the fact that coronavirus is in fact enveloped. My apologies. Recombinant envelope proteins have also been used but often are trickier to handle. And again, the issues are the same, even in native form they may not be recognized well, a synthetic form may not correspond well to the native form (i.e. your "fake virus" may not result in the desired recognition) and it may actually be harmful. So at this point I can just re-iterate that synthesizing a protein in vitro does not necessarily make it the same as what the virus does in a cell. This is why we still have attenuated vaccines rather than just taking a pathogen protein and call it a day, for example. The target folks are focussed most on in coronavirus are the spike proteins that target ACE receptors. But even then, getting the antigen just right is difficult. So to re-iterate, taking a protein (envelope, capsid, or whatever) based on its DNA sequence does not make it suitable vaccination substrate. Jesus, that should be criminally persecuted, no doubt.

These questions are not easy to answer in a short post- one could hold a full lecture on it in depth. Based on the questions I think you have still a "static" view of the cell, which is typically taught in highschool and often in the first semesters of uni. But be prepared to modify it quite a bit, in order to better understand what is going on. Obviously only short pointers can be given here and only a deeper reading will provide you with the proper context. 1) depends on you define specific. Certain glycosylations of membrane proteins are generally only added in the Golgi systems before directed to the cell membrane. However, other forms of glycosylation are also added elsewhere. 2) obviously you have the sponteneous folding in an aqueous environment, but there are also plenty of chaperones in the cytosol- they are highly abundant proteins. 3) technically all eukaryotic ribosomes are cytosolic- they are either free or associated with a membrane. The pathways proteins can take are complex but they can e.g. be directed via endosomal pathways to the Golgi. However, proteins synthesized in the cytosol can also be directed to the ER and from there to the Golgi. There are also a number of non-canonical vesicular pathways, but let's just say that understanding intracellular protein trafficking requires serious reading. 4) There are again multiple models for how ER-localized translation works. In the classical, mRNA-ribosomal complexes are directed to the ER after initiation utilizing so called signal recognition particles. In other words, initiation is assumed to be a fully cytosolic action, the translocation to a membrane occurs afterward. However, there is recent evidence that ER-bound ribosomes also produce non-membrane targeted (i.e. cytosolic) proteins, which challenges some prior assumptions. As a whole, there is more recognition of ribosomal dynamics, which respond to a vast number of cellular cues (such as stress).

+1 +1 Folks are trying to help you here but you definitely need to clarify your thinking. Perhaps if you were to base your question(s) on conventional fire analysis that would help. Are you aware of the concept of 'fire load' ? https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=5Cc4XvKACceHjLsP66ShwAs&q=building+fire+load&oq=building+fire+load&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30l2.2066.5876..6192...0.0..0.1094.7148.0j2j3j3j2j0j4j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i3j0i13j0i13i5i30j0i8i13i30.c-32UuhPEzk&ved=0ahUKEwjygsT1xbXnAhXHA2MBHWtSCLgQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

Do you have a source for this or is this something you heard somewhere? it is difficult to answer questions about how the wind would effect burning steel in an office fire when a piece of steel doesn't burn. You need to formulate a better question.

Not an effect I am aware of. Nor can I imagine a mechanism where the level of water vapour would affect molten metal. If there were a mist of water droplets in the air then I can imagine that coming into contact with a hot surface might have some small effect. They are bizarre and oddly specific. What are they based on? If the oxygen was depleted, then the burning would stop.

Hello I'm currently in my last year of highschool, and interested in chemistry/biology fields. Though I've limited knowledge, I hope to expand that knowledge and thought this seemed like a good place to hangout and that's pretty much it. (I'm not great at intros)

Just adding a random virus protein does not guarantee a useful immune response, and it can also cause adverse effects as mentioned. In quite a few cases it is necessary to modify the virus capsids in vitro in order to make them useful as vaccines. In vitro synthesis of viral particles can result in quite a different structure than in vivo, but for the latter you need to isolate and propagate the virus. Moreover glycosylation can make them difficult to be recognized and conversely, viral particles injected in significant amounts can lead to adverse inflammatory responses. mRNA only needs to be delivered to the cell. The nucleus is not the area where translation happens.

I spoke with Senator Warren today. Asked about getting things done in an age of recalcitrance and how even things supported by vast majorities of US citizens still die in congress more often than not. I’ll be caucusing for her tomorrow night as we Iowans kick off the voting season for 2020. My concern is it won’t be enough. The polls seem to be all about Bernie vs Biden these last few days. My pick may not come out ahead (tho New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday states all clearly matter, too, so can’t write anyone off just bc of tomorrow). She’s flying back to Washington tonight for impeachment activities Monday. This is my first election cycle in Iowa. I got to meet a few US Senators and a pretty popular mayor. Unfortunately, the math didn’t work out for me to get jumped into the Gang. Regardless... This is way better than voting in Texas... and I’ll only need to wait another 1,460 days to do it again. Anyway, I even got a picture with her dog Bailey. He’s a good boi... yes he is. 🐶

There’s not much point. Conspiracy nuts don’t believe their theories because of evidence so (more) evidence isn’t going to change their minds. It is better to just ignore them and let them fester in their own basements. Apart from the anti-vaxers who should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

No, the idea is to have mRNA coding for viral structure expressed by the host and presented as an antigen. Just synthesizing a random viral part in vitro usually has very low success rate. You do not know whether the part elicits a suitable response, nor can you always ensure that whatever you synthesize has still its native form. Even worse, injecting it in relative high concentration can also have adverse effects without actually conferring immunity. That is why when you start designing a vaccine you often have to work with the intact virus and either design around an attenuated form or, if you can, isolate a workable part. But that requires time. Even then, if a good target is known the big time consuming step are the trials. In extreme cases there are accelerated trials where requirements are relaxed. Nonetheless you still need to show that it actually helps. And just sticking a random viral structure in and hope for the best is unlikely to work.

No. I don't see how an alien can be living "currently" and "in the future" (well, I suppose "the future" includes the rest of their lifetime). That has nothing to do with "universal now" or "one present". An alien living now, some distance away, could be watching us as we were in the past. And an alien living in the future could see us as we are now. But nether of those seem to fit what you said. Also, this is completely off topic. So start a new thread if you want to discuss light propagation delay.

These are not terms generally used in physics analyses.

Surely the proposed scenario demonstrates exactly why there is no universal 'now'. Now of course equates to 'the present', whatever that may be. My (or that of any observer) 'now' is made up of an enclosing or envelopeing 'bubble' around me containing signals from an enormous number of sources. Depending upon how long it took each signal to reach me all those signals are of different ages.

Absolutely. The average distance to planets found so far is about 2000 light years. (Still off topic, though.)

Please start another thread to discuss the finite speed of light. So we observe a planet 2000 light year away. So we are seeing it as it was 2,000 years ago. The alien civilization may just be getting started (or maybe is already well developed) at that point. 4,000 years after that, a future alien of that civilization is observing Earth. They see it as it was 2,000 years before that; ie. as it is now. *waves* What is the problem with that (apart from language not really making it easy to describe events happing in the past in the future - we need the future historic tense).

This is one of the reasons that physics doesn't tend to rely on the terms future/present/past. Language is sloppy and imprecise, and relativity makes a further muddle of relative timing.

That's a shame. *shrug* If you see a lightning flash and then a few seconds later here the thunder, do you worry that they didn't happen at the same time. It doesn't sound like there is any science here, just your confusion about the finite speed of light. We have had this conversation before and it doesn't seem that anyone can help you get your head around it.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that the flash of lightning happens "now" (even though it was actually microseconds ago) and the thunder happens later. Even though both happened at the same time at the origin (which you would call "now" if you were located there). I can't see what is confusing about that. And maybe sometimes we can't see the lightning but I don't know how that is relevant. I also can't see what the problem is with the relative time difference between two planets separated by a significant light-travel delay. This is the same thing we saw when astronauts were on the moon. There was a 2 or 3 second delay before the signal got there then another delay before their reply got back. So conversations were filled with 5 second pauses. Nothing odd about that. Well, that's true. We are all travelling in parallel to the future. But we will see other's time at a slightly different rate. So when we experience 2,000 years pass on Earth, we may see that 1,999 years have passed on that distant planet because of relative difference in speed.

No. Everyone will (possibly) measure a different value for t. (As was explained in the thread this was split from.)

And everybody will say that (their) now is "now". But even if you could synchronise all those different perceptions of "now", then the next "now" would not be synchronised.