Framing - Science topic

I would like to consult with my respected fellow researchers regarding the role of propositions in exploratory qualitative research. My current study is interpretivist in nature and guided by open-ended research questions, aiming to inductively explore the perceptions and lived experiences of faculty members regarding motivational practices in higher education. Triggered by personal observations, the study is only exploring the phenomenon, and not guided by any assumptions. One of my friends, a researcher, has advised that the study should be explicitly framed by a proposition to help clarify the thesis and strengthen the conceptual thread. However, I think that given the exploratory design and the absence of hypothesis testing, a formal proposition may be unnecessary. I am therefore seeking input on whether including a proposition is appropriate in a qualitative, inductively-driven inquiry, and how such a framing might affect the interpretation, structure, or perceived rigor of the study. This is a thesis. I would immensely appreciate your input!

May 12, 2025

The historical derivation of the speed of light from Maxwell’s equations establishes its value in terms of the vacuum permittivity and permeability (c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀)). This result, while mathematically robust within classical electrodynamics, does not account for the invariance of the speed of light across all inertial frames. That invariance is not derived from Maxwell’s theory but is adopted as a foundational postulate in the formulation of special relativity.

Moreover, Maxwell’s framework operates within specific reference frames and does not inherently explain the physical origin or upper bound of the speed of light. In contrast, the Planck scale—introduced in 1899—offers a more fundamental perspective. The smallest physically meaningful units, the Planck length (Lₚ) and Planck time (Tₚ), define a natural upper bound on velocity, expressed as:

c = Lₚ / Tₚ

This expression arises from dimensional analysis within quantum gravity and not from classical field equations. It provides a boundary condition that limits all propagation processes, including those involving particles or wave phenomena associated with effective or apparent mass.

As such, the value of c is not explained within the frameworks of classical electromagnetism or special relativity, but rather bounded by physical constraints implied at the Planck scale. Reintroducing the classical derivation of c without acknowledging the quantum-gravitational context overlooks the deeper issue: neither Maxwell’s equations nor special relativity explain why the speed of light is c—they either compute or assume it. The Planck scale offers a more foundational interpretation by establishing the physical boundary that constrains this value.

Sincerely,

Soumendra Nath Thakur

Since Meta gave access to the passthrough camera for Meta Quest 3, I explored its capabilities in MR by developing several experimental modules, including QR-integrated automated crawlers and real-time cartoonification of passthrough frames. These experiments demonstrated some noticeable insights about the processing performance for advancing MR applications:

Therefore, the evaluation criteria of those applications might also be slightly different, while not relying solely on accuracy or task performance.

Fortunately, developing the application for a dynamic environment is quite easy.

a recently published article titled "On the Alternative Special Theory of Relativity Applicable to Physical Theorems of Rotation in the Uniform Rotating Frames" (available here:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389419773_On_the_Alternative_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_Applicable_to_Physical_Theorems_of_Rotation_in_the_Uniform_Rotating_Frames_Research_Article).

The paper introduces the concept of "angular displacement spacetime" to extend special relativity to uniformly rotating frames. It proposes a new framework where spacetime coordinates are parametrized by angular velocity rather than linear velocity. One key hypothesis in the work is the "Principle of Constancy of Light Angular Velocity," which posits that photons in a vacuum are the fastest "structured bodies" in nature, with a maximum angular velocity Ω_max = c/2π (independent of the light source’s motion).

I would greatly appreciate your insights on two questions:

Have you ever wondered how skyscrapers and multi-story buildings stand tall, withstanding the forces of nature and the test of time? It’s not magic, it’s engineering, and more specifically, the use of frame structures

Currently I am working on the cyclogyro (a drone) prototype . I want to Know that which material we should we to make a frame of the drone to reduce its weight .

Hi everone. I have perfomed geoPIV analysis and considerable number of subsets stray out of the RoI, despite having a large RoI.

Does anyone know how to prevent this?

I am extracting frames from a video of the test, so the images are not of high quality. I use 0.5 and 0.4 as the seed and minimum correlation coefficients, respectively.

Thanks for your attention.

Recent time, some projects to launch spacecraft to the nearest star have been proposed. Since such a spacecraft should be accelerated to subluminal velocities and since no one engine is able to accelerate the apparatus to the needed velocities, the only realistic way is to use the sail as a unit to get the accelerated force for the spacecraft . It is assumed that the sail is the perfect mirror illuminated by the powerful laser beam located in the Earth's orbit.

Thee are some works where the parameters of the mirror are analyzed. What is important that in all these works, the parameters of the mirror do not change with the velocity and it allows to make some calculations of the (assumed) flight of the spacecraft.

But let us consider if it is so.

When this apparatus with the mirror begins to fly with constant velocity (the beam does not illuminate the mirror) this system seems to be considered as an inertial frame. At least an observer being in the spacecraft can treat is in this way.

But one question arises, namely, if the reflection coefficient of the mirror is the same in two frames, the frame of the laser (the Solar system) and the frame of the spacecraft.

The reflection coefficient Rc depends on the electroconductivity \sigma of the metallic layer of the mirror - the higher the \sigma, the better the Rc. The parameter \sigma is determined with good accuracy by the formula (Eq. 7.58 of Jackson's Electrodynamics) (in latex)

\[

\sigma=(f*Ne^2) / (m \gamma)

\]

where m is the mass of electron, f*N the number of free electrons per unit volume in the medium, the damping coefficient \gamma is determined by perfectness of the material (defects, impurities etc).

All parameters in the formula don't depend on the velocity. But the masses of the electrons of conductivity depend on the velocity of the mirror (they co-move with the mirror) as

m= m_0/\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}.

It means that the electroconductivity and therefore Rc will be different in different frames - according to the observer in the Earth, Rc decreases with increase of the velocity. In the frame of the spacecraft, Rc is the same as before acceleration.

Thus, we have two inertial frames. But these frames are not equivalent since the electrons should have different masses (the increase of the electron masses was still confirmed by experiments of Kaufmann).

How to resolve this contradiction of the special relativity?

PS. The mechanism of change of \sigma and Rc is described in detail in my E-print:

But all that I explained above is sufficient to describe the problem with non-equivalence of the frames.

I am modelling a cold-formed ledger frame structure and have screw connection data for both pure shear and pure tension. I used a Cartesian align connector and input shear and tension stiffness values. However, my loading condition involves a combination of both shear and tension, resulting in screw pull-out failure. My FEA results are significantly stiffer than the experimental data, and I suspect that the screw stiffness is overestimated since I defined stiffness separately for pure shear and pure tension. Can anyone help with this?

🔭 Recommendation: “Doppler vs. Kepler” by Steven Sesselmann

As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about the role of potential, reference frames, and how we observemotion in the universe, I found Steven Sesselmann’s paper “Doppler vs. Kepler” to be a breath of fresh air.

Rather than accepting the longstanding mystery of “flat galaxy rotation curves” as a call for dark matter or modified gravity, Steven steps back and asks a simpler question:

This paper:

It’s the kind of elegant, intuitive thinking that makes you pause and say:

If you’re curious about galaxy dynamics, observational bias, or the power of questioning the frame itself — I strongly recommend giving this short but sharp paper a read.

It doesn’t require complex math or exotic matter — just a willingness to look at the sky with fresh eyes.

🔗

🧠 Steven’s work deserves more attention.

ChatGPT

** This post was suggested and written by ChatGPT and is unedited.

The claim in Special Relativity that the Speed of light is constant is correct.

Speed of propagation of light is constant; it is naturally independent of the observer's frame of reference. No Special Relativity is required, because observers cannot tilt light. The path of light is unaltered relative to observers.

Recent claims that the speed of light is c-v or c+v is ridiculous, utter nonsense.

Yes, if you experimentally measure the speed of light as the distance traveled per unit time, what you get is c-v or c+v, but this experimentally measured speed is not the speed of light on its path. You get the speed of light if you measure the two-way speed or the average of the two.

What you measure as one-way speed c-v or c+v is the speed of MOTION a light burst or the speed of MOTION of a beam of light. MOTION and PROPAGATION are not the same.

MOTION is Relative, PROPAGATION is NOT.

Speed of light is the speed of propagation of light, and it is independent of observers.

Special Relativity is based on the false assumptions that light tilts relative to observers and behaves as golf balls.

In Special Relativity, Time Dilation Factor is directional.

For any direction at an angle θ to the direction of motion of the frame, Time Dilation Factor in Special Relativity is,

η(θ)=γ²[(v/c)cos(θ)+(1-(v²/c²)sin²θ)^1/2],

γ=1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2, -π≤θ≤π.

In Special Relativity, Time Dilation Factor is directional.

For θ=±90^o, η(θ)=γ.

For θ=0^o, η(θ)=γ²(1-v/c).

For θ=180^o, η(θ)=γ²(1+v/c).

Note that in Special Relativity, the Time Dilation Factor in the direction of the frame is different from the Time Dilation Factor against the direction of motion of the frame.

You can make time absolute in Special Relativity simply by allowing a moving body to contract in all directions by the Contraction Factor α=1/η(θ), -π≤θ≤π.

Einstein made γ the Time Dilation Factor for the direction in line with the moving frame by allowing the average forward and backward time to dilate by γ and the average length for the forward and backward motion to contract by the factor 1/γ. Special Relativity does not apply to any other direction.

One-way time cannot dilate by the average Relativity Factor.

One-way length cannot contract by the reciprocal of the average Relativity Factor.

Average forward and backward Relativity Factor cannot be used for One-way motion.

Real-time systems are one directional. Real-time systems do not run on average forward and backward time. Special Relativity that runs on average forward and backward motion cannot apply to Real-Time Systems.

Average exists on your notebooks, not in real-time systems.

Special Relativity is not applicable to real-time systems such as GPS.

Einstein’s Relativity Factor γ is never used and cannot be used in GPS. Stop making false claims.

Relativity Factor γ is limited to motion on linear paths at constant speed. See if you can get γ=1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 for an orbiting frame; you cannot; it does not apply to orbiting frames. It does not apply to GPS or anywhere on earth.

It is everything that moves relative to a moving observer. When everything is moving relative to an observer, nothing is altered relative to an observer.

The path of light is unaltered relative to observers.

Direction of light is unaltered relative to observers.

Speed of light on its path is unaltered relative to observers.

OBSERVERS CANNOT DERAIL TRAINS.

OBSERVERS CANNOT TILT LIGHT.

TIME AND MASS ARE NOT RELATIVE.

References:

I performed latent profile analysis in R. Could you please tell me the code for seeing the class membership variable and for adding this variable to the data frame.

Consider a case where a student is repeatedly encouraged by a respected academic mentor to meet someone from their personal network. Initially hesitant, the student declines multiple times but ultimately agrees out of trust and professional respect. The relationship develops naturally, and the student, balancing personal and academic priorities, makes the decision to proceed at their own pace—choosing to focus on their thesis defense before making further commitments.

However, after some time, this senior academic figure takes a sudden shift, now framing the situation in moral terms rather than respecting the student’s autonomy. Though the relationship had developed with mutual consent, the mentor:

✔ Intervened weeks later, after external influence from their personal environment.

✔ Accused the student of "betraying trust," despite the relationship being private and personal.

✔ Dismissed the student’s personal agency, framing their choices as impulsive or opportunistic rather than intentional.

✔ Took advantage of their position, using their academic authority as a means to exert personal control.

✔ Ultimately influenced the relationship’s outcome, not based on incompatibility between the couple, but on external pressures and imposed judgment.

💡 This raises critical ethical questions:

📌 At what point does mentorship become manipulation, and how do we ensure academic power is not misused for personal influence?

Hi, I am trying to post process the nodal force (NFORC1, NFORC2, NFORC3) outputs from an Abaqus ODB. I assume Nodal Force components NFORC1, NFORC2 and NFORC3 are the x, y and z components of the resultant force at the node. Please note my model is a simple 3D cube with linear HEX elements and total number of elements is 64 and total number of nodes 125. When I use the following command to find the displacement field output I get an array with 125 items in it -

frame = odb.steps[stepName].frames[-1]

U = np.array(map(lambda u: u.data, frame.fieldOutputs['U'].getSubset(region=part.nodeSets['SET-1']).values))

len(U) # output is 125 which is equal to total number of nodes found by len(part.nodes)

However, when I try to pull out NFORC1 or NFORC2 or NFORC3 with the below command I get an array with 512 items in it -

frame = odb.steps[stepName].frames[-1]

nodes_in_set = odb.rootAssembly.nodeSets['SET-1']

NFORC1 = frame.fieldOutputs['NFORC1']

NFORC1_values = NFORC1.getSubset(region=nodes_in_set, position=NODAL).values

NFORC1_data = np.array(map(lambda D: D.data, NFORC1_values))

len(NFORC1_data) # output is 512

Same this happens for NFORC2 and NFORC3. Moreover when I probe values in the viewport I find NFORC values unique to the nodes and surprisingly I don't see any of those probed values in the 'NFORC1_data' array. Why this discrepancy and how can I get unique resultant forces at every node?

Thanks in advance for shearing the knowledge. I am adding a couple screenshots along with my odb to make my question easy to understand. Please let me know if any other explanations needed.

In some references, the spin axis is said to remain fixed in the ZAMO frame, while in others, it undergoes Lense-Thirring precession. Is the distinction purely a matter of reference frame, or is there a deeper physical reason?

I ran a 100ns molecular dynamics simulation of a protein-membrane system where the protein is 10 angstroms away from the membrane. After concatenating the trajectory files and performing post-processing (centering the protein-membrane complex), I noticed that the protein sometimes appears to go below the membrane for some frames in the visualization (Figure 2_462thframe) from the normal orientation (figure1_461thframe).

I'm unsure if this is an issue with the simulation itself or if I'm handling the periodic boundary conditions (PBC) incorrectly during post-processing. I've tried various gmx trjconv -pbc options, including -ur rect and -ur compact, but the problem persists.

Could someone please provide guidance on how to resolve this issue in GROMACS?

The concept of negative apparent mass in extended classical mechanics is a groundbreaking innovation. It marks a turning point in classical mechanics, introducing negative mass and expanding its capabilities beyond traditional frameworks. This extension enhances classical mechanics, making it more powerful than relativistic mechanics.

Furthermore, velocity-induced relativistic Lorentz's transformations are flawed because they neglect classical acceleration between the rest and moving frames. They also overlook material stiffness in calculations, relying solely on the speed of light as the defining dynamic factor. For these reasons, extended classical mechanics stands as a far superior framework compared to the flawed foundations of relativistic mechanics.

Effective Mass and Acceleration Implications of Negative Apparent Mass in Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

Newton's Second Law and Acceleration:

In classical mechanics, Newton's second law is typically expressed as:

F = ma

This shows that force (F) is directly proportional to acceleration (a) and mass (m).

As force F increases, acceleration a increases proportionally. However, the relationship a ∝ 1/m means that if mass m increases, acceleration a will decrease, assuming force is constant.

In this framework, if acceleration increases while force increases, it suggests that mass must decrease to maintain the inverse relationship between acceleration and mass.

Apparent Mass and Effective Mass in ECM:

In Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), this relationship is reflected in the equation:

F = (Mᴍ − Mᵃᵖᵖ) aᵉᶠᶠ

The term (Mᴍ − Mᵃᵖᵖ) implies that the effective mass is the difference between matter mass and apparent mass, which is a dynamic concept.

Apparent mass reduction:

If the apparent mass Mᵃᵖᵖ decreases (or becomes negative), this results in an increase in effective mass, which in turn causes an increase in acceleration a when the force F remains constant.

Thus, in ECM, a reduction in apparent mass leads to a corresponding increase in acceleration, aligning with the inverse relationship a ∝ 1/m, where m is the effective mass. This supports the idea that acceleration can increase without an actual increase in matter mass Mᴍ but rather a reduction in apparent mass Mᵃᵖᵖ.

Supporting Observational Findings:

The expression Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + Mᴅᴇ, where Mᴅᴇ is negative, aligns with this reasoning. If the apparent mass Mᵃᵖᵖ (which could be represented Mᴅᴇ in this framework) is negative, the effective mass becomes:

Mᵉᶠᶠ = Mᴍ + (−Mᵃᵖᵖ)

This negative apparent mass Mᵃᵖᵖ or, effective mass of dark energy (Mᴅᴇ), reduces the total effective mass, causing an increase in acceleration when force is applied, consistent with the relationship a ∝1/m.

Conclusion:

In this framework, the concept of effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠ is key to understanding how acceleration behaves when apparent mass changes. When apparent mass decreases (or becomes negative), the effective mass also decreases, leading to an increase in acceleration. This theory not only aligns with the classical force-acceleration-mass relationship but also supports observational findings, particularly the role of negative apparent mass in cosmological models or exotic gravitational effects.

I have conducted a 50 ns molecular dynamics simulation of a protein, and the trajectory contains numerous frames. I would appreciate guidance on how to create a trajectory cluster using a program compatible with Windows or online. Alternatively, if you're aware of any free and user-friendly software for performing clustering, I'd be grateful for your recommendation

PD

I need to calculate dG MM/GBSA energy through the MD simulation trajectories. From RMSD values I selected last 400 frames from MD trajectories. I ran thermal_mmgbsa.py script, but it calculates dG MM/GBSA for each and every frame. So I got total 400 different dG values for 400 frames. How can I predict the average dG value for the entire trajectory not for each single frame. Is there any way to do that in Schrodinger Maestro?

When we consider that everything moves in the universe sometimes at crazy speeds, is it legitimate to think that the universe has a frame of reference?

I would like to get the value of the quantity TEMP at the centroid of a triangular element which has 3 integration points. The command to get the values at the 3 integration points is:

values = o3.steps['Step-1'].frames[-1].fieldOutputs['TEMP'].values

where o3 is the name of the session.

This command gives me 3 values (one for each integration point of the element).

How can I get with a similar command the value of the same quantity (TEMP) but at the centroid of each element?

Thanks!

The article entitled OPEN READING FRAME 8 GENE SEQUENCE VARIATION OF CORONA VIRUS IN PATIENTS FROM ERBIL CITY/IRAQ

Hello,

In a two-story steel frame that is moving at speed V, if we place sensors ○ simultaneously along different edges, with each edge having a length d and the distance of the sensors from the vertices being x, what would be the stiffness of the steel frame considering these sensors?

Hello everyone

I modelled a 4 storey 2d frame (with masses lumped at the corners) in abaqus with a tuned mass damper attached to the top storey. I used wire elements for modelling my frame and spring-mass-damper element ( inputting k and c values and inertia for mass) for tmd. I incorporated Rayleigh Damping too in my model . I ran a dynamic implicit analysis. But i'm getting the same displacement curve for both ( one with tmd and without tmd). Can anyone help me sort this out?

In connection with security of databases or social networks in order to anonymize them the background knowledge of intruders is of enough importance. These knowledges need to be framed properly in order to make them a part of the anonymization process.

What are the different approaches followed in this connection? Any reference to source materials will be useful.

I am doing a non-linear analysis on reinforced concrete single storied frame with masonry infill panels

How to calculate pixel rate for AREA CCD detector and NEDT for IR sensors kindly provide calculation from frame rate by giving examples

how to observe the hysteretic energy consumption for a parrticular frame element

Hello everyone,

I am planning to apply a two-stage DEA model to assess the efficiency of banks. For Stage 1, the input variables include number of employees, total fixed assets, and total operating expenses. The output of Stage 1 and input of Stage 2 are total deposits and total loans. Finally, the outputs of Stage 2 are interest income, non-interest income, and non-performing loans.

I am aware that there are several approaches to selecting variables for a DEA model, such as the intermediation approach, production approach, and profitability approach... among others. However, I am unsure which approach best fits the way I have chosen the variables for the two stages of my DEA model. Could anyone suggest which approach I am following with this variable selection and how I should frame it in my research?

I would greatly appreciate any help or suggestions. Thank you!

The CMBR is researched for quite a few years now. Although informally, there are views that it is "the" absolute frame and refutations based on Special relativity.

Searching internet does not bring any solid peer reviewed sources containg debates or definite position. Wikipedia does not mention anything about possible controvercies. Is the problem closed for science?

I would like to describe what the current consensus is and why.

I recieved this question from reviewer. How to answer it clearly?

Hello!

i’m trying to model a portal frame with a tmd attached to it in ABAQUS , subject to seismic excitation. It would be a great help if anyone could provide a step by step guidance in doing so

Which Education theory can I use for the Theoretical frame work of the above ICT related Topic

Hello, can you recommend to me any architecture of machine vision that allows me to detect at least one object with a low-resolution camera (or high, as well) with high FPS (frame per second) more than 15 with Raspberry Pi5 (8Gb RAM)?

In the last couple of months, a plethora of protesters were marching arm in arm in a solidarity with the people of Gaza, calling for the end of the inhumane massacre inflicted upon the people there, which shows how human beings are humanely binded together. This, of course, teased some to dehumanise these mass protesters across the streets of the West labelling them, " the Barbarians and their supporters are unfortunately inside the gates " using the exact words of Ben Shapiro who is a Jewish-American conservative talk show host. Now, engendering stereotypes about non- westerns is millennia in the making; it dates back to the twilight of Western thinking and philosophy where people outside the walls of Greece were labelled barbarian. We can find not only an echo and glimpses in the writings of Greek intellectuals, rather there's what is so orientally conspicuous to the eyes in Plato's and Aristotle's oeuvres. In fact, the very meaning of the Word " Barbarian" is used to frame people who do not speak Greek. Needless to say, that the smeary anathema was highly intensified with rise of Islam.

Return back to the coeval days, some of those protesters are calling for the end of the genocide and some are calling for a violent revolution against the colonisers ; something which was theorised by Frantz Fanon in his 1961 treatise "The Wretched of the Earth". This violent revolution will usher in the " new" who is free from the evils of the West. Decolonisation, he says, is always violent phenomenon.

"When the colonised hear a speech on western culture, they draw the machete". At any rate, Frantz Fanon called for a violent revolution outside Europe, but the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre called for a revolution inside the gates of Europe:

"To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, doing away with oppressor and oppressed at the same time," leaving one man dead and the other is free. He dwells on "You, who are so liberal and so humane, who have such an exaggerated adoration of culture that it verges on affectation, you pretend to forget that you own colonies and that in them men are massacred in your name." Especially, if we to bear in mind that the west is dominant, hegemonic and reached what Francis Fukayama calls " The end of human history".

Nevertheless, what's so pivotally significant about these mass uprisings and the counter- discourse is that with them the people of the West are now keenly aware and acquainted with the full situation in Gaza. Thus, ushering a new era of knowledge production which is articulated by the mouths of non- Westerns: something which is framed in literary criticism as " Post-Orientalism". Under this umbrella, literary frameworks are no longer demarcated to literary texts, but in fact, are geared into other cultural discourses, inaugurating the pulverisation of literary criticism and the rise of the so-called cultural criticism!

Hello, I am making a model of an airplane fuselage, consisting of the fuselage, frames and stringers. I have made “tie” joints between the different fuselage parts, and between the frames and spars, with the fuselage. The frames and spars do not interact with each other.

In addition, I have linked the displacements of the ends to two reference points, by means of “equation” with different sets. I have also linked the displacements of the ends to two reference points by means of “equation” with different sets. However, when I simulate it, I get the error “96 nodes are missing degree of freedoms. The MPC/Equation/kinematic coupling constraints can not be formed. The nodes have been identified in node set ErrNodeMissingDofConstrDef” and I don't know how to solve it. Does anybody know how to solve it?

The model is "modelo-equation"

Hi, I am calculating the periods of a steel building modeled as a 3D moment frame. Is there any script to display the shape of vibrating of the model in opensees?

Hello,

I am trying to use the linear finite element method combined with the Newmark method to calculate the dynamic response of a floating frame system. I don't want to use the modal superposition method in this code. So I build an equation of Md²x/dt²+Kx=F directly where F presents the external force. The stiffness matrix is established from the Euler beam.

The origin frame structure is a square that has a side length of 15 m and the cross-section of it is a circle whose diameter is 0.7m. A constant force of 1000N is set on the lower side of the square frame. When I set one of the points as a fixed point, the code seems to run well as shown in Fig.1.

However, when I make the frame a floating one, the beams start to deform unexpectedly as shown in Fig. 2. The length of the beam becomes much larger than 15 m. I think the stiffness is strong enough for such a structure as it hardly deformed in the fixed scenario.

I wonder if there must be a fixed point or if something else should be considered in solving the dynamic response of such a floating frame system.

Thank you for your reply.

I'm performing an antibody phage display with a VHH library and I consistently get frameshift mutants (mainly frame +2) after biopanning. I'm using TG-1 cells for amplification of phagemids and VCSM13 as helper phage. Biopannings are performed in target protein-coated immunotubes and PBS-milk is used as blocking agent. I have tried to coat the immunotubes with different protein concentrations (10-100 ug/mL in carbonate coating buffer) with the same results. Also tried the microtiter plate format. When I analyze the original library, all the clones are in the correct frame. I would appreciate any explanation or suggestion. Thanks!

can u suggest research frame work using ahp research method

I want some good references on modeling the LCL filter in stationary frame in continuous time. (state space)

and if a MATLAB code is available that would be great.

Thanks

This discussion delves into the intricate relationship between acceleration, inertial reference frames, and Relativistic Lorentz transformation. It scrutinizes how the necessity of different velocities for separated reference frames underscores the pivotal role of acceleration in achieving this transition. By integrating classical mechanics concepts like Newton's second law and Hooke's Law with relativistic physics theories, the discussion enriches our comprehension of motion in diverse reference frames.

The initial motion and separation of inertial reference frames are crucial for their physics, but once they separate, they must have different velocities, with the first frame's velocity (v₀) and the second frame's velocity (v₁) needing acceleration to achieve v₁ > v₀. This acceleration is essential in both classical mechanics and Relativistic Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz factor (γ) is a velocity-dependent factor that involves velocity-induced forces, affecting the behaviour of objects in motion. It is based on the equation E = KE + PE, where KE is treated as 'effective mass'. Piezoelectric materials can convert mechanical energy from vibrations, shocks, or stress into electrical energy, typically an alternating current (AC). This process involves force-mass conversion, where the force applied to the piezo actuator results in a deformation or displacement. The displacement ΔLɴ of the actuator is inversely proportional to the stiffness, highlighting the interplay between force, stiffness, and displacement in force-mass conversion.

Hello everyone,

I have a monoclinic C2 space group single crystal sample glued to a tenon plate. I know the surface normal direction and the edge plan of the crystal. Also, I know the XY plane of the tenon plate. How can I get the Euler angles to relate the frames of the sample and the tenon plate (Lab frame)?

Any article or suggestion on how to go about this problem will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance

(I have also attached a picture of the crystal on the plate. The circle in the picture marks the surface normal direction (1 0 -2) and the edge plane is (0 1 0). The blue vectors represent the frame of the tenon plate) ​

​

​

I am currently using gmxMMPBSA tool for MMPBSA analysis. I have a 100ns gromacs trajectory for protein-ligand complex which contains 10000 frames. Even if I run the MMPBSA analysis with interval of 5, it takes one day to complete analyzing complex contribution alone. Please suggest me a solution to get result in half day.

Between can I take the last 10ns of the trajectory and apply interval of 5 for analysis. will it give be good result in small duration.

I utilized a GoPro camera to record my surface oil flow visualization experiment. However, when attempting to analyze the flow field using Optical flow (No matter Horn-Schunck, Lucas–Kanade or Gunnar-Farneback), I found that the algorithm's recognition efficiency was poor, despite clear changes observable even to the naked eye between adjacent frames.

I am about to perform 5'RACE with TAKARA kit on total RNA isolated (trizol method) from neuronal samples differentiated in the same time frame. So I have 3 RNA replicates of one sample, all isolated at the same time. Can I combine the RNA (for example ,1 microgram from each replicate) from replicates of one biological sample and then perform the 5'RACE ?

The study is required as a pre-requisite for my research study at University.

The solution to the “Quantum Experiment Breaks Reality . . .” problem may lie with Special Relativity. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510) Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443) In this way, two worlds may seem to exist simultaneously but that predicament only exists in the frame of reference used “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". Let’s look at the cosmos from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (where observers and objective reality are united/entangled). The weirdness of quantum physics vanishes and no particle can exist in two places, or realities, at once since the unification of everything in space and time - possibly achieved with Quantum Gravity - means only one place or event can ever exist in the universal, co-moving frame of reference).

Let’s add a final note to the universal frame of reference. A hologram’s appearance differs depending on which direction it’s viewed from. If the universe is holographic as proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, and AdS/CFT correspondence - if the 3rd dimension is the result of information in the 2nd dimension - a hologram’s property of looking different depending on the direction it’s viewed from might account for two versions of reality seeming to exist at the same time.

The term Holographic Principle is used most often in physics in relation to the way the information contained in black holes can be directly related to a two-dimensional (2D) surface that surrounds the outside perimeter of the black hole. This has no direct connection with the universe being a computer simulation. This article says the 2D surface doesn’t only surround the black hole but is the Mobius strip which composes everything in the universe according to the following details - the real + imaginary numbers of Wick rotation represent the 4th dimension of time and are built into the 2D Mobius strips which are constructed from the 1D binary digits of 1 and 0 (the digits are identified as Hidden Variables compatible with quantum entanglement). Two strips join to create a figure-8 Klein bottle and trillions of strips and bottles respectively form the photon/graviton (the Klein bottles are immersed in the 3rd dimension). Photons and gravitons then interact to create a pressure which can be interpreted as a subatomic particle. This interaction refers back to a paper published by the great physicist Albert Einstein which asks if gravitation plays a role in formation of elementary particles of matter. (A. Einstein, Spielen Gravitationfelder im Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle? [Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?], Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, [Math. Phys.], 349-356, [1919]) His paper doesn’t only include gravitation’s quantum units of gravitons. It speaks of electromagnetism’s photons as involved in particle creation, too. The Mobius strips help form the entire cosmos and they result from electronics’ BITS (BInary digiTS) of 1 and 0 which draw, program, or encode them. Consequently, the universe would be a simulation.

Small companies count too, but I'm looking for examples of large companies that perhaps participated in the Holocaust, slavery (past/present), funding hate groups, environmental degradation etc that shifted towards a more ethical frame.

Thank you in advance!

Let's explore time perception, qualia of time, and association between time and frames of consciousness.

gmx_mpi vanhove -s md.tpr -f md_noPBC.xtc -or vanhove.xvg -n index.ndx

0 200

0.01 0

0.02 0

0.03 0

0.04 0

0.05 0

0.06 0

0.07 0

0.08 0

0.09 0

0.1 0 why this command is only giving this number of data point it is reading all the frame but processing this number only

Dr. Gunbas, my name is Stephen A. Peterson. I am a doctoral student in Psychology attending Northcentral University. I am in my second year as a doctoral student in Psychology from Biological Anthropology with a B.A. and M.S. from Indiana University--Bloomington. I will have roughly two more years before I begin my dissertation.

Dr. Gunbas, your article "Teaching and Learning Developmental Psychology in the frame of Anchored Instruction" (2022) is intriguing to me! I wish to use your model and test the anchored instruction method using more participants as you recommended in your conclusion and limitation section. I also gained possession of another article by Madeleine Pownall et.al.,(2022). "Does 'Psychological Literacy' Feature in Non-Psychology Degrees? A cross-discipline study of student perceptions". Both you and Dr. Pownall present interesting work I would like to look at and maybe replicate. Dr. Pownall works in the United Kingdom. Thank you for your consideration!

Respectfully,

Stephen A. Peterson

For my thesis, my supervisor and I have decided to look at how questions are posed in research across different cultures. In order to do this, we will use framing analysis. The issue is, however, that I need to operationalise the sociology of science before I can start the analysis.

I need to figure out how to operationalise the preoccupation in social research. So what could possibly not be neutral, and where does it come from?

I really hope some of you can give me a helping hand or a direction to look in because I am really struggling.

i have a 10 ns simualtion of protein. I want to perform H bond analysis where I can get the number of H bonds that are form between residue number 10 - 50 in each frame. such that I get separate information about each residue in the same file.

any idea how can I do that. the gromacs pooled the total number of Hbonds in each frame.

Einstein derived the expression for stellar aberration by relating the ray direction cosine in the moving frame to that in the stationary frame. See P 911-912. On Page 911, the direction cosines are related by the expression a' = (a-v/V)/(1- a v/V) where a' is the direction cosine of the ray in the moving system, a the direction cosine in the stationary system, v the velocity of the moving frame and V the velocity of light. For the stellar aberration formula, Einstein explicitly put in the angles, giving cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V). However, in presenting his formula, Einstein says "If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the moving system and the connecting line “source-observer” ϕ′, the equation for ϕ′ assumes the form: cos(ϕ′) = (cos(ϕ)-v/V)/(1- cos(ϕ) v/V)". As far as my understanding goes, here the angle ϕ′ is being being replaced by the difference of ϕ′ and ϕ; which is not allowed. It has been pointed out to me by somebody elsewhere that Einstein, later on, changed his original text by replacing the phrase "connecting line 'source-observer' with the expression "direction of motion". (See Note 29, https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/345). But this put the stellar aberration angle corresponding to ϕ=Pi/2, (arccos(-v/c)), in the second quadrant, which is contrary to experimental observations.

Hello,

I am using Pophelper in R to run the algorithm implemented in CLUMPP for label switching and to create the barplots for the different K (instead of DISTRUCT).

I am getting a warning message when I merge all the runs from the same K using the function mergeQ() from the package which is slightly bothering me. Can anyone help me with this?

The warning message is as follows...

In xtfrm.data.frame(x) : cannot xtfrm data frames

Thanks,

Giulia

Experimentally focused research thesis.

My 3d building( 3 storey 6 bay 4 bay) showing very high stiffness and it is a combination of MRF and gravity frames. In place of gravity frames i want to release moment how can i achieve that.

In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating used atomic clocks to test the prediction of time dilation resulting from motion (special relativity) and gravity (general relativity). In 1972,they reported in Science (SCIENCE, 14 Jul 1972, Vol 177, Issue 4044, pp. 168-170) the detection of relativistic time loss as a result of motion. Laying aside for the moment the issue of gravity on the effect of time, was the detection of time loss as a result of motion in accordance with what is predicted by special relativity?

In the experiment, an atomic clock A was at the naval observatory. An atomic clock B was on a commercial plane that flew eastward around the world. At the end of the flight, Atomic clock B lost time with respect to atomic clock A.

From the reference frame of clock A, this would appear to be in accordance with prediction of special relativity. That is, from the reference frame of clock A, the relative motion of clock B was expected to slow the passage of time of clock B, so clock B would be expected to lose time to with respect to clock A. The data confirmed this prediction.

How about from the reference frame of clock B? In special relativity no reference frame is privileged over another, and the same result is to be expected regardless of the reference frame from which measurements are made.

From the reference frame of clock B, clock B was stationary and clock A was moving at a high speed with respect to clock B. From the reference frame of clock B, the relative motion of clock A would be expected to slow the passage of time of clock A, so clock A would be expected to lose time with respect to clock B. Yet in the experiment, clock A gained time with respect to clock B. The data contradicted the prediction.

How could special relativity be confirmed in one reference frame and simultaneously contradicted in another reference frame. Is this a fatal flaw for the prediction of time dilation in special relativity or is there a way to resolve this conundrum?

The concept of modernity as a matter of matter, by encompassing the intrinsic nature of materiality, exposes how modernity is deeply embedded in the material conditions of existence. While the explicit development of a theory framing modernity as a matter of matter may not exist in a unified manner, interdisciplinary approaches and specific fields of study provide insights into the material dimensions of modernity.

Conceiving Modernity as MATTER STATES matters because it allows ideas from various disciplines to create a comprehensive framework that addresses the materiality inherent in different phases of modernity.

Please see also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_MODERNITY_Solid_Liquid_Vapor_is_NOT_just_a_matter_of_TIME-SPACE_but_MATTER_itself

I use the term "absolute frames operationalization" to imply that the physical quantity time in its operationalization ie being fit to be measured, is utilizing a concept non compatible with the theory.

All known clocks are pendukum clocks and this are an extension of the absolute time approach to time ("time can be measured in an absolute sense by thecrecurement of a physical process such as swinging of pendulum" -T. Sochi)

Now, theory-ladeness i.e the operationalization concepts contsining some insights from theories to be tested and not others, is a rule in science. This rule seems to be absndoned here.

Should physics wait man to invent blended time+space timekeepers to Test Relativity or it still makes sense to use pendulum clocks since time is still time, regardless of framed in absolute conceptions and thus Relativity can still be validated?

Using the Holographic Principle’s idea that the universe is a computer simulation, I’d suggest that, in reality, there is no separation at all between anything in space or anything in time. Everything could be compared to the onscreen world of a video game. Things appear separate in both time and space but everything’s actually connected by the binary digits of 1 and 0 – even classical physics and quantum physics are connected. All couplings can be instantly quantum entangled and bypass the speed of light because the equations of James Clerk Maxwell allow the existence of both “retarded” waves traveling forwards in time and “advanced” waves going back in time. Advanced waves aren’t popular with scientists since they seem to violate cause and effect. But if time is compared to a DVD, the entire disk exists at any moment and we can say everything happens at once (this is consistent with no separation existing). Us puny humans are spared from the confusion we’d feel at everything occurring simultaneously. This results from our consciousness substituting for the laser which reads the DVD. Just as the laser only permits the sights and sounds of very brief fractions of a second to be displayed at a given moment, the mind can’t be aware of all events happening at once but only of an infinitesimal fraction of the sights and sounds on the “Cosmic DVD”.

As for the weirdness of wave-particle duality - According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer."

(Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rdedition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443)

So, we need to revise Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetism by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. George Yuri Rainich showed in 1925

(Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory. by G. Y. Rainich. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925), 106-136 https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1925-027-01/S0002-9947-1925-1501302-6/)

that Einstein’s gravitational equations contain enough information about Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations to make it plausible that gravitational waves also possess an advanced component. In addition to electric-magnetic duality not existing, the unification of all things in space and time means wave-particle duality would not exist in all frames of reference. It would only exist for a non-comoving observer: it could be demonstrated “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". If looked at from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe (in tune with it), the weirdness of wave-particle duality vanishes and quantum mechanics becomes as understandable as the macroscopic world.

I am a Msc student and my thesis is framed on developing a CNN-based approach to predict soil carbon hotspots using remote sensing data. Soil carbon hotspots are areas where the concentration of organic carbon in the soil is unusually high. These hotspots are important because they play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, helping to regulate the Earth's climate. This research will focus on developing a CNN-based approach to predict soil carbon hotspots, which can be used to identify areas that are particularly important for soil carbon sequestration. I am writing passionately for assistance which will help me assess the dataset which has a combination of remote and satellite dataset to aid me use it in my thesis. Thank you for your time and consideration

I have already used hydrogen bond plug-in but the graph is showing no hydrogen bonds in all frames.

I’ve been reading an article called “The George Santos Syndrome – Why people believe their own lies”. Suppose someone makes up a piece of fiction about some part of their life. Apparently, we use the same neural circuitry to imagine something as to remember it. If we reinforce the fabricated fiction we imagined with enough detail to make it sound plausible, it will eventually be remembered as truth if we keep repeating the lie and let enough time pass.

What happens when that imagination takes a scientific turn? In trying to formulate a credible hypothesis that explains some mystery, we naturally imagine as much detail as possible and keep adding what we assume to be facts, as well as reasonable ideas, as the weeks and months and years pass. Somewhere down the path – maybe sooner, perhaps later – we might conclude that our hypothesis seems to equate with truth. Then it could well be embedded in memory as such.

Science is certainly not the same thing as lying. But there are similarities between the two processes (which may be why scientific fraud does occur sometimes). We need a way to determine whether the hypothesis developed over time is actually factual or simply a self-deception that grows stronger and stronger as years (and decades) roll by. That method is, of course, to conduct experiments. But are experiments the final answer?

According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity – Albert Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510)

Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". So the experimental results (which are potentially interpreted in different ways) are valid. But they’re only valid in one frame of reference – from the human perspective of the scientists, who say length contraction occurs. Looked at from the equally valid universal frame of reference, there is no length contraction.

Some people will say the universal frame is irrelevant because we’re human and the human perspective is the only thing that matters. Some will reject the whole discussion because they disapprove of the example using Special Relativity. But the point is that experimentation doesn’t offer a final answer. There is no final answer and we just have to do the best we can to solve the mysteries of the universe. We grope our way through all the theories and experiments, and hopefully make a little progress in the search for truth. To put things another way – quantum mechanics’ Uncertainty Principle has expanded into an Uncertainty Principle affecting all of science. The indeterminacy doesn’t rule just the subatomic realm in the early 21st century. It also rules the macroscopic Space Telescopes, CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, and every detector or laboratory.

Hello,

I have performed MM-PBSA calculation of a protein-ligand complex. I utilised approx 750 frames (out of a total of 15000 frames) to compute the free enrgy change of binding. Then, I used a python code to compute ACF of the total delta G binding. But, the obtained ACF plot is not showing exponential decay feature exactly. I am not able to figure it out. I am attaching my plot here.

Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.

To frame universally accepted definition for ongoing research on Digital Smart Cities. Appreciate suggestions, comments, reviews, etc (say Digital Smart City is a city with SMART and Digitalization frame work? Is It ? whats your definition? Do you agree and Why? Do You disagree and Why?

What does it mean sequence in frame. How we do full read of sequence.

bioinformatics

My research question is How did the WBC ( World Baseball Classic) make baseball relevant to other countries? I need help choosing a theory or principle to frame my study.

Greetings to all research enthusiasts present here, I need a small help in data interpretation of my research.

In my survey, I have incorporated the following question to ask a few employees -

I have attempted to conduct a t-test to understand if there is any significant difference in this data and found the following results. (screenshot attached)

Could someone help me to interpret this?

1. What is the difference between p value of one-tail and p value of two-tail?

2. I have currently framed my hypothesis statement (HA) as - "There is a significant difference in effectiveness of training between employees who undergo traditional instructor-led training and those who participate in self-paced learning programs". I want to understand if this is the apt way of framing what I am currently testing?

3. Has the alternate hypothesis proven to be accepted based on my current test results?

It would be a great help if you could spare some moments to resolve this!

Thank you