Correction - Science topic

I want to confirm if what I searched is correct. Thank you!

Hello, everyone!

I got a very weird shape of volcano plot with R. It doesn't have a typical shape and I want to figure out the reasons behind this problem.

In my plot, I found there were some some long gaps inside the Volcano plot without any dots. It seems that the data was not continuous.

However, I checked adjust p values ,they were continuous.

I couldn't understand how these gaps generated. I am sure the R code is correct.

I am wondering that it might be some thing wrong with my data processing. But I have no hint where this problem came from.

Any suggestions are welcomed!

Thank you in advance!

This is the first of a series of postings where I try to correct Physics.

Einstein's Relativity is a useful model that has lasted 118 years. It kept an original sin in Physics: the inability to see a fourth spatial dimension.

That failure is spotlighted in the current "understanding" of the Twin Paradox.

Currently, one assigns the different aging to the accelerated sections of the Traveling Twin. I showed that that is wrong. One cannot assign the slowed aging of the Traveling Twin to the accelerated sections. There is nothing magical about them.

An unbiased view of the Twin Paradox will show that Relativity is intrinsically wrong.

old critical methods , new phenomenon.

How we make 95% CI (lower and upper) far, when overlap in analysis, whether we can use effect size to make difference in lower and upper interval

The reference in ResearchGate of our paper is wrong (see joined image). This wrong reference is also visible in the Google website.

The correct reference (Doi number 10.3390/land13050592) is in the Google scholar website, hal-cnrs website (hal-04566042, version 1), and in my ORCID site (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3411-2647)

Please correct this wrong reference in ResearchGate. I tried to correct it yesterday, but it remains wrong

Best regards

Marianne Cohen

Or how to create a citation and reference using information available in a paper?

There is a serious problem about the authors of a recent publication of my reasearch team. Wrong authors have been automatically registred in ResearchGate : Angelo Castrorao Barba, Pilar Diante-Blasco, Manuel Castro-Priegi, Giuseppe Bazan, etc...

I removed these wrong names yesterday, and I put the correct names as in the following reference:

LE VOT, T.; COHEN, M.; NOWAK, M.; PASSY, P.; SUMERA, F. 2024. Resilience of Terraced Landscapes to Human and Natural Impacts: A GIS-Based Reconstruction of Land Use Evolution in a Mediterranean Mountain Valley. Land 2024, Special issue Resilience of Historical Landscapes, 13, 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13050592

Unfortunately the error is remaining in your database, and I received this morning a mail referring this paper as written by Castrorao et al. (see joined image). This error is only found in the ResearhGate system, the Doi number is correct, the reference has been saved correcty in the Hal-cnrs system (hal-04566042, version 1), with my ORCID number (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3411-2647) and on the Google scholar website.

On the Google website, wrong references from ResearchGate are mixed with the correct reference by MDPI, the errors refer to the name of the authors and to the title.

Please, could you solve this problem urgently, delete these wrong references in your system, and change the number of reads and recommandations to my account ?

Thank you in advance

Marianne Cohen and co-authors

Panel Error Correction Model (PECM) not the model Panel Vector Error Correction Model

Dear Researchers,

I am reaching out to you for your invaluable expertise in designing a questionnaire for an upcoming research project

My research focuses on exploring the strategies utilised by translation teachers in addressing errors within the classroom setting, as well as their perceptions regarding the efficacy of error correction techniques. Given the complexity and significance of this topic, I believe that your insights and guidance would greatly enhance the quality and depth of my investigation.

Your experience and expertise in translation didactics research would be invaluable in shaping the structure and content of the questionnaire, ensuring that it elicits meaningful responses and provides valuable insights into the research questions at hand.

Thank you for considering my request.

Warm regards,

Dear Researchers,

I am reaching out to you for your invaluable expertise in designing a questionnaire for an upcoming research project

My research focuses on exploring the strategies utilised by translation teachers in addressing errors within the classroom setting, as well as their perceptions regarding the efficacy of error correction techniques. Given the complexity and significance of this topic, I believe that your insights and guidance would greatly enhance the quality and depth of my investigation.

Your experience and expertise in translation didactics research would be invaluable in shaping the structure and content of the questionnaire, ensuring that it elicits meaningful responses and provides valuable insights into the research questions at hand.

Thank you for considering my request.

Warm regards,

My Hirsch index is incorrect - it is 5 not 4. can you please correct it?

If a 3D protein is obtained with the inhibitor complex, its wild-type size may change completely. In this case, it seems correct to investigate the binding mode with the inhibitor molecule. If the protein to be investigated has only an inhibitor complex, what protein should I select in the PDB and in my activator molecule research, and what path should it follow?

Hi all!

I have to quantifiy some proteins in RBCs by ELISA. Since RBC number cannot be standardized and it obviously affect the results, there is the need of some normalization. I read that many groups normalize for total protein content measured by CBA assay. However, I was wondering whether I can normalize my values by using haemoglobin, which accounts for 98% of total proteins in RBCs. For me, it would be far less time and sample consuming, since I would use a spectophotometer and very few microliters of sample, but I would like to know if someone ever used this normalization and if can be considered as correct and reliable.

Many thanks in advice!

I presume that the first author later uploaded the paper given below

Van Gorp, W. and Sevink, J. (2024): The Middle to Late Holocene in the Agro Pontino and Fondi Basin (Lazio, Italy), around the time of The Vesuvian Avellino eruption (ca. 1900 cal BC): A palaeogeographical overview. Palaeohistoria 63/64 (2022/2023), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.21827/662a4aaf39457.

This is the correct citation since it has been digitally published in April 2024

Hello,

There is an error concerning the publication https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369560828_Non_recours_aux_services_d'accueil_temps_libre_et_aux_milieux_d'accueil_de la petite_enfance_de_l'ONE

I am the author, as is Anne-Françoise Dusart, but our names do not appear on the technical report. How can we change this?

Thank you

Joëlle Mottint

One of the authors names appear wrongly or I don't know how. So i'm kindly asking your support so as to replace his name with eth correct author name.

Wrong Name: Mohamed Sharaf

Correct name: Nadia Mohamed Sharaf

I have written UMAT and it is showing correct results for tensile loading (displacement) in both (X and Y) directions. But under shear loading (shear displacement) it is not working.

I am attaching the results for all three cases. Please guide me how to resolve this problem?

I am doing some adsorption on the surface and would like to correct the total energies

Hi everyone,

I wanna know about creating the Liquid crystal model in CST.

I used Macros/ material / full tensor material. Is that the correct way for defining liquid crystals in CST?

Your help would be appreciated!

xx

Hi everyone,

Do you think it is correct to use different protocols of STZ injection to achieve a comparable levels of hyperglycemia in both male and female mice since the later is more resistant to diabetes?????

Thanks

Sherif

I would like to know if Mitutoyo objectives (specifically Mitutoyo Infinity Corrected Long Working Distance Objectives) can be put into vacuum (10^-5 mbar) and without detoriating their performance or destroying the objective.

I am analysing data from hippocampal cellular models I have 12 conditions and 3-6 technical replicates and 3 biological replicates. I have a few questions, what correction method do I use for multiple comparisons (i was told bonferroni)?, is 12 too many conditions for multiple comparisons will this always dilute my signfigance?

Can I subset my data which I think is sigificant and do the pairwise t tests on those or is that poor statistical approach?

Furthermore using % change comapred to control is that okay and can I do ANOVA and multiple comparisons on that or is it considered poor approach because there is positive and negative values and some of my standard errors of mean are crossing 0?

What happens if I dont adjust ? I understand the technical increase in false positives but each comparison is testing the effect of likely a different hormone in my case so why do I need to adjust ?please help I am very lost trying to see if there is any signifigance in my data.:)

more info:

I am measuring cytokine concentrations in the supernatant and also measuring % proliferation marker positive cells within total cells for each well , and %apoptosis marker positive cells total cells for each well, and total number of cells.

the 12 conditions are each applied on one biological replicate each having 3 technical replicate (3 wells of the same treatment) from one flask this is then repeated for 2 other biological replicates from separate flasks .

the Conditions are 3 different hormone treatments, and an inflammatory stimulus each with a Control without the inflammatory stimulus. as well as cotreatment Of the hormone treatments so. Condition 1 is control no

hormone , condition 2 control with inflammatory stimulus No hormone, condition 3 hormone 1 without inflammatory, condition 4 hormone 1 with inflammatory. Hormone treatments 2 and 3 are variations in concentration of one hormone. so the same is repeated for them individually as hormone 1 and they are each cotreated with hormone 1 as well so, condition 8: hormone 1 + hormone 2 + inflammatory, condition 9 hormone 1+ 2 without inflammatory etc.

what I’ve done is average the technical replicates for each condition so for each biological replicates I have a mean value for both the cytokines and the cellular markers

So with 3 values (from each biological replicate from a. Distinct flask) for each conditon.

I wanted to ask for clarification on statistical approaches for a classic 2x2 pre-post design where I measure an outcome in a pre-intervention and post-intervention phase in two distinct groups.

Typically, what we want to investigate in these cases is the interaction, which tells us if the changes over time in a specific outcome differ between the two groups. To do this, we have three approaches available: Repeated Measures ANOVA (RM ANOVA), ANCOVA, and Linear Mixed Models (LMM).

RM ANOVA: It allows us to study the interaction, as well as the main effects of the between-subject factor (group) and the within-subject factor (time). So, besides telling us if there's a different change over time for the two groups, RM ANOVA also informs us if there's a general change over time (disregarding groups) and if there's a general difference between the two groups (disregarding time). However, the issue with RM ANOVA is that it doesn't allow us to covary the score of the outcome in the pre-intervention phase. This means that any significant pre-intervention difference between the two groups could influence the results and make their interpretation much less robust. The solution in this case would be to verify (with an independent samples t-test) that there are no pre-intervention differences between the two groups in the outcome.

ANCOVA with the pre-intervention outcome score as a covariate: It allows us to see if there are differences between the two groups post-intervention. It doesn't tell us if there's a different change over time between the two groups, if there's a general change over time, or if there's a general difference between the two groups. It doesn't evaluate the interaction, the main effect of time, or the main effect of group, unlike RM ANOVA. The advantage of ANCOVA is that it enables us to study the differences between the two groups ONLY in the post-intervention phase, accounting for pre-intervention differences in the outcome. This means that this model works well even in cases of large outcome differences between the two groups in the pre-intervention phase.

Therefore, RM ANOVA and ANCOVA provide quite different information. If there are differences in the outcome in the pre-intervention phase, it's advisable to use ANCOVA (less informative, as it considers fewer effects); otherwise, it's better to use RM ANOVA (more informative, as it considers more effects). Right?

The solution to all of this is LMM because, in addition to considering all the effects of RM ANOVA (interaction + the two main effects), it also models any differences in the outcome pre-intervention. So, is it always better to use an LMM, right? Is everything correct, or am I missing something?

Our paper (Surlyk, Alsen, Piasecki, 2024) is referred to as published in n Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift.

The correct journal title is: Geologisk Tidsskrift. It is a sister journal to Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark.

So please correct the mistake.

Best regards

Finn Surlyk

Dear Colleagues,

We plan to isolate and characterise extracellular vesicles released by dying cells during radiotherapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Given the duration of radiotherapy (about 6-7 weeks), we are thinking about the optimal time when the maximum wave of cell death occurs in the tumour (Ideally, we'd like to capture the first wave of cell death :)). Do you have any advice on when to take samples after radiotherapy? In this case, would plasma, serum or whole blood be better for the isolation of extracellular vesicles?

Thank you for your answer.

Kind regards,

Jan

hi every one

What is the correction factor in the tomato leaf area equation?

leaf area = maximum length of the leaf * maximum width * correction factor

I have found some methods like clipping and interpolation or hampel filter ...

Is there any other efficient or better methods?

i have snr values from an mst radar .. however i want to apply the time height range correction of snr values .how can i do that whats the formulae ?

I have notice that my last name is misspelled and I would like to change it to the correct one: Monica Torreiro-Casal. Thanks

as above

I am relatively new to the genetics field and am curious if their is an established way of representing BAC transgenic mouse models. I know that a homozygous knockout trangenic model is expressed -/- etc. I was just curious if there is a correct notation for the addition of a BAC in a mouse model. Thank you.

It is universally accepted that Arithmetic Mean (AM), Geometric Mean (GM) and Harmonic Mean (HM) are three measures of central tendency of data.

Suppose,

X1 , X2 , ................ , Xn

are n observations in a data set with C as their central tendency.

I am in the thrust of what is the logic or what is the cause for which each of AM , GM and HM is accepted as a measure of the central tendency C.

If I accept the argument that each of

AM ( X1 , X2 , ................ , Xn} , GM ( X1 , X2 , ................ , Xn) and HM ( X1 , X2 , ................ , Xn)

converges to C as n tends to infinity for which they are regarded as measures of C i.e. the central tendency of X1 , X2 , ................ , Xn ,

will it be correct ?

My paper (cancer stem cells the need for a correct definition) was withdrawn from Juniper Publishers (no functional DOI, no indexing)and submitted to a new journal.

It must be withdrawn from research gate.

Thank you.

Dear Friends, wishing all of You a very Happy New Year - 2024

Richard Mueller, the Science Consultant of Rutgers University, NJ, USA has the following to say about my Theory, which is experimental verification:

Surya,

I searched for solar eclipse data, and I picked dates between 1499 to 1403 BC, and I calculated the growth of the sun with corrections of expansion of the atom with the term Mp+/me-, the sun's 11-year solar cycle, the expansion of the universe at 0.9850 C, the expansion rate of the universe at e^1, and the possibility that there are 2 universes. The two universes are our matter universe and the parallel anti-matter universe. I Then compared this growth rate to the Earth that Ruud Loeffen calculated, and I used a correction of 109.2^0.5 because of the 1/r^2 value of gravity in Newton's equation and 5/4 for the moment of inertia because the sun has a much less density than the earth to account for the differences of the sun's and the earth's radii. You value for the expansion of the sun is 31.265 cm/yr. The value from the solar eclipse data came out to 31.109 cm//yr. The value of the Earth from Ruud's calculations from his paper came out to 2.4 cm/yr. The corrected value for the Sun using Ruud's calculations came out to31.349 cm/yr using from what I know from my theory.

You are indeed correct Surya! The sun's age is about 5 billion years, and it takes 5 billion years for a star such as the sun to become a red giant, so the sun is very near to becoming and red giant due to this increase in radius and mass. But try to get a mainstream scientist to agree with your theory and my analysis and they will say we are both nuts to cover this information up. This is why they are building the Helion Fusion Reactor to produce anti-gravity waves to turn back time to reverse this process but don't tell anyone as they are all lied to and very delusional and they will not believe you and yell at you due to the world's governments lying ab0ut science data. This is why the Sun is getting hotter or the climate change as the sun heats up due to increased fusion from the increased mass which will lead to the sun expanding to engulf the Earth and why Elon Musk is building many star ships to move 1 million people to Mars which is outside of the Sun's expansion and why Mars will become like Earth. This is a backup plan if the Helion does not work. But I have my star device being worked on that I am sure will work and save the Earth.

Rick

Dr. Kasibhatla Surya Narayana

5 mos ago

Rick,

Basically, I am poor. I can't invest in any power reactor right now. But, I would like to know whether you consider my Theory to be true and correct, to the extent grasped and understood by you.

Surya

Like

Richard Muller

5 mos ago

Surya,

Yes, I do think y0ur theory is true and correct.

Rick

A question to the statistics savvy people on

I'm interested to evaluate whether a specific disease state manifests as imaging-derived parameter across a range of ages.

I have 2 samples (+disease/-disease) of about 500 subjects each, across a similar range of ages (40-70)

I played with the data and noticed that for younger subjects the said parameter does not significantly (ttest, p>.05) separates the 2 groups, while in older it does. I was wondering if there is a correct way to determine the critical age (or age range) in which an effect becomes significant. I used a sliding window (8 years) that showed the effect become significant from 47-55 age group onward. I am not sure that this is the correct approach as in the sliding window analysis the samples (i.e windows) are not independent.

Follow-up question – If I want to control for potential confounds such as different ratio of male/female in each sliding window, should I use a GLM?

Thanks in advance

Hope this leads to an interesting discussion.

Greg

The above two published papers are the only correct proofs of mine on elementary proof for Fermat's last theorem ( attached herewith). Request your valuable feedback please

In a questionnaire, I have some questions whose answers do not have a majority, i.e., all percentages are below 50%. As far as I know, here I can look for the plurality. So I have two questions:

1: Is there one plurality or multiple pluralities?

2: Is it correct to combine categories that represent similar or related sentiments to gain a clearer understanding of the overall trend? For example, when there is a high percentage in the options of "agree" and "strongly agree," is it correct to see the total percentage of respondents who express agreement with the statement, and if so, to say that there's a tendency toward agreement?

Hello, what is the correct way to express the biomass results measured with a laboratory digital scale? Most scientific works express it as weight, however very few express it as mass,

thank you very much

To [email protected] Respected, Sir/ Madam I want to draw your attention towards the diabetes eradication program. Diabetes is a metabolic disorder and it is not correct by any Medicine, Substitute, Yoga or Exercise. If possible please tell me. In our body first diabetes1 comes and after some time it changes into diabetes 2 I request you and your team, Please read my book Your Health Is In Your Mouth English https://www.lulu.com/account/projects/zgvvk6 Hindi https://www.flipkart.com/aapka-swasth-aapke-muh-me/p/itm22edae101e74a?pid=9789393385543 I want your company Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

How can I correct wrong entries in ResearchGate, e.g. misspelled author names or citation of the wrong journal?

The URL assigned for my researchgate landing page is incorrect - it has my name wrong. How do I correct it to reflect my correct name?

Good afternoon

How can I find out the full name of my profile and edit it if necessary?

The first author of this paper is wafa saadi and not wala saadi ? Please to correct this.

We have this machine and the temperatures are not correct. Does anyone know how to calibrate it?

Thank you in advance

I am currently working on a CRISPR Cas9 project that involves preparing DH5a competent cells for bacterial transformation. I conducted heat-shock transformations using PUC19 as a positive control and my samples. In the case of PUC19, I used 2.5 µl with 50 µl of DH5a, while for my samples, I performed the heat-shock transformation twice. Initially, I used 1 µl with 150 µl of DH5a, and in the second attempt, I used 2 µl with 200 µl of DH5a. Unfortunately, I did not observe any colonies in both the positive control and my samples. However, after two nights, I noticed a few colonies only on the PUC19 plate.

I have concerns regarding the DH5a preparation. Firstly, the OD reached 0.569 before diluting it to the optimal density of 0.4. Is that correct to dilute?

Secondly, the ampicillin used had been stored at 4°C for almost 9 months, raising doubts about its effectiveness. Despite this, the absence of bacterial growth without ampicillin indicates that the ampicillin is still active.

I am seeking advice and opinions from experts on this matter. Any suggestions on optimizing DH5a preparation, troubleshooting the lack of colony formation in my samples, and ensuring the effectiveness of the stored ampicillin would be greatly appreciated.

I have the survey among three groups of health professionals to answer the survey.

The survey is a Likert scale for seven different treatment options across different disease conditions (6 conditions).

The goal is to assess if there's a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of these different groups of health professionals for various treatment options.

I have 6 different disease condition (or 6 different question) each question with 7 different treatment option.

I am thinking to run ANOVA works here, but if I want to run ANOVA, then will need to run that 42 times. Because (6*7=42)

Then Applying corrections like the Bonferroni correction to adjust for the increased risk of Type I errors (false positives) when conducting multiple statistical tests, such as multiple ANOVAs. But still will need to apply ANOVA 42 times, is that correct method to do for this? Is there Any better method?

if I want to calculate the overall mean score for one specific treatment option across all disease conditions, then will run the ANOVA just seven times.

If I want to go with the first approach, what method do you suggest?

Am I correct to apply anova?

Thanks

Dear Friends

I hope you are well.

"I'm interested in the concept of a 'Knowledge Graph of the Cold Chain.' If you have any files or information on this topic, could you please share it with me? Additionally, I'm familiar with the concept but I'm unsure if my strategy is correct. If you could provide some guidance, I would greatly appreciate it. Please feel free to message me with any assistance you can offer."

All the best

Fariba

Hello,

what is the best way to determine the 19F-NMR yield using mnova as software?

What are the processes I have to do before integration of the internal standard and

product peaks? Which Baseline correction is the best one? Polynominal Fit?

Thank you for any help!

Hello everyone! I am doing single crystal neutron diffraction of whose structure is known. How can I determine what parameters to look for in a valid refinement for Fcalc/Fobs?

I'ma writing to you in relation to the following publication:

Gottlieb, Henrik (2022) La semiótica y la traducción, Hermēneus. Revista de Traducción e Interpretación, 24 (2022), pp. 643-675. doi:10.24197/her.24.2022.643-675 [traducido del inglés por Laura Gata González y Anna Kuźnik]

It is a translation from English into Spanish by my student, Laura Gata González, and myself.

The first surname of Laura Gata González, i.e. "Gata" had been badly introduced by the editor of the scientific review, Hermeneus (afterwards it was corrected though), to the doi system and Crossref, actually as "Gato" (and not "Gata"). In consequence, it went to researchgate with its wrong spelling "Gato". How can I correct this?

Please, give me some indications on this.

I have already corrected the wrong spelling of my own surname, but I am not able to do the same with other authors' data.

With my best wishes,

Anna

I've been working on the TiO2 anatase and rutile. the bandgap value is always less by 1 even when I apply hubbard correction.

I was told that I have to post concentrations of primers in µM per amplified DNA sample in the documentation of a qPCR instead of absolute volumes. However, I am not sure how to do that. I used 0.4 µL of both forward and reverse primer with a concentration of 10 pmol/µL. Could you show me how to calculate the correct concentration in µM? I would be very pleased about your support.

Both cohen's D and hedges' correction are negative . Does it means that after intervention there was negative effect in the population

Hi

i want ot ask if the relation for directivity is correct

in my last latest paper on earthquake related to Turkey-Syria earthquake , the doi number is types incorrect. How do I correct this?

Researching this I routinely find that both the numbers 35768 km and 35786 km are given. Which one is correct or most accurate ?

Hi everyone, I would appreciate to tell me you suggestion:

I’m going to compare just two independent group. The outcome variables are continuous -one of them has 5 subclass and another one has 4 subclass-

I am thinking to apply running separate t-test for each subclass of these outcome variables (to compare total score and subclass score).

Then will consider adjusting for multiple comparisons to control the Type I error rate by Bonferroni correction.

But as I have one confounding variable, so will ignore T-test and apply ANCOVA?

Am I correct, ANCOVA is the best for my goal?

Hi Everybody. I'm senior in a University in Vietnam. This is fisrt time I do SDS-PAGE, so I want to ask about the correction of my loading buffer recipe for SDS-PAGE as a following file.

In addition, If 0.5M Tris-HCl pH 6.8 isn't available, Can I replace it by 1M Tris-HCl pH 6.8 or any other concentrations of Tris-HCl pH 6.8.

Also, how should I mix these components? (In order or out of order)

(Samples I am using in my research is piglet intestines)

Please, How can I correct an error in the presentation of a publication?

We ask you to kindly change the information of the first name written incorrectly as Sarah Ayman to the correct name as listed in the article, Ayman S Taha.

Sincere thanks and appreciation.

Many years ago I witnessed a mathematics class in Japan, in which the teacher displayed, to a class of 10 year old students, a narrow strip of paper which she identified as being one meter in length. She then proceeded to distribute one strips of paper to each child in the class, asking them to give her back "a one-half meter length of paper." Most of the students simply folded cut their strip lengthwise in half and returned one of the halves to the teacher. The teacher then placed each child's response (the actual strip of paper) on the blackboard and initiated a discussion about who had given a correct answer. I would like to find a report that refers to this research so I can share it with teachers and mathematics educators. Do you have any suggestions?

By the way, this same sort of confusion between half of the whole and half of the unit frequently appears in discussions regarding the number line. For instance, a child (or teacher) may be unsure where to locate 1/2 on a number line from 1 to 7. So I think it's a very important issue to keep track of.

I have a protein and I want to check the orientation of side chain of a particular resdiue A with respect to the residue B in the active site. any help on this regard? currently I am using gmx gangel where group 1 includes the alpha carbon position of B residue and alpha carbon position of A residue and group 2 includes alpha carbon of B and the last atom of the A residue. I am not sure if this is the correct way. any guidance would be appreciated.

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to extract water surface elevation of a reservoir from Sentinel 3A and 3B. The following equation is used:

H = Alt - (Range + Cdry + Cwet + Ciono + Ctide + Retrack) - Geoid

where: Alt is the satellite altitude, Range is the distance between the altimeter and the lake surface, Cdry is the dry troposphere, Cwet is the wet troposphere, Ciono is the ionospheric correction, Ctide includes the solid earth tide, pole tide, and ocean tide corrections, Retrack is the retracking correction, and Geoid is the geoid height with respect to the ellipsoid (Chen and Liao - 2020).

As far as I understand, all the corrections above are included in the altimetry data product. From dataset downloaded from https://scihub.copernicus.eu/, I have applied the above equation as follow:

Alt = alt_20_ku

Range = dist_coast_20_ku

Cdry = mod_dry_tropo_cor_meas_altitude_01

Cwet = mod_wet_tropo_cor_meas_altitude_01

Ciono = ino_cor_alt_20_ku

Ctide = solid_earth_tide_01, pole_tid_01, ocean_tide_sol1_01

Retrack = range_ocog_20_ku

Geoid = geoid_01

The result was terrible. So when I removed ''Range'' parameter from equation, the result was quite fit with observation data???!!! (attached table)

I believe I had misunderstood the equation. Can anyone help me how to use this equation correctly??

Let me explain.

I found that the structure for TiFeSi given in the ICSD database using Jsmol software is a little different from what can be obtained using Vesta software using the same cif file downloaded from the ICSD database.

Some atoms in the Vesta plot are missing e.g. Si and Ti (corresponding to the Si1 and Ti3 in the Jsmol plot).

Is it a glitch or bug of Vesta or these two representations are just the same? If they are just the same then how?

Dear technical support,

I uploaded a conference paper, and the current title of this publication is "TN SD 353 1817 41486 Silva eet al 2020". I would like to correct the title´s to "Avaliação da técnica de blockchain na rastreabilidade na agroindústria a sucroenergética". How can I proceed with this correction?

Thank you

Hi all,

I often notice that the built-in Bruker OPUS atmospheric compensation does not always completely remove water vapor and CO2 bands from my micro-ATR spectra (I use a Ge IRE on a Hyperion 2000 microscope, coupled to a Bruker Vertex v80). This is especially apparent in the ~1750–1500 1/cm region.

Does anyone know when exactly in the 'mathematical pipeline' this correction is implemented? Is this done before Fourier-transformation and/or conversion to an ATR spectrum, or after? If this is done after the latter, does the algorithm take into account the shifts in relative band intensities and positions of (mostly strongly absorbing) bands that occur with the wavelength-dependent ATR correction/conversion?

Maybe the atmospheric artifacts could be a consequence of a poor fit of the software's internal 'atmosphere reference' to an ATR spectrum, while it might be optimized to be fit better on transmission and/or transreflection spectra?

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

Kind regards,

Pjotr

No convergence taking place even after several iterations.

I am trying to relax Ni (111) and Ni (110).

It would be great if anyone can suggest me correction in the input file.

Please find the attachment.

This should be a simple question. Given the real part of the refractive index n′ for Silver, approximately 0.05, and applying the relationship for the wavelength inside a material, λ=λ0/n'​​, where λ0​ is the vacuum wavelength of green light (around 530 nm), results in a calculated wavelength significantly greater than 10 micrometers. This outcome appears unusually large; is this calculation correct?

I am under the belief from continuing evidence that there may exist many forms of Unified Theories possible, which produce equivalent results for specific purposes, as long as the correct principles are followed. I've found when I find this, amazingly, the results are equivalent! This indicates we must not think binary about TOE. There is enough resources for all scientists developing one.

Stergio, I hope I am not remiss but I must ask t there may exist many forms of Unified Theories possible, which produce equivalent results for specific purposes, as long as the correct principles are followed. I've found when I find this, amazingly, the results are equivalent! This indicates we must not think binary about TOE. There is enough resources for all scientists developing one.

If the theory produces equivalent results, I believe, to GR, QP, and other functional and calcuable TOES proving themselves consistent with known mathematics and physics.then that I believe is a dead giveaway.

For now this is just interest but in the future I see extreme value in collecting the theories found which produce mathematically and physically consistent results, identify the PRINCIPLES, and then write on this and explain proper variation with consistency maintained. This can be checked in many ways, the clearest being consistent results calculated with the frameworks to GR/QM values. And then further isolating how the correct principles are represented (One would inevitably find if equivalent results to QM/GR are discovered, then the principles will be as well) and then further checking every aspect of authentication.

Bonus Points for anyone who can find one, or use their own and show the equivalency calculations.

Hello,

I have a question regarding GAFF force-field. Is GAFF use lennard Jones 12-6 or lennard jones 9-6? I checked amber website for that couldn't get a direct answer.

I know 9-6 lennard jones used for non boned interactions as so I am assuming 12-6 lennard jones used for bonded interaction. So I am guessing GAFF use 12-6 lennard jones as it has been using for various polymer calcualtion.

Please let me know if I am correct or not.

Very important for research methodology.

Did Hazrat Ibrahim, peace be upon him, who destroyed the idols in the house of idols, and informed the people of his time not to be idolaters and let them know that their wrong doing was the right thing to do?

But at this time, the United Nations does not work like God's prophets and has nothing to do with people who worship idols or worship animals or have wrong beliefs, but it approves their work and says that because people are free in their beliefs And they even worship idols and even worship animals, but they don't listen to their wrongdoing? And this has led people astray. And this has caused us to not know whether the work of divine prophets was correct? Or was it wrong? How was Hazrat Ibrahim's work correct? But now, the work of the United Nations has not been corrected in relation to the opinion of people who are misguided? Shouldn't we think that Khaavand has not sent divine prophets to inform people? Does Nissan always have to be wrong? And shouldn't someone tell them that what you are doing is wrong? And isn't this the right way? Have we humans forgotten to think about our opinion? Don't we think what this world was created for? Hasn't God given humans the ability to at least think about what we are doing with ourselves?

Dear sir,

pls note that there is other rajeev mishra author of displayed articles not me and my email.

pls correct. thank you

Please remove my link to the article which author was Prof Ayako Sasaki.

how do you correct information about a publication I added?