Hi, I am very grateful for your work. Everyone should be. But I have some questions about the terminology used. For example, I do not know what you mean by: Casing, EPA, or "casing dried in water", which seems a contradiction. The title of the article is "Iodine", then I see samples of what looks like blood and particles of possibly flesh, which are in alcohol or distilled water. Why is the article called Iodine? Is iodine in any image? Maybe this is obvious to your regular readers. I am not trying to give you extra work or frustrate you. I just want to learn from your work, and I think it would help you to have an ever-expanding, broader audience, if a person coming across your article could easily understand the points you demonstrate. I think your work is vital and should be shared and I thank you for everything you do.
Okay. I don't see this data anywhere in your post. I hate to complain, as you are doing such an amazing, important job, and you should be complimented and supported, rather than people just telling you how they would do it. But I am sure you will spread more understanding, if what you are showing is clearly labelled for new people. Thanks very much for your great work.
Some of the round objects look like what you and others have referred to as flashing Q dots. Am I wrong? I see Dr. Nixon replied. What does he think about that, if you know or communicate with him?
The criteria is set by mathematical models. While the theory of Brownian motion is known for a long time, the theory is not 100% correct all the time.
Maybe it's an anomalous stochastic occurrence, that could be explained with an existing model. Physicists and mathematicians can provide you a more thorough answer to that question.
If you for example look at pollen grains in water, you'll see that the pollen grains only move within random "sphere". But the particles in this video seem to move a little bit outside of their typical Brownian motion. It's subtle and therefore needs further investigation.
I actually had 5 videos but the others were longer. After reviewing them I would doubt very much if its Brownian as the interrelation of them is complex. Also the same colors seemed to go to each other.
Bit mad at myself because i have kept taking them sporadically even after inspecting them 6 months ago. My camera wouldn't have seen these that well at the time.
Hi, I am very grateful for your work. Everyone should be. But I have some questions about the terminology used. For example, I do not know what you mean by: Casing, EPA, or "casing dried in water", which seems a contradiction. The title of the article is "Iodine", then I see samples of what looks like blood and particles of possibly flesh, which are in alcohol or distilled water. Why is the article called Iodine? Is iodine in any image? Maybe this is obvious to your regular readers. I am not trying to give you extra work or frustrate you. I just want to learn from your work, and I think it would help you to have an ever-expanding, broader audience, if a person coming across your article could easily understand the points you demonstrate. I think your work is vital and should be shared and I thank you for everything you do.
Hi Tim,
All images are of scrapings from an iodine pill, including the pill casing. No Blood or flesh.
Isopropyl Alcohol _IPA.
After dissolving in water, then allowed to dry.
Thanks for your input. I do try to make things clear for the layman, such as myself.
Okay. I don't see this data anywhere in your post. I hate to complain, as you are doing such an amazing, important job, and you should be complimented and supported, rather than people just telling you how they would do it. But I am sure you will spread more understanding, if what you are showing is clearly labelled for new people. Thanks very much for your great work.
Some of the round objects look like what you and others have referred to as flashing Q dots. Am I wrong? I see Dr. Nixon replied. What does he think about that, if you know or communicate with him?
Nanoparticles until proven otherwise...
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems a little bit too much motion of these particles which can't be explained by brownian motion only.
How do you differentiate between Brownian motion and something else? What are the criteria?
The criteria is set by mathematical models. While the theory of Brownian motion is known for a long time, the theory is not 100% correct all the time.
Maybe it's an anomalous stochastic occurrence, that could be explained with an existing model. Physicists and mathematicians can provide you a more thorough answer to that question.
If you for example look at pollen grains in water, you'll see that the pollen grains only move within random "sphere". But the particles in this video seem to move a little bit outside of their typical Brownian motion. It's subtle and therefore needs further investigation.
Yes,
I actually had 5 videos but the others were longer. After reviewing them I would doubt very much if its Brownian as the interrelation of them is complex. Also the same colors seemed to go to each other.
Bit mad at myself because i have kept taking them sporadically even after inspecting them 6 months ago. My camera wouldn't have seen these that well at the time.