Function

I do enjoy the view of a full moon myself. But imagine I try to get a good view of it while driving. Then I'd probably become subject of your thread too.

Perhaps you should read the text, then

Sounds indeed much liek GAS. They are infamous for necrotising fasciitis. Another one that pops into mind is the C. perfringens, a gram positive anaerobic one that causes gas gangrene ... Anyway ... Surgery.

I wasn't taught this specific matter, but I'd say they just live happily ever after in your guts ... CD3/CD8-positive T-lymphocytes usually reside in the bloodstream, so they'd already have to pass through all the mucosal layers of the intestines and blood vessels to reach the microbiota in the intestines. Nonetheless, there's such thing as intraepithelial lymphocytes (IEL), which can immediatly act upon recognition of an antigen, but they don't reach the lumen of the intestines, I guess ... There's also no need for your CD3/CD8-positive T-lympho's to eradicate your microbiome. As such. You ask us to leave other immune cells out of the picture, but they contribute to it substantially, and cannot be neglected nonetheless.

I never liked the ice age ideas. Summer

Changed something there, hope you don't mind. So how does that differ from what I said? Eventually receptor affinity is determined by shape (and charge, polarisation, ...) I never argued that smell wasn't important, and I feel sorry for e.g. people with Kallmann syndrome. Yet, at the moment it is - in my most humble opinion - quite indisputable that the way by which the composition of matter by using the periodic table is studied is less diverse (at the moment), more understandable and more important for lots of disciplines: chemistry, physics, pharmacy, medicine, biology, ... There are some more than a hundred elements in the periodic table - there would be hundreds, thousands of different scent particles contributing to a single scent in a more or less way in an olfactory table. Working with it would be impractical, and making it would not be cost-effective. By the way, I found the way you would set up such table rather ambiguous: please describe the "chemical" smell you try to illustrate? If I were to hang my nose above a glass of wather dissolving an effervescent tablet, I'd also describe it as "chemical".

The smell of rotting intestine contents (e.g. dissection class went wrong)Setting up such a list is quite useless: every smell is unique in its own way, and you can try to compare it to known smell, or try to describe it using some adjectives (sweet, ...), but every smell is different and there are probably thousands of different smells we would be able to distinguish. Note that every smell is composed out of combinations of hundreds of different particles, each having their own 'smell', contributing to give rise to a certain scent, and it is thought that every such component would have its olfactory receptor, or to have much more affinity for one receptor than for the other(s). It is thus understandable that, however some scents may be comparable and close to one another, it is useless to make a list of scents, for it would be non-limitative. I don't see the practical use of it.

I sense 7 pages of discussions I understand nothing about incoming. Give or take a few. Within ... a week or 2.

I'd say that I'm not scientifically gifted enough in physics to state something like that and dare to take the risk of being eaten alive by the physicists here. However, if that seemed as what I'd wanted to say - sounds good; yup, exactly what I'm trying to say.

Tricking itself.

If OP even dares to pull (or rather, push?) us away from the sun. It's about bloody time it's getting hotter. Tired of the cold and rain. The "wat" was a reference to an overrated internet meme, btw.

Ergo, "moments after"

Are thoughts the only things we perceive instantly? If I move my finger, it moves itself at a certain moment. Proprioceptive information on the movement and location of my finger, arrive in my brain moments after the finger has moved / initiated movement or was at the certain location. Visual information on my finger (me looking at it) is coming in later, sensitive information (my finger feeling something or nothing) is coming in later. Then is there something we experience at the same moment of it happening?

Why go so detailed. Does the OP, or anyone else, have problems with the ethical (sedated) end-of-life of mice and other rodents in experimental research settings? If yes, then you do have a problem with almost everything of modern medicine and life sciences and, by extension, wealth and basically, your own life. Don't make it too hard for yourself and just answer "no". Ethical committees have been funded for these kinds of problems, and they act quite well.

wat

If you're a kid and you pull out the legs of a spider to see what happens, that's not necessarily bad. Children want to explore. If you're a kid, or somewhat older, and you lay your beloved goldfish out of its fish bowl to see how long it can last without water ... Then, there's a problem. There's more to this than fun and food. If you kill a person. Well, there's always a problem. But I have strong doubts about the current justice systems and have asked myself multiple times the question whether psychiatry shouldn't get a much larger spot in the current systems. Lots of criminals - imho - do not belong in jail, but in psychiatry and should be treated for their disorder. Or at least, that's what I expect to be the case. I was relieved when I found out a mother (don't know exactly where she is from anymore, either Belgium or the UK) wasn't locked down in prison after giving her child repetitive overdoses of insulin. She suffers/suffered from the munchhausen by proxy syndrome and should be treated psychiatrically, as is the case.

It seems you don't get the hang of membrane potentials. A potential is a difference of charge between 2 points. Here, we consider the membrane potential being the difference of charge in v. out of the cell. The more positively charged your cell (cytoplasm) is, the more positive the membrane potential is. Basically, the Na/K-ATPase exchanges 3 intracellular Na-ions for 2 extracellular K-ions. Note that normally, there is a higher concentration of Na extracellular and a higher intracellular concentration of K (no. [Na]i = 15 mM; [Na]e = 145 mM; [K]i = 150 mM; [K]e = 4 mM). However, due to other Na and K channel activities, they may leak from (K) or into (Na) the cell. The Na/K-ATPase tries to correct this by actively pumping Na back out of the cell, and K back into the cell. You notice that the net charge movement is 1 positive ion out of the cell: (3 + out) + (2 + in) = 1 + out Result: a net hyperpolarization of your cell membrane. The membrane potential is considered as the difference of charge in the cell minus that out of the cell, at the level of the cell membrane. If you put more positively charged ions out of the cell, your membrane potential becomes more negative and as a net result, you get a hyperpolarization. In most tissues, this results in a reduced excitability.

A giant rodent? It's very obviously - a rock. Nevertheless, you don't seem to accept that. Yet. I'll let you think about the function of a human skull (or any skull whatsoever). If you found that out, try to break it, cut it open, whatever, and if it's completely solid inside ... You'll have to face the facts. It's a rock. If it's not ... Well ... Still a rock. My argument of concavity for skulls is very sensitive, though not very specific.

That's what I'd answer, though the difference between anatomical and physiological cross-section is not entirely clear to me. Volume, indeed: no. The only thing that differs cross-section from volume, is length. The length of a fibre and, by extension, its sarcomeres, does indeed determine the contractility of one fibre. But as mentioned before, once contracted, it's contracted. It can't be semi-contracted or contracted for 90%, 50%, ...

If you know that a single motor cell contraction is an all-or-nothing phenomenon, it is understandable that the force exerted is proportional to the amount of fibres that do contract. Which one of the answers is most closely related to the amount of fibres?

Isn't quantity of bacteria in cultures expressed as number of "colony-forming units" (CFU)? Who knows/cares how many bacteria in one CFU?

Anaesthesia.

Are we talking about the same SWOT? Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats? If so, on what are you conducting a SWOT analysis? Is it on the research/experiment you're conducting?

Your comments always remind me of short poems.