DrKrettin

6 hours ago, Randolpin said:

I am not arrogant or self-righteous here, I also fall short from the glory of God. What my motive is that I just want to share what my wisdom learned and perspective base on the truth that I found.

This indeed displays the astounding arrogance of christians who think they have discovered some truth, as if it were any more valid than any other religious belief. Your use of the word "heathen" to describe any other religion is clearly to be understood as pejorative. Considering that you have as little evidence of the validity of your religion as anyone else has for theirs, the arrogance is laughable.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The problem is that there is no way to quantify what your experience is, so there is no way to address that question. One thing however, is that if you drink a larger volume of lower concentrated beverage (such as beer vs wine), both absorption rate as well as peak alcohol levels will be lower (as I mentioned above). Whether what you experience is at all alcohol related is a different matter (you could do blind testing of beer with different alcohol contents, for example).

I feel morally obliged to perform a scientific test with every single type of alcoholic beverage available. I'll report back in a year or two, if I remember.

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The absorption rate and efficiency is dependent on stomach content and alcohol concentration of the beverage. In beer, the additional components could also play a role. But in most studies you will find that a) absorption rate scales roughly with concentration (i.e. liquor >wine>beer) as well as peak blood alcohol levels. In addition, it depends on how much you drink of each. Beer would need roughly three times the volume as wine to get to the same concentration which a) requires more time to drink and b) as mentioned above leads to slower absorption rates.

I don't dispute this, but it does not explain to me why the effect of a small amount of beer or wine is different. I don't think that a linear scale of the amount of alcohol and/or rate of absorption is the whole story. Some days I have a beer before the evening meal, and other days I have a glass of wine. I'm guessing that the volume of beer is about three times the volume of the glass of wine, so the alcohol intake is similar. The effect on my mind is different - I feel the effect of alcohol but in different ways. The sensation after a whisky is different too, but the circumstances are different.

I wonder whether other factors are in play - if it is hot and I'm thirsty, I tend towards a beer, so maybe I am dehydrated at that point. 

9 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

 "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on https://www.scribens.com/)

It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence

 

No it does not, it is totally meaningless, like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

9 hours ago, studiot said:

 

But the sigma may also be used for other purposes, without starting at 0 or 1.

 

The sigma just means Sum. Note that the integral sign is a distorted S (or sigma) to indicate the integral being an infinite series of infinitesimal components. I don't think this is relevant, just interesting. 

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

And your thinking more of Athens specifically and some might argue (not me) it wasn't a  democracy.

This of course depends on your definition of democracy. Only adult male citizens were enfranchised (30% of the population), so they ruled by democratic vote. In theory, that could involve everybody, but in practice the reality was that the poor had enough problems scraping a living and the wealthier were the ones who had the time to be involved in politics.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

AFAIK there is no evidence that the source of alcohol has any impact on the toxicity per se. However, beverages have different alcohol concentrations and there are slight differences in absorption efficiency which affect how fast you get drunk, but does not change the effect of it in itself. Depending on drinking behaviour some may actually overdose on lower concentrated beverages as they simply drink more than e.g. hard liquor. A similar argument is found for mixtures of soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. In other words, it depends on how much alcohol you ingest and in which time frame which determines your behaviour but not the what you drink in itself.

 

Well, I hear what you say, or rather I read what you write, but my own experience is that the effect of one glass of beer is quite different to the effect of one glass of wine. It just feels different in an undefinable way. I can't see how this has to do with the amount of alcohol or the rate of absorption, yet I can't think what other variables there might be. On the odd occasion when I have had an excess of either, the sensations merge into one unpleasant sensation of being drunk.

4 hours ago, OldChemE said:

My College roommate, A Chemistry major, studied the metabolism aspects of alcohol.  He made the claim that different effects of different alcoholic beverages was due in large part to carbonation, which he said facilitated rapid transport of alcohol within the body.  I don't know the details, but he claimed that, because of this, mixed cocktails, carbonated wines and beer tended to make a person drunk faster than was the case with wine or straight vodka, whiskey, etc.

As I understand it, the metabolism rate of alcohol is at a maximum when the alcohol content is about 45%, the amount you find in hard liquor. There was a time when I grew blackcurrants and made drinkable wine from it. It went sour quite quickly, so I then distilled neat alcohol from it (being very careful to avoid the methanol). Once or twice I tried drinking the stuff uncut, and found it had no effect at all, but didn't experiment too much because I understood it could be dangerous. I don't really understand why it should make a difference, because it must get mixed and diluted in the stomach anyway.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 IOW, are the happy drunks mostly drinking wine or beer, while the aggressive drunks mostly drink the hard stuff? To feather further, are the morose drunks drinking vodka, the gabby drunks drinking gin, and the ones who won't remember any of this tomorrow drinking scotch?

I suspect the difference with cannabis is harder to pinpoint, since the effects are skewed by the delivery method. Inhalation and ingestion must have differing side effects, whereas the alcohol in any form is always ingested. Also, inhalation by vaping is said to be different (better?) than inhalation of the directly burnt plant. There seems to be a qualitative factor at work here.

As anecdotal evidence, I submit that my father was a happy drunk except when he drank white wine, when he became irrationally aggressive. But I suspect that drunks are usually of one type, and the behaviour does not change with type of alcohol. When you say that alcohol is always ingested, I heard recently of the weirdest fad of pouring vodka into the eyeballs. Does that count?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I'm not an expert, but believe so, yes. The primary two are indica and sativa.

Yes, but there are so many hybrids of the two that this distinction is not very useful for identifying effects. Originally, there was sativa (Latin = cultivated) until it was decided that indica was to be recognised as a separate type. 

There are 483 different chemicals which have been identified in a cannabis plant, 85 of which are cannabinoids. The effect of smoking or ingesting cannabis varies hugely, depending on the variety of plant, the time it was harvested and the quality of the particular bud used on any occasion. The variables are so numerous it is difficult to make a general statement, but as far as I know (which is not very far) there is no proven difference in effect between smoking and eating.

Edit: I've re-read the OP, and comment that the effect of alcohol on me varies noticeably: the sensation is clearly different if I drink wine or beer.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You should know that patents don't guarantee that the device actually works...

The European Patent Office grants patents based only on originality. The applicant is under no obligation to prove that something actually works, and the EPO is under no obligation to test anything, unless an examiner rejects it as being obviously contrary to the laws of physics (such as a perpetual motion machine).

2 minutes ago, Octandempus said:

My alter, Riley feels no pain and can usually move without any limitations even with broken bones.

Does Riley feel any kind of pain? (I'm not leading to anything here, I'm just fascinated)

46 minutes ago, Octandempus said:

If I break my leg and feel it but an alter does not. Is that pain real? Yes, it is. No one can just just become aware and push the pain aside.

Are you saying that one alter does not feel the pain of a broken leg?

Does anybody else think that an accurate estimate is an oxymoron?

13 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

 

The Greek Septuagint was written around 400 A.D 

Archimedes was born around 200 B.C

Translation of it from Hebrew to Greek around 400 A.D and put in the word "Eureka" 

Translated: I have found among the exiles from Judah a man who will make known to the king. From Daniel 2.25

"I have found" replace with the word "Eureka"

Only 2 times the word was used. One time in Daniel and another time in Hosea 

And both times "I have found" is replaced with "Eureka" or another way to write it in a similar way. 

Also even thou the word was used 130x. Archimedes made it famous. 

For example: Darwin made evolution mainstream and famous. But so many others was talking about it and already wrote about it before him. 

 

I was referring to the New Testament, the text actually written in Greek, where it occurs twice: Epist. Joannis ii.4.1 and Apocalypsis Joannis 3.2.2. We have the word attested 130 times, but have no way of knowing the connection between what we have and how often it was actually used, other than it was obviously common. I was just trying to make the point that it was not a particularly notable word, where Greek has hundreds of interesting "invented" words (in the sense that Strange defines above). 

Thanks - do you know for certain that this is your makeup?

Thanks - that helps me understand most of the rest. Why do people assume that acronyms are universally understood? VTS for example.

Are we supposed to know what DID is?

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Which doesn't contradict the assertion that the Greeks invented the word, unless you are suggesting the word was imported from another language.

Very true, I was just pointing out how unremarkable it is.

On 8/24/2017 at 5:23 AM, Baron d'Holbach said:

Greek inventions:

Invention of the word "Eureka"

 

I've just remembered that I wanted to comment on this. It is a perfectly usual word (attested 130 times, twice in the bible) which is the 1st sing. active perfect indicative of the verb eurisko to discover, find out. So it means "I have discovered (it)" and was (probably) pronounced HOO-re-ka. This is in stark contrast to the present-day attempt of yoo-REE-ka

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed there are many examples of its magical properties, the golden fleece springs to mind.

Ancient mythology has many examples of gold being the ultimate prize, for example the Golden Apple

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Yep. I can't see why anyone would find this a puzzling aspect of human nature. 

Nor do I - what I find puzzling are the criteria for choosing heroes. Most are merely actors and actresses or other entertainers with a wide range of talent from impressive to absolute zero.

8 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Socrates is a mix bag of everything. He resembles Jesus without any divine abilities. A teacher/philosopher/poet and mentor. Never wrote a single word on paper and taught many and was prosecuted for his belief. Just like Jesus, Socrates death and philosophy inspire his pupils to follow and write stories about him afterwards.  

Maybe the argument could be he was just like Mohammad or Homer a illiterate individual who others wrote wonders about. Or those individuals are the real authors of their figment of imagination to create a hero / antitype. 

Plato was a proflic profound remarkable writer. It's easy to say of course it was him. Penmanship like Plato could of easily wrote about a person name Socrates. 

Out of everyone in Athens only 2 people met Socrates? Plato and Xenophon. Come on this is a little weird now... at least Jesus had more than that.

and than the usual suspects plays in. Every time some one tries to describe him or talk about him, contradiction happens. Cough cough Jesus. 

and what's weird is why did Socrates die? What did he die For? The answer is for his beliefs? Well Plato documented on paper his beliefs. Why didn't Plato get hang or poison. 

 

 

Ultimately you cannot prove that an individual actually existed 2500 years ago, all you have is the documented evidence. In the case of Socrates, the evidence is so convincing that there seems to me no reason at all for guessing that he is a figment of Plato's imagination. Evidence is to be found in  Plato and Xenophon, but also in Aristophanes, all three claiming to have known Socrates personally. These three were not part of a religious sect with an agenda to invent a saviour, they were three unrelated Athenian citizens. Why would they have invented somebody? All three paint portraits of him which are not totally consistent with each other, but he was clearly a figure difficult to describe. Further evidence of his actual existence comes from sources describing his circle of friends including some who turned away from democracy (Critias, Charmides, Alcibiades) and this may have been the reason for his trial, or at least one of the reasons. Plato's Apology also makes reference to other characters who are considered to have existed, and who would have been alive at the time he wrote it. In his poetics, Aristotle classifies his dialogues with others as a species of fiction in their own right. Fragments survive of dialogues with Antisthenes, Aeschines of Sphettus and Phaedon of Elis. We know the names of his father, mother and wife. For me, the evidence that he existed is overwhelming.

18 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Plato invention of Socrates - Well this could be classified as rhetoric and comedy 

 

So what is your argument that Plato invented Socrates? 

(yes, I got the fun bit)

20 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Greeks inventions of Gods/Demons - this can be classified as drama and tragedy 

 

There were Gods before the Greeks, and afterwards. 

21 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Sorry bud I pretty much listed everything

 

Actually, you have only scratched the surface. 

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are probably as pissed off as I was about it clouding over when Halley's comet came in 1986. I've got to stay alive until I'm 99 now.

That's probably the only astronomical event which I have managed to see successfully, others being ruined by cloud and rain. It was probably the least impressive Halley's comet in centuries. I saw it with my young son, who has the prospect of seeing it again, which makes me wonder what percentage of the population have that opportunity.