tim.tdj

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does one "pass through" the spacetime block without change? The very notion of "passing through" implies change.

One problem with the determinism of relativity, from which this emanates, is that it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. The present does not have well-defined states, so one cannot extrapolate to the future.

Hi Swasont

Thank you very much for your reply.

You have made a very good point and to be honest, I have actually already asked myself the same question you have asked.

During this thread, I have actually been doing a certain amount of devil's advocacy. For the sake of the poll, I started this thread from an impartial position. I will now declare that I personally believe that change is actually real at the fundamental level. It seems so far that nobody who has voted in the poll or who has commented in this thread disagrees with this position. I wonder if this will change.

Some people reading this thread may be aware that the scientist, Lee Smolin, unlike a lot of his colleagues, believes that change is real at the fundamental level.

5 hours ago, Eise said:

I think the question does not make much sense. Change and time are intimately related. As your 4-D universe contains the dimension 'time' it implies this universe changes. Just have a look at your 4-D universe at time t=0, and look at it at the time t=1: if some aspect of the universe differs between t=0 and t=1 then it means there is change. Per definition. 

Hi Eise

Thank you very much for your reply.

I can very much see why you don't think the question makes much sense. It certainly won't make much sense to anyone who has not heard of the the concept of the "Spacetime Block Universe". A lot of physicists these days believe that the past, the present and the future all simultaneously coexist together prewritten in the Spacetime Block and that the change we perceive is just an illusion as we pass through the Spacetime Block. I personally have my doubts about this concept so I am wondering what other people think. Hence this thread and poll.

1 minute ago, koti said:

Entropy always increases in any system so yes, chsnge is both real and inevitable. 

Hi Koti

Thank you very much for your reply.

Some people would argue that even if entropy is greater at greater values of t, this does not mean that the 4D system is itself changing. It would just mean that the 4D system has an entropy gradient.

Hi Everyone

I have a poll for you. It is inspired by Albert Einstein's concept of a "Spacetime Block".

Kind regards

Tim

2 hours ago, peterwlocke said:

Tim. you seem to reject how other people see this( I may be wrong). but maybe you should look into the imagery of other episodes to see if it is too much and would make you queasy.

 

edit: so many is a bit of a stretch if you mean make happy also you are taking the moral high ground when people try to talk about it with you. just think about it you don't have to share an opinion but look at other perspectives.

Hi Peter

I am an open-minded person so I am not flatly rejecting anything. I know that I might be wrong and other people might be right. Disagreement is not the same as rejection. I am happy to agree to disagree.

You say that I am "taking the moral high ground". Do I think I am better than other people? I don't know. However, I know that I try very hard to be the best that I can be and I don't do this so that I can be better than other people. I think that everyone should try to be the best that they can be so that we are all equally at the top. Some people may be scared of being the best that they can be because they may be scared of being a "tall poppy". I think that this is a rather toxic concept.

Just now, Phi for All said:

So you don't know if it's really happening that way, but think it's wrong if it is. 

Here's the real question. Knowing now that you aren't SUPPOSED to enjoy torture scenes, that they're a literary device for increasing emotional involvement with the characters, will you go back to the episode of The Umbrella Academy and watch it in that new light?

Interesting question. To be honest, I don't want to fill my head with that sort of horrible imagery and I suspect that there will be more of it to come and there are plenty of other things to watch so I don't think I will.

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You glossed over my explanation of the need for conflict in any story. Torture is supposed to horrify the audience, and I think it does in the vast majority of cases. I don't believe people are enjoying the torture, they're enjoying seeing their hero thwart the bad guys, or they enjoy seeing triumph over adversity, or they enjoy the growth the characters experience due to abnormal conflicts.

I don't see how I'm misinterpreting you. Perhaps you could explain that part. I just asked if you think other people are enjoying the torture, and that's why it sickens you so much.

I thought it was obvious too, and I don't know why you feel the need to expand my comment. I did quote you fully on this. I understand that you only think people are wrong who don't feel exactly the way you do about torture as any part of entertainment. Nothing I said implied more. 

I think you're making the mistake of thinking people are being "entertained" by the torture, and not by what it means in terms of the story. Do you feel the same way about villains who threaten children? I find behavior like that nauseating, but I know it's a tool good writers use to fan emotional flames, make you care about characters. I didn't like that bank robber to begin with, but when he pulled a child out of line and held a gun to their head, I found a whole new level of dislike.

Dramatic characters get put through a gauntlet of challenges, and torture is one that makes us all feel especially helpless. It can explain why someone has been broken, and it makes their recovery and triumph more poignant and relatable. Anyone who has seen a Harrison Ford movie knows that by the end, he's going to look like he's been run through a meat grinder. His wounds are like reminders of each conflict he and the audience went through. 

All this tells me is that you do, indeed, believe there are a lot of people who enjoy seeing torture for entertainment, rather than recognizing it as a dramatic tool for plotting stories, and you're offended by that. If I thought it were true, I'd be offended too.

Hi Phi for All

You have made some very interesting points and thank you very much for that. I fully appreciate those points.

Basically, as I mentioned in my previous post in slightly different words. I do not know how many people enjoy watching torture. However, those people who do enjoy watching it (regardless of how many or how few they are) have something wrong with them.

23 minutes ago, peterwlocke said:

well for some it depends, I guess like when it happens to a character you dislike.

I don't care who the victim is. Torture is always wrong.

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

2 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

I actually believe that anyone who is not exactly like me in this regard has something deeply wrong with them.

Do you think others are enjoying the torture? That they like what's being done? I think you're mistaken. 

And I'm sorry, but I think it's deeply wrong to feel this way about people who aren't exactly like you.

Hi Everyone

Thank you very much for your replies. I thank that some very interesting points have been made.

Phi for Ali, I think you have misinterpreted me. To be honest, I simply don't know to what extent others are enjoying the torture. That is partly why I made this posting so that I could get a better idea of this. 

As for your second point, I will requote myself fuller than you quoted me:

2 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

The only emotional response I have towards torture is deep horror and the feeling that my blood has become very cold in a very unpleasant way. I am not in any way whatsoever entertained by it. I suspect that there are some people who think I have something wrong with me because of this. Well I don't. I actually believe that anyone who is not exactly like me in this regard has something deeply wrong with them.

Firstly, note that I said "in this regard". Obviously, I do not think that there is something wrong with people who are not like me in every way.

I will now pick apart what I said into its components:

1. "The only emotional response I have towards torture is deep horror and the feeling that my blood has become very cold in a very unpleasant way." Do I think there is something wrong with people who are not like this? Yes I do.

2. "I am not in any way whatsoever entertained by it." Firstly, my definition of "entertained" simply means made happy so I do indeed think that there is something wrong with people who are made happy by watching torture. However I don't think that there is anything wrong with people who feel that they have been educated or informed by watching torture.

Hi Everyone

I am beginning to lose count of the times that I have had to stop watching a film or TV series I was enjoying because a dreadful scene of torture came up. Last night it happened while I was watching the second episode of The Umbrella Academy on Netflix. I will not be watching any more of it.

Is this really what most people want?

The only emotional response I have towards torture is deep horror and the feeling that my blood has become very cold in a very unpleasant way. I am not in any way whatsoever entertained by it. I suspect that there are some people who think I have something wrong with me because of this. Well I don't. I actually believe that anyone who is not exactly like me in this regard has something deeply wrong with them.

I would be very grateful for any thoughts about what I have said in this posting.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Does anyone her know which amino acid stimulates mTOR the least?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Snow.

Hi John

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think I should explain that I am actually looking for some sort of filler for a recipe I am hoping to create. Snow would obviously not work in this situation.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi everyone

Can anyone here think of a powder which is non-toxic in high quantities (up to around 400G a day) and which contains less than about 5% of each of net carbs, and protein, and less than about 20% of each of fat and fiber? (This means that at least half of the powder's chemical composition would be of absolutely no macronutrient value at all. This obviously does not preclude micronutrient value.)

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi

As I understand it in perhaps somewhat simplistic terms, cells can be divided into the following two broad types according to how they interact with energy:

Type 1. Energy-storage cells such as fat storage cells and liver glycogen storage cells which store energy.

Type 2. Energy-using cells such as brain cells and muscle cells which use energy to perform various functions including cell division.

I would like to gain some understanding of the differences between how insulin and possibly other hormones interact with different types of cell. I would therefore be very grateful to anyone who can answer the following 14 questions.

01. The two types of cell I have listed above can obviously be further subdivided into lots of different sub-types. Is there an overlap between Type 1 and Type 2 cells?

02. If I understand correctly, insulin acts as a "key" to a "doorway" in each cell which, when open, allows energy (usually in the form of glucose) to enter the cell and that these insulin "keys" respond to various hormonal instructions which depend on various conditions. Am I correct?

03. Am I correct in guessing that insulin is just one out of a range of different "keys" to different types of cell "doorways"?

04. Is insulin required to allow energy into every type of cell or just certain types of cell? If just certain types, which types?

05. I have read that insulin primarily responds to the level of glucose in the blood meaning that if it gets higher than the equilibrium amount, insulin gets activated. Is this correct?

06. What else, if anything, does insulin respond to?

07. When insulin is activated, is there a priority system for which type of cell receives the energy let in by the insulin or is it just randomly allocated? If there is a priority system, how does it work?

08. I am guessing that the "keys" which allow energy out of Type 1 cells in response to the level of glucose in the blood getting lower than the equilibrium amount are not insulin. Am I correct? If yes, what are these "keys"?

09. Is there a priority system for letting energy out of different sub-types of Type 1 cells? If yes, how does it work?

10. Whenever energy is released from liver glycogen storage cells, is it always released in the form of glucose?

11. Whenever energy is released from fat storage cells, is it always released in the form of non-glucose chemicals such as ketones?

12. Do non-glucose energy forms such as ketones require "keys" to be let in to cells? If yes, what are these "keys"?

13. Am I correct that "insulin resistance" is when the "lock" on a cell "doorway" gets broken as a result of overuse?

14. Can a non-glucose energy form such as a ketone get into an insulin resistant cell more easily than glucose?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

If you look at the error bars you'll note that the range for each group is fairly large. When folks write "significantly"  it refers to a statistical test conducted on the data. In this case the means may looks somewhat different, but the data overlaps to such a degree that a test does not reveal a significance in the difference between the groups.

Hi CharonY

Thank you very much for the clarification.

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is actually a tad complicated. The Breslin group has shown that a group with higher amylase concentration had lower blood glucose responses. They speculate that this is due an earlier insulin response leading to an attenuated blood sugar increase (The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 142, Issue 5, 1 May 2012, Pages 853–858).

Other papers have indicated that lower amylase levels are associated with a number of metabolic syndromes and obesity. Though the mechanisms seem still to be unclear. So the data may support what the MD was saying (though I am not sure whether studies have been conducted specifically on diabetics), but the mechanisms are (to my knowledge) not resolved.

Hi CharonY

Thank you very much for your reply.

I have managed to find on the Internet the article you referred to and it is rather confusing in places. for example, here is a quote from it:

Quote

Plasma insulin concentrations following starch ingestion did not significantly differ at any time point between the HA and LA groups when the curves were analyzed over the entire testing session (Fig. 2A).

The above graph is Fig. 2A. To me it looks as is there is a clear difference between the two groups so what do you think is meant by what I have quoted from the article?

Hi Everyone

A few weeks ago I was watching a documentary on TV in which a doctor said that people with a very low amount of salivary amylase should consume much less starch because it will cause them to have blood sugar spikes. This confused me because I would have thought that if a person has less amylase to convert starch into sugar, they will be able to consume more starch, not less. Does anyone here understand why the  doctor said what he said?

Thank you very much,

Kind regards

Tim

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I would guess that it would have something to do with molecular weight or chain length. The higher MWs being a solid powder and the lower ones being an oil... not certain though that would be my first guess.

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Liquid is more fatty or oily while powder is less.

liquid = glycophospholipids

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

Yea - but the chemical difference is just the length of the chains though yea?   I don't know much about lecithin so I am just assuming this based on what I know about other oligomers/short chained polymers. I would assume that if the same thing comes in both an oil and a solid that the solid has the higher MW.

Hi DrP and Silvestru,

Thank you very much for you replies.

Which of the two forms would you say is more healthy?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Does anyone here know what the chemical difference is between liquid sunflower lecithin and powdered sunflower lecithin?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Lets say we have a an extremely fine powder which is a water-soluble crystalline solid at room temperature. Lets say we also have an oil which is less dense than the powder in its non-powdered form. If the powder is mixed into the oil, am I correct in thinking that it will be much harder for a particle of the powder to fall through the oil than it would be for a feather to fall through the air? Will the settling of the powder at the bottom of the container be so slow as to be almost imperceptible?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think a big contributor to visceral fat is fructose, so restricting that in your diet is probably a good idea. Table sugar has it in in.

Hi SringJunky

Thank you very much for your advice.

I am on keto so hopefully my current sugar intake is below the danger level.

Kind regards

Tim

On 11/23/2018 at 5:59 PM, StringJunky said:

Look at your belly. I know that's not a number but If you can pinch an inch or less you should be ok.

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

@tim.tdj was asking about TOFI (thin-outside-fat-inside).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFI

"To classify an individual as TOFI, it is essential to measure their internal fat content. This is done by using magnetic resonance Imaging (MRI) or CT scanning.:"

 

Hi StringJunky and Sensei

Thank you both very much for your replies.

Yes, Sensei. I was thinking about TOFI when I made the original post.

The lower end of the BMI scale in the study mentioned in the Wikipedia article Sensei linked to is 20. I have actually recently been on a diet which in the last half year (approx) has so far taken my BMI from about 24 to 19.7 so I think I may now be safe. I don't know though. I rather wish that the study had included as a group the range 18.5 to 20.

I have found a link to the study. It is as follows:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225060033_Excess_body_fat_in_obese_and_normal-weight_subjects

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Does anyone here know what BMI value you have to get below in order to absolutely guarantee that you do not have a harmful amount of fat in or around any of your organs?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

16 minutes ago, DrP said:

As different surfactants vary in their effectiveness you would have to have a fudge factor in the equation for the specific system I would think. It will also depend on what is being suspended. You will need to do some tests to find the optimum concentration you require for stabilization of your suspension experimentally like String Junky suggested I would think  -  sorry.  Maybe someone else will have a better idea but I doubt it....  if there are equations (which there probably are somewhere) then they would be for ideal or know systems... I think you will have to try what String suggested and try a range of tests with incrimental increases in the surfactant amount untill you find a level where the suspension is stabilised. 

I think you will need to trial ammounts you need for your system...  maybe start a half a percent and increase in half percent intervals up to a few percent....  see which best stabilizes you emulsion/suspension and 'zoom in' to that concentration and repeat the tst around that concentration with 0.1 % variations above and below your best res result from the first test   -  something like that.  I searched around to see if I could find anything better and it seems that we are on the right track...  there is a discussion about selecting surfactant conc below I found and it suggests similar things to what we have discussed here.  I hope this helps.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_should_be_the_amount_of_surfactant_required_for_emulsion_polymerization

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=jp72W43qF8zfgAaQ4IvIBw&q=calculating+surfactant+requirements+for+suspension&btnK=Google+Search&oq=calculating+surfactant+requirements+for+suspension&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1725.19740..20925...0.0..0.226.4057.42j7j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0j0i131j0i10j0i13j33i160j33i21.W8D1Qg9yIHU

 

 

 

Hi DrP

Thank you very much indeed for all your help.

Kind regards

Tim

24 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think the particle size will depend more on the level of aggitation when stirring the system. The surfactant then will stablize the droplets in suspension....  you will need more to stableise the smaller drop size I think, but the act of putting in the extra surfactant wont make the droplets smaller to begin with. 

If the oil is less dense than the water then it will float, yes. 

Hi DrP

Thank you very much for your reply.

I am guessing that the following question is a very difficult one to answer so I will fully understand if you can't answer it. Do you have any idea how to calculate the minimum amount of surfactant needed so that if given a large amount of initial agitation, the oil:water ratio at the bottom of the container will stably remain the same as at the top of the container? (Putting this another way, so there is no separation whatsoever.)

8 hours ago, DrP said:

The amount of surfactant molecules needed will also depend upon the droplet size of the oil.  The mixture isn't like a solution with molecules of oil in the water...  it will be droplets of oil suspended in the water. The smaller the particle size then the larger the total surface area of the droplets and the more surfactant needed to keep the suspension stable.

Hi DrP

Thank you very much for your reply.

Does this mean that the more surfactant you add, the smaller will be the average droplet size? (assuming you shake the container after adding the surfactant)

Also, am I correct that if there is just a single droplet of oil in a container of water and the oil droplet is surrounded by a layer of surfactant, the surfactant will not stop the oil droplet rising to the surface of the water?