molbol2000

The Russell set formula is inconsistent. But almost every language allows for contradictory or incorrect but grammatically correct formulas. For example, the arithmetic expression 1 + 1 = 5 is incorrect and inconsistent. Thus, Russell proved not the inconsistency of set theory (Cantor's), but only that the language allows for incorrect expressions

All speculative science only like mathematics and so on. If the model is a generalization of experience, then it is real natural science. And astronomy is still considered as such At least formal Only that it is not found on the surface of the earth (leaving aside the question of correct measurement for now)? By the way, in my personal opinion, the wave nature of light is direct evidence of aether, because a wave outside the environment is an oxymoron So, in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Then why did you mention the Cossacks in the same list as Jews and Gypsies?

What are "liberals" now? Liberals liberated peoples from slave oppression; they did not mean the freedom of homosexulists or even the emancipation of women and Jews. This has long become a useless cliche, liberals liberalize nothing, and conservatives conserve nothing. Bloody Bolsheviks were delighted with "liberal values" Just a play Such "liberalism" can defend the freedom of cannibals, why not?

I can explain if you want If I spoke to the wall, they would be even more ineffectual

I think the number of words is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of the language. Simply put, the worse the language, the more words it contains, because word formation is inflexible

Where am I wrong? If the question of conceptual necessity is raised, then this is exactly the case. Mitochondria are needed to feed on meat and fat. Eating carbohydrates is, in principle, possible without this (it does not matter that this does not happen in reality, conceptually) it is believed that only the mitochondria can use fat as an energy substrate. Predators use it it may even be that this issue is related to ideology, therefore there are so many ambiguities If it so, why brain can not use a fat as substrate of energy? This is a bad analogy, by the way. Oxygen delivery is not the only function of the circulatory system. The accumulation of fat itself has something to do with it. As a rule, predators are more prone to this than herbivores, and omnivores are especially active in gaining fat, and the leaders here are pigs and humans (and they are also physiologically similar) this is apparently due to the fact that carbohydrates in this body are easily converted into fat

I think, mitochondria appear in additional brain tissues, which act on signaling pathways and trigger apaptosis in critical situations. This is just a hypothesis In general, mitochondria are associated with the body of carnivores. It is conceptually that this seems to be the key to solving the problem.

I mean that nowadays a lot of advertising of this kind is being thrown into the mass media The details are important here. Yes, they can trigger cell-killing processes if they don't like something, so we have to please them. But this is conceptually incorrect. It is clear that tissues can do without them, there are glycolytic fibers that do without them. The brain doesn't use them directly either. in sports medicine it is believed that sprinters mainly use anaerobic glycolysis I also paid attention to the fact that old people have severe shortness of breath when performing elementary movements. This can be explained by the fact that their breathing is ineffective and oxygen is poorly delivered. But then why should they inhale often, because in the lungs it is still there? It is more logical to explain this precisely by the fact that there is an overabundance of mitochondria in their tissues In addition, outside the cellular plasma, the immune system kills mitochondria as a foreign material. How does the activity of mitochondria differ from other bacterial cell parasites? Don't they eat pyruvate and synthesize ATP?

Cautious about advertising "mitohondria is your friend" and so on. By the way, in the next topic, the action of metformin was discussed, and again another testimony to the fact that the topic of mitochondria is mystified. Metformin inhibits the mitochondrial respiratory chain and leads to fat burning. But if mitochondria metebilize fat, how can suppression of mitochondria burn it?

So, there is no evidence of heliocentrism? It's just a model? I have said. If it turns out that the aetheric wind is there on other planets, then the earth is the motionless center of the universe.

I know it sounds like freaky, but I haven't found such evidence. I know that Galileo proved the possibility that when the earth moves as an inertial system, this movement may be imperceptible, but the possibility is not proof that this is the case. Similarly, with the reasoning of Copernicus and so on. Meanwhile, the ancient concepts of spheres are very close to what is actually observed, for example, distant stars are almost motionless, and so on. And besides, if we (purely hypothetically) admit the existence of the ether, then the immobility of the earth explains the absence of the etheric wind By the way, were there any attempts to detect the etheric wind on other planets and satellites?

Insulin doesn't actually transport glucose, it just activates receptors (And only for GLUT4)

this does not change what I said. it is normal when there is critical thinking

So the medical theory that type 2 diabetes is insulin resistant is wrong? I meant the restoration of receptors through which glucose enters the cell, the ability of the cell to take glucose from the blood

why does it simultaneously act on 3 different mechanisms: neoglucogenesis, glucose absorption by cells and blocking of the mitochondrial respiratory chain, is there a connection?

Yes, lol. Youtube Thrilla in manilla aspecialy

This is, in any case, not what was discussed (restoration of tissue susceptibility to sugar) In this case, questions to theorists, because it cannot work by definition. By the way, I read a little about metformin and it turned out that in addition to this, it is also used for fat burning, and one of its mechanisms of action is based on suppressing mitochondrial respiration. And here again the paradox: it is believed that fat is metabolized by mitochondria. if fat is not burned by oxidation, how does it disappear?

but cannot work, since type 2 means insulin resistance

By the way, if Metformin would work as you say, it would be widely used by athletes as doping and anabolic, it is safer than insulin. and by itself suggests itself as an addition to insulin

well. But your source not sciencific too, moreover, it looks like marketing

Do you have a link to such studies? This is an illiterate statement because type 2 diabetes is not associated with insulin deficiency. This factor. For example, adjust the rate taking into account the physique (as well as the size of the heart and the state of blood vessels and so on) This experiment not have success. People die

Also I have read description of experiment with rats. They found out that reducing carbohydrates in the diet leads to insulin resistance. So, it seems, claims about the dangers of sugar consumption are a myth, and even all the way around

I meant improvement at the expense of my own mechanisms, their restoration By the way, can. This only applies to GLUT4 Firstly, no attempts are visible. Secondly, they also do not try to treat type 2 in this way, in the third, the masses of people are misinformed, saying that, allegedly, the problem is in an increase in blood sugar, and not in tissue starvation, which is generally a pseudoscientific lie but they could at least take this into account Also there is a contradiction: if therapy with insulin is works, why do people with type 1 diabetes still diet and suffer from different diabetes consequences?

Everything is simpler: in *real* science there are no unproven statements, the whole basis is derived from experience and is its generalization It's the principles that was before the middle of XX century, at least as an ideal of at least natural science The very time when science really bore fruit, and not just regular publications of fairy tales about black holes