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

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's the opposite of what I said. There's lots of evidence, and all science is based on models, so "just a model" is an odd description. 

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

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The aetheric wind is a model, too, BTW. One that's contradicted by the evidence.

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

50 minutes ago, angela weiss said:

do not infer "they (who?) purged the Cossaks from what I said.My sentence has no double meaning or many consequences.

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?

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope 

I can explain if you want

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

the numerous unaddressed ways already shared with you above?

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

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

This comment is a joke, but this isn’t a comedy forum.

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

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But as a whole the brain is powered by oxidative phosphorylation.

If it so, why brain can not use a fat as substrate of energy?

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Saying that mitochondria is taking us hostage is basically like saying that the heart is a useless organ.

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

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Why, do you think then is the brain so highly dependent on oxygen?

I think, mitochondria appear in additional brain tissues, which act on signaling pathways and trigger apaptosis in critical situations.
This is just a hypothesis

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Another part you do not seem to understand is that our body acts in concert

In general, mitochondria are associated with the body of carnivores. It is conceptually that this seems to be the key to solving the problem.

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

They are not our friend. They are essential. I am basically just replying to make sure that other folks are not possibly getting confused. 

I mean that nowadays a lot of advertising of this kind is being thrown into the mass media

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

They are essential.

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.

3 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

here will be enough oxygen and energy already present as a buffer in a body to run for ten seconds without breathing. You will need to catch your breath after. The oxygen you take in now takes time to reach hard working muscles but you have enough reserve to cope with that.

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?

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Are you saying that critical thinking requires you to remain ignorant? 

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?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

So, there is no evidence of heliocentrism? It's just a model?

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Since the idea* has been debunked consistently on earth why waste time and money on doing it again on another planet?

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?

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, you don't mean receptors when you say receptors.

Insulin doesn't actually transport glucose, it just activates receptors

(And only for GLUT4)

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

You missed (again) the fact that the Cori-cycle costs energy.

this does not change what I said.

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

So it is fine to be ignorant, but there is little excuse in wanting to stay so. 

it is normal when there is critical thinking

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It makes much more sense to ask th epatients.

It does work.

So the medical theory that type 2 diabetes is insulin resistant is wrong?

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Most tissue isn't explicit;y sensitive to glucose.
The tissue with the most obvious sensitivity is the cells in the pancreas.

I meant the restoration of receptors through which glucose enters the cell, the ability of the cell to take glucose from the blood

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are penalties for making false medical claims in advertising  

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?

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Evidence to support any of this?

Yes, lol. Youtube

Thrilla in manilla aspecialy

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes they do- notably with sulphonylureas.

In any event, we know how to prevent and treat type 2 diabetes. It's just that people find it very hard to lose weight.

That's still the best available medical treatment- and it works.

This is, in any case, not what was discussed (restoration of tissue susceptibility to sugar)

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It does work.

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?

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Increasing the levels of insulin  in type 2 diabetes works.

So, it's associated with a deficiency.

but cannot work, since type 2 means insulin resistance

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Metformin, for example. “metformin also lowers blood sugar by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin.”

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

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because wikipedia is an exhaustive source. If it’s not in wikipedia, it’s not true.  </sarcasm>

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

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You have not looked.
 

Do you have a link to such studies?

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

"Sulfonylureas (UK: sulphonylurea) are a class of organic compounds used in medicine and agriculture, for example as antidiabetic drugs widely used in the management of diabetes mellitus type 2. They act by increasing insulin release from the beta cells in the pancreas.^[1]"

 

This is an illiterate statement because type 2 diabetes is not associated with insulin deficiency.

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Take what into account?

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)

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But, more importantly, we have (accidentally) done the experiment with humans, so who cares about rats?.

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

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

That's exactly what insulin does

I meant improvement at the expense of my own mechanisms, their restoration

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

without insulin cells cannot absorb glucose

By the way, can. This only applies to GLUT4

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Unless by treat you mean only therapies which would restore function to the pancreatic beta cells which fail to produce insulin in type 1 diabetes.  This is not currently possible.

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

57 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It really isn't that simple.

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?

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That is an example of a logical fallacy. I think it can be placed into the category of Informal fallacies, Fallacies of presumption. It can probably also fit Shifting of the burden of proof (onus probandi)

Someone with more skills in logic may be able to fill in.

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