Acme

Yes, i meant evidence-based material which not easy to find. The way I'm looking at it is, how does the stomach sense what is in it? i can't see it having chemical sensors for specific food types to determine how long it should churn for and it's lined with mucus to protect itself from the acid which would probably mask any sensors that might be there anyway.

Good question. Clearly there is some sort of signaling going on. Guess we have more researching to do...

Here's something from Wiki again that seems germane:

Control of secretion and motility

 

The movement and the flow of chemicals into the stomach are controlled by both the autonomic nervous system and by the various digestive system hormones:

 

Gastrin The hormone gastrin causes an increase in the secretion of HCl from the parietal cells, and pepsinogen from chief cells in the stomach. It also causes increased motility in the stomach. Gastrin is released by G cells in the stomach in response to distension of the antrum, and digestive products (especially large quantities of incompletely digested proteins). It is inhibited by a pH normally less than 4 (high acid), as well as the hormone somatostatin.

Cholecystokinin Cholecystokinin (CCK) has most effect on the gall bladder, causing gall bladder contractions, but it also decreases gastric emptying and increases release of pancreatic juice which is alkaline and neutralizes the chyme. CCK is synthesized by I-cells in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine.

Secretin In a different and rare manner, secretin, produced in the small intestine, has most effects on the pancreas, but will also diminish acid secretion in the stomach.

Gastric inhibitory peptide Gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP) decreases both gastric acid release and motility.

Enteroglucagon Enteroglucagon decreases both gastric acid and motility.

 

Other than gastrin, these hormones all act to turn off the stomach action. This is in response to food products in the liver and gall bladder, which have not yet been absorbed. The stomach needs to push food into the small intestine only when the intestine is not busy. While the intestine is full and still digesting food, the stomach acts as storage for food.

...

I haven't found anything that supports the idea of different foods being treated differently in terms of time apart from water which is evacuated pretty quickly. Probably stiffness of the food is the main factor for how long it stays in the stomach i.e. stiff mixing food takes longer.

I had to go looking, but it seems there is a difference that's not dependent on the stiffness/texture. For example, this source says dairy stays in the stomach longer than fish. (Not the strong kind of reference I prefer, but it's a start.)

 

Digestion Time of Various Food

DIGESTION TIME OF VARIOUS FOODS: (The time spent in the stomach before emptying)

 

...

Dairy: Skim milk, cottage or low fat pot cheese or ricotta - approx. 90 min. digestion time whole milk cottage cheese - 120 min. digestion whole milk hard cheese - 4 to 5 hours digestion time.

...

Animal proteins: Egg yolk - 30 min. digestion time Whole egg - 45 min. Fish - cod, scrod, flounder, sole seafood - 30 min. digestion time Fish - salmon, salmon trout, herring, (more fatty fish) - 45 min. to 60 digestion time Chicken - 11/2 to 2 hours digestion time (without skin) Turkey - 2 to 2 1/4 hours digestion time (without skin) Beef, lamb - 3 to 4 hours digestion time Pork - 41/2 to 5 hours.

Addendum:

 

My question is do the chyme evacuate once completely, or is it (the evacuation) happening portion by portion?

 

For instance one may have eaten fruits and cereals. The fruit may have suggested quickly than the cereals. As the fruit portion is digested quickly do they evacuate to duodenumm immediately or will they wait for the cereal portion also to complete the digestion and move to duodenumm both together?

 

 

I suspect once completely as I see no mechanism whereby the foods once mixed could differentiate.

 

So I found a more credible source -Stomach @ InnerBody- contradicting my supposition. They say:

After the stomach has been filled with food from a meal, it stores the food for about 1-2 hours. During this time, the stomach continues the digestive process that began in the mouth and allows the intestines, pancreas, gallbladder, and liver to prepare to complete the digestive process.

 

At the inferior end of the stomach, the pyloric sphincter controls the movement of food into the intestines. The pyloric sphincter is normally closed to keep food and stomach secretions within the stomach. Once chyme is ready to leave the stomach, the pyloric sphincter opens to allow a small amount of chyme to pass into the duodenum. This process, known as gastric emptying, slowly repeats over the 1-2 hours that food is stored in the stomach. The slow rate of gastric emptying helps to spread out the volume of chyme being released from the stomach and maximizes the digestion and absorption of nutrients in the intestines.

There is no suggestion however that the chyme is differentiated by foodtype, i.e. it is a mixture of all types consumed.

My question is do the chyme evacuate once completely, or is it (the evacuation) happening portion by portion?

 

For instance one may have eaten fruits and cereals. The fruit may have suggested quickly than the cereals. As the fruit portion is digested quickly do they evacuate to duodenumm immediately or will they wait for the cereal portion also to complete the digestion and move to duodenumm both together?

I suspect once completely as I see no mechanism whereby the foods once mixed could differentiate.

Big fucking deal.

My claims are proovable with a serious computer, for any number.

...

That would be a proof by exhaustion, but since natural numbers are infinite, such a proof is impossible by any computer the same as for a people.

 

The prevalence of digital computers has greatly increased the convenience of using the method of exhaustion. Computer expert systems can be used to arrive at answers to many of the questions posed to them. In theory, the proof by exhaustion method can be used whenever the number of cases is finite. However, because most mathematical sets are infinite, this method is rarely used to derive general mathematical results. ...

According to Wikipedia page on stomach:

... Chyme slowly passes through the pyloric sphincter and into the duodenum of the small intestine, where the extraction of nutrients begins. Depending on the quantity and contents of the meal, the stomach will digest the food into chyme anywhere between forty minutes and a few hours. ...

The amount of time required to reduce food to chime likely depends on the amount and type of food consumed, so the total time from eating to an empty stomach will also vary.

Special case ? Are we talking mathematics or rubjub ?

There are an infinite number of these "Special case"s.

It just doesn't work AT ALL, NEVER, EVER, EVER for n > 2.

Try it and see.

The point is that you, nor I, nor any person can try all the special cases, therefore in order to say with surety "It just doesn't work AT ALL, NEVER, EVER, EVER for n > 2", a mathematical proof of the general case is required. Do you have such a mathematical proof?

 

 

This Wile's "proof" is also some bullshit.

So you say. What proof do you have?

 

Fermat came up with one proof for n=2 and thought he prooved it for the entire equation.

This is the so called "Lost solution". He went out and talked about it, and created a big excitement.

He later found out it doesn't work always like he thought and destroyed the so called "Lost solution".

That is all there is to this story.

Please direct me to your source for these assertions.

 

It is one big Bullshit.

Again, so you say.

 

This is more a psychological story than a mathematical one.

Something is destroyed, erased, lost or forgotten, and it's value and merit get bloated to the heavens.

 

The interesting part of this equation from the mathematical point of view is how it never ever works for n>2.

Not that it does.

? But you offer no mathematical proof, which makes your assertions uninteresting.

 

PS Sorry MigL, you posted in between when I was voting my conscience. Hopefully some well meaning member will bind your wound and mend my error.

n = 3

 

x = 2

 

y = 3

 

z = 4

 

2^3 + 3^3 =/ 4^3

 

8 + 27 = 35

 

8 + 27 =/ 64

 

End of story.

That's just a special case and not the same as a proof of the general equation.

 

As was pointed out, there is no evidence Fermat had a proof; he simply claimed to have had one. If he did, it would most certainly be different than Wile's proof which runs some 200 pages and uses mathematics not extant in Fermat's time.

I agree. I found this from a neuroscientist who thinks the same:

 

Earthworms are conscious because they can respond to stimuli, like odours, and react accordingly. I think people erroneously conflate self-awareness with consciousness, which is another higher level of complexity, but is not the minimum parameter for something to be conscious.

Hofstadter points out that there are levels of consciousness and that we humans acknowledge and adjudge them according to personal perceptions. Most folks don't hesitate to stick a worm on a hook whereas sticking a dolphin on a hook would be verboten. Perceptions being what they are, there is a wide latitude in our judgments, but they are based on the idea of a continuum of consciousness.

...

The question of why we have subjective experience instead of just being highly complex but "perspectiveless" automatons has no currently defined answer.

Hofstadter defines the experience of consciousness as a 'strange loop'. While you may not know that or disagree with it, it is not true to say that the definition does not exist.

My preferred "purely scientific" take on consciousness:

 

I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter

 

I Am a Strange Loop is a 2007 book by Douglas Hofstadter, examining in depth the concept of a strange loop to explain the sense of "I". The concept of a strange loop was originally developed in his 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach.

 

In the end, we are self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference.

 Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop p.363

...

He demonstrates how the properties of self-referential systems, demonstrated most famously in Gödel's incompleteness theorems, can be used to describe the unique properties of minds. ...

.The slight irony of all this bag business,is ,

That a year or so ago , I got so worked up about this problem , I thought I would start observing , people with bags .

Postman , women , men , myself etc .

...

While doing research I asked a man I found walking over a canal bridge, spontaneously . What do you do to carry all you need while walking the canals ? To which he replied " I acquired this great body top" it had about 15 small pouches only across the front . One for this one for that , " he said as he demonstrated where his keys were, his wallet, his sandwich, his map. "

...

Mike

The gentleman's 'body top' sounds like the 'fisher/sports' vest I use. Here's a photo of a model similar to mine. I found mine at a second-hand store for $8US.

 

Other stuff I carry that slipped through the cracks in my caranium are tape measures, 16ft & 100ft., gardening shears, cord, small tarp, water, inclinometer, tripod, expanding photographic reflecter/diffuser, pliers, folding saw, a Leatherman muli-tool, and a GPS unit. When in remote areas likely to have bear and cougar, I carry a sidearm.

What're you guys, going camping ?

Why do you need so much gear when you leave the house ?

( I've heard about you Europeans and your man-purses )

I am not European, not there's anything wrong with that. (Well, descended from Europeans.)

 

So I liked a lot of comments but I'm too lazy to quote all and will respond haphazardly. Good call Swansont on maybe a camera bag. Another category to look into fo shizzle.

 

On the cell phones, I'm kinda new to that but mine has a lanyard tie on it and I used it to tie the phone to my person. My current phone is a bit too big for shirt pockets so I have a belt pocket I tie it to.

 

As to why I need so much gear. Part of my kit is things I have wished I had when I needed them on outings and so make sure to remedy the regret. Normal everyday on my person I carry the bandaids, cell phone, flashlight, keys, magnifying glass, mirror, and of course money if I have it and identification. (No point making it hard on officials identifying me if I croak. )

 

As to my bag, I am an amateur botanist and do volunteer work for the university and several government agencies. I go about in wild terrain to photograph, collect, describe, and otherwise document the biota and my gear is sometimes necessary and always convenient to achieve my ends. One of my state managers often jokes on me on account of my kit-and-caboodle, but usually when he is hoping I have what he needs and hasn't brought. I never made it very high in Boy Scouts but have always taken Be Prepared to heart.

That is a really good Bag . If I saw one of those in a shop for a reasonable price I would buy it.

Will not fall over easily , plenty of different sections . Really good .

I paid $30US.

 

I can move on to another complaint I have with current bag design. Because I usually have a few kg a of stuff to cart around , what with I pad , drawing and painting sketch pads, paints and a plethora of bits and pieces , the bag gets heavyish , so I want to take the load off my hands , so need some form of bodily fixing ( say a shoulder or back.

The shoulder straps always slip off after a few paces.

The 'molded shoulder strap' I referred to with my bag is padded & wider than the rest of the strap and spreads the load nicely. It also alleviates the 'slip off' by virtue of its curve.

 

If I want to secure it by putting the strap over my head , this is ab awkward manuver . Worse, when I then want to reach into my bag or look at something , it becomes an impossible situation and contortions provoke, removing over the head and back again . A new design is long over dew for fixing a bag to the body .

My bag easily swings from my back to my side or front with ease and I can access all compartments without taking it off my shoulder.

 

I have just overcome the seeing inside the bag by buying a led light for 90 p. But this is very crude , and currently loose the miniature light in the bag and need another light to find that light . Again a new design is possible but required

 

Mike.

The many pockets on my bag let me sort into categories and sizes which is great for not loosing track of things. Since I know what I have along and where I put it, I can usually find what I am after by feel/touch alone. Besides the extra pockets visible in the pic I put up, there is a zippered pocket under the flap, zippered mesh pockets at either end of the main interior, and it came with a velcroed interior divider that I can custom position for my load. Also, under the top flap there is a zippered fly that entirely closes the interior.

 

While the company apparently isn't making this model anymore, it is available on E-bay for $40US. >> Allen fishing gear bag

 

PS Besides carrying the bag, I wear a lightweight fisher/sports vest in which I carry smaller items such as a field notebook, pencil, eyeglasses, plastic collection bags, compass, matches, lighter, loupe, TP, bandaids, flagging tape, and 7X35 binoculars. Ohhh I cut a handsome figure!

Here is a picture of 3 fairly expensive carrying bags . Put them down for a moment , THEY FALL OVER . And to improve things nicely , they are often BLACK inside , so you can't find anything , that is now jumbled up !

 

Remedy , they should ALL. Be redesigned , orientated through 90 degrees , and have an illuminated inside.

 

Mike

Remedy is to think outside the bag. To whit, I was using a bag similar to those pictured on my field tramps and while I liked the close contour as alluded to by Phi, I disliked the falling over as you mention. Not only would the fall let things out, it put the bag in the dirt and often wet ground and foliage. Not what I want for camera gear and notebooks. Anyway, I stumbled on what I need at the hardware store in the fishing section. A fishing gear bag! Stays upright, waterproof bottom, and bright yellow interior. Also, a molded shoulder strap that cut the bite of a straight strap. I get around the cut-out problem Phi mentions by swinging the bag to my back and have no problem negotiating snagging brush and limbs.

 

Mine was by a company called Allen, but this particular model appears to be no longer available. Here's a photo though. (Mine lacks the orange highlights on exterior.)

 

... Biologically functional (folded) protein from left-handed amino acids only. And there is no conceivable way how this could have been synthesized from simple molecules under prebiotic conditions.

...

It is only the case that no way has yet been conceived [by you at least], and concluding from this that no way is possible is a logical fallacy. People knew for millennia that consuming willow bark/leaves could soothe pain, but no one knew how to synthesize the plant's contained acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) until chemist Charles Frédéric Gerhard did so 1853. Scientific knowledge is a temporal manifestation. Be patient, and don't get you loin clot in a knot.

...In principle, any liquid exposed to a good enough vacuum will boil.

That's true of room-temperature mercury in space.

So, the answer to the question "So, how fast will it evaporate?" is an interesting one, but if there's something to nucleate boiling- perhaps the vortexes produced by squirting it, the answer might be "quite fast".

There's certainly nothing to stop it doing so.

...

So I was thinking to minimize vortices by using a laminar flow nozzle like they use in those dancing fountains. >>

 

So if we get a laminar flow stream at a rate that freezes before it boils away, we have a sublimating sausage?

If we take a gallon of mercury into space and squirt it out from a circular orifice, will it stay all together as a 'string'?

 

All the ifs, ands, and buts entertained. Like... a string will form if the pressure is right, and the orifice is smooth, but not if too close to mass x.

Did our caveman ancestors commit suicide or where they just happier than we are now? since suicide rates are on the rise

While not 'caveman' perhaps, Native Americans committed suicide using various poisons according to David E. Jones writing in Poison Arrows: North American Hunting and Warfare. He says on pg. 6 that the reason for suicide "usually stemmed from a broken heart".

 

He cites an early record by Father Sagard who worked among the Huron in the 1630s, and noted that the tribe used Cicuta masculata - Spotted Water Hemlock to commit suicide. The plant was known as "suicide root".

So I was doing research online and saw that when you make home-made perfumes and cologne, once mixing the essential oils with the alcohol or oils before you use the scent it should sit for 2 weeks to a month before using it.

 

The question I can't find an answer to was what exactly is happening in this period of time where the compound is steeping, and is there anything that can be done to speed it up (different base compound, temperatures, agitation, diffusing etc.)?

Lately I have taken an interest in lichens and I ran across a species in the field that is used in perfumery. (Warning! Known to cause contact dermatitis)

 

So the lichen is Evernia prunastri, aka Oakmoss, and apparently it is used both as a fixative in perfume and it also adds a scent.

Evernia pruneastri

This species is harvested commercially in south-central Europe, and then sent to France where it is used in the manufacture of fine perfumes. The lichen acts as a fixative for other scents, and also adds a subtle herbal fragrance of its own.

Mind that my chemistry is lame, so you'll have to evaluate the following as to applicability to your situation.

 

fixative @ Wiki

A fixative is used to equalize the vapor pressures, and thus the volatilities, of the raw materials in a perfume oil, as well as to increase the tenacity.[1]

 

Natural fixatives are resinoids (benzoin, labdanum, myrrh, olibanum, storax, tolu balsam) and animal products (ambergris, castoreum, musk, and civet[2]). Synthetic fixatives include substances of low volatility (diphenylmethane, cyclopentadecanolide, ambroxide, benzyl salicylate) and virtually odorless solvents with very low vapor pressures (benzyl benzoate, diethyl phthalate, triethyl citrate).

Lichens produce numerous secondary metabolites and often these are key to identifying them using chemical spot tests. I don't know how the metabolites of Evernia prunastri correlate chemically to the above Wiki blurb, but here's a rundown:

Evernia prunastri @ Encyclopedia of Life

...Secondary metabolites: cortex with usnic acid (usually major, sometimes ± absent), atranorin, and chloroatranorin, medulla with evernic acid.; ...

...

The odds for any single one of the 3 points I mention now are immensely small. Then what would the odds be for them ever to come together using the current prebiotic life explanation?

Remember, this would only give us one single unstable protein that would be decomposed the second time we looked at it.

 

Meteorites provide us tiny amounts of simple precursors for protein. Not protein! The observation of a brick does not explain the synthesis of a house from lightning.

I find the 'odds are immensely small' argument lame. Unlikely things, even highly, highly, highly... unlikely things, happen. Chance is as chance does and whether or not we can reproduce (or have yet to reproduce) the deterministic chain of events & conditions that led to life, life exists.

It's not the gasses that block the Sun, rather it is the ash/dust thrown high into the atmosphere. The big sucker will require big storage and possibly a bagless/filterless sucking design such as those Dyson® vortex sweepers to prevent clogging.

Maybe glue some thin copper foil to the nozzle to get a green flame?

p2p= pay to play

f2p = free to play

I'm told that the fella who dug the nearby pond (in the early '80s I think) says the boulder was where it is now at the time and was not excavated from the pond.

 

No word yet on a geologist visit, however I hope to get out in the next couple weeks to give the rock a better look-over and start cataloging the lichens growing on it. I'll also poke around the immediate area and see what's to be sawn.

This outfit has some glassware: >> Forestry Suppliers - Lab Products

 

This one has chemicals & labware: > Photographers Formulary Inc.