Jump to content

Endy0816

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Endy0816

  1. 4 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

    There is a contradiction here. If the mitochondria is energy efficient, then the aerobic regimen should provide maximum power. However, high-intensity exercise provided by an anaerobic regimen based on the Cori cycle

    I think the problem is the availability of oxygen though they do make much more ATP.

    Edit:

    This link talks about it in good detail:

    http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/615coricycle.html

  2. 13 hours ago, iNow said:

    You need to ride an elevator to go get some crackers in the covered shopping area before you can reply? You must be hangry. 

    Very hangry. Although I'm being transported by a friend to buy small round cakes of leavened bread from a place where games can be played.

    bisq.jpg.fe7859543bbee4f54e72942d356cb1aa.jpg

     

  3. 13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    There's no such thing as fish, yet some of them have cartilage for bones... 

    I could definitely see that working for permanent low gravity downthe lone.  There's the reproduction aspect as well to consider too though. If we're forced to solve reproduction with artificial gravity or tricking our biology then bone loss may not even be a problem.

    More research really needs to be done.  Honestly, for bone loss, might even be able to compensate enough via exercise where the risk upon landing after a longer trip is acceptable.

  4. On 10/5/2020 at 11:46 AM, tylers100 said:

    From the article you posted:

    Without causing side effects (as in zero)? I think it is impossible, really. Because of equilibrium or ratio principle; for a thing to be altered while it is in relation/relationship with existing other things, all of these must change in order to reach toward/back to an equilibrium. All of things as I said, include side effects. What I'm saying.. I think there will be always side-effects of some degree in principle in all drugs.

    Maybe a next version of drug might will help human astronauts to go to ISS, the moon, to Mars, or elsewhere if we still have the notion; want a preservation of human body and its functions. If so, we have to consider the environmental design or ecological nature of spaceship and eventually to elsewhere - with earthy conditions in mind.

    It is like carrying a baggage with a bit of everything in it. Too much manpower and costly.

    The question is, once get there (eg. ISS, the moon, mars, etc) - how would the drug respond to a different condition over a long period of time? I mean, the drug and any future version(s) of it would be extensively tested here on Earth and orbit above.. positioned proximity to earth conditions, not the destinations as named above which have conditions that would be surely different from what is tested.

    A solution for a situation, but that doesn't mean it is same for another or different situation. A saying. It is all situational dependent. And also, a drug is not always a solution, especially when faced with natural conditions (eg. outer space ecology, on Mars, etc) for a long time.


    Anyway, have we yet to see if plants or mice undergo some kind of change over a long period of time in outer space without drugs, apart from the bone loss? I mean, plants or mice feed with natural food/drink/air and other basic and survival necessities. Just to see what happen. A long time, by that I mean, like.. over 1 year or so. To see the full impact of effects on it. Will it continue to be as it is, or until it encounter some kind of problems, or will it change to fit in a different ecological condition such as outer space?

     

    Genetic tinkering would be more ideal in the long-term(more than just the bones that are impacted), but drugs should work well enough for early travel. Besides broken bones, you'll want to minimize risk of kidney stones and clogged toilets from the calcium. Probably wouldn't need to keep using it upon arriving somewhere either.

    Environment there and on any colonies would be almost entirely artificial. The only real outliers are the lower gravity and higher radiation levels, though we could provide artificial gravity and radiation shielding if necessary.

    Plants seem to handle low gravity fine. Humans have survived a couple years continuously living in space, but to my knowledge there haven't been any experiments lasting more than a few months for mice.

     

     

  5. 1 hour ago, geordief said:

    I always thought that a system was in acceleration  because  it was expending energy and that its acceleration could be maintained only so long as the energy lasted.

    The longer the acceleration was maintained the more the system dissipated and eventually it would vanish.

    On the other hand a system that was in motion wrt another system could maintain that state for ever.

    You can get a constantly changing Vector in circular motion too. Something in orbit can keep on going forever if left to its own devices.

  6. 2 hours ago, swansont said:

    And you "forget" to bring your transponder with you while you drive, so the system thinks your car is still in the garage. Enforcement would be problematic.

     

    It reminds me of the joke about how if the NSA tried to impose a tracking system on people in the USA there would be a revolt, but give them smartphones and they clamor for that system. So maybe it's a matter of making the transponder let you play candy crush...

    But I think a database of where you go in your car that's active 24/7 would be a hard sell to some of the people, since there would be no confidence that the government couldn't obtain it.

    I'm expecting it to be linked to the car even starting lol. Might still get violators but they're going to stick out like a sore thumb to enforcement agencies.

    I don't expect this to really start up until various forms of car sharing become widespread.  I think when it is no longer a personal vehicle people won't mind so much and governments can realize the benefits.

  7. 59 minutes ago, swansont said:

    The scenarios we have in my neck of the woods are highway sections that are privately owned, and for which you pay a toll. Limited access, and there are slower publicly-available options. 

    There are also privately-owned roads in developments, sometimes as small as a single cul-de-sac, and sometimes with a small tree of roads within. Only residents and invited guests (including delivery vehicles) are expected to drive there. Sometimes enforces by a gate. It's not a through-road, though, even if there are multiple access points. Non-residents drive around. Money presumably comes from housing association fees, or something like that.

    I doubt retail businesses would want to be located where people had to pay to drive to get to them, since it's an additional barrier to getting customers. It would take the parking meter situation and make it twice as bad.

    If this were by street in a city, every car needs an E-Z pass-like transponder, compatible with all the monitors, and you need monitoring stations at every access point - which I imagine would be prohibitively expensive if there were multiple road barons. Much cheaper if it's at the entry and exit points, but now how do you collect for residents who never drive through an access point? You have to have a monthly fee in addition to tolls, if you have combination of residents and transients.

     

    I was thinking a national system, where each car has a location tracker and valid account linked to it. Companies or communities could then charge based on actual usage, possibly factoring in income and other considerations.  Be simpler in most respects though would have some issues of its own naturally.

     

  8. 6 hours ago, tylers100 said:

    If my understanding of human bone is correct; The bone makes blood for body and in return, body needs the bone. When in outer space in a micro-gravity environment or no gravity at all, the relationship between body and Earth decreases to minimum or none at all thus minimum or presumably absence of a type of sustainability for bone.

    The cause of bone loss is far more likely because of relationship between body and Earth (eg. gravity, etc), and of course with surface ecology in consideration.

    Assumption 1 - Optimal Function: Then I think that body uses up what is available from bone (eg. blood). Bone will likely continue to provide until it is completely used up as long body require it. Once all used up, no manufacturing of blood then no renewable cells to sustain, repair, etc with the body thus human body will eventually either stop to function optimally until a possible death or something like that.

    Or..

    Assumption 2 - The Ecology of Outer Space: If a prolonged stay in outer space while supplied with survival requirements (eg. food, drink, etc) apart from gravity, would the human body undergo a change to fit in the ecology of outer space? If so, would that means we might have to redefine what it mean to be human being in outer space without gravity or other conditions (eg. Earth and its ecological surface) that give arise to conditional definitions of human beings?

    Wiki explains it best:

    Quote

    Bone remodels in response to stress in order to maintain constant strain energy per bone mass throughout.[5] To do this, it grows more dense in areas experiencing high stress, while resorbing density in areas experiencing low stress. On Mars, where gravity is about one-third that of earth, the gravitational forces acting on astronauts' bodies would be much lower, causing bones to decrease in mass and density.[6]

    Average bone loss of 1–2% was recorded in astronauts on Mir each month.[2] This is in comparison to 1–1.5% bone loss in the elderly per year, and 2–3% in postmenopausal women.[7]

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

     

    Has been a new drug found that may help however,

    Quote

    The mice got a drug that prevented the usual decreases in muscle and bone mass during a month on the International Space Station, a team reports in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    "The drug was effective not just in preserving the muscle mass and bone mass, but actually caused the muscles and bones to grow," says Dr. Se-Jin Lee, a professor at The Jackson Laboratory and the University of Connecticut.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/08/910776985/drug-that-bulked-up-mice-in-space-might-someday-help-astronauts-make-long-voyage

     

    Not sure how it would go if left unchecked. Bones also serve as a reserve of calcium for the body. Even if structural support and blood cells wasn't an issue, might still have problems.

  9. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    I don’t think the scenario you bring up is tenable.

    Could possibly work with mass vehicle tracking. I imagine it working more as a tax based on miles driven though.

    2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

    Let's say, first street, second street, etc... intersecting with first avenue, second avenue, etc. Assume each of these roads are built by a separate company. Who then gets to run the intersections between these roads? Would it have to be a venture done jointly? If so, who gets to decide who gets the final say in some paving/streetlight placement/etc... decision in the context of these intersections? Would territory be demarked in an sealed-letter-like pattern? Even so, what rules would govern left turns, right, turns, etc...? And at the end of the day, what's stopping the company behind, let's say, first street, from colluding with the company behind, let's say, first avenue, to make their intersections with second street or second avenue harder to use?

    Think if roads were all privately owned, a single company would likely have most or all of the contract for roads in a given area. That would eliminate most of the issues.

     

  10. 33 minutes ago, studiot said:

    I didn't know the Falklands were either in the EU or near enough anybody els to have local discussions.

    Why would they ?

    Well Falklands were in EU via the UK and had been profiting considerably as a result.

    Mercosur has been applying  political and economic pressure on them to try and secure the territory for Argentina.

  11. 5 hours ago, studiot said:

    As has already been pointed out, the Swiss model has many points of attraction.

    Even if British voters would accept paying into the EU budget, various rules and FoM, it looks like multiple EFTA countries would still veto the UK joining.

     

    Kibd of curious, has there been any local discussion of plans regarding Gibraltar and Falklands?

  12. 14 hours ago, Royston said:

    It's interesting how Brexit talks are influencing the Irish-American vote. All thanks to our 'special relationship'.

    Pretty much yeah, easy way for Biden to show what sort of President he would be, while placing Trump in an awkward position.

     

    Quote

    As for chlorinated chicken, the House of Lords have recently blocked the move to import food that yields lower (than our current) animal welfare standards...

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-food-standards-house-lords-government-deal-b537450.html

    We'll have see what happens but is nice to see a measure of sanity returning to the UK.

  13. 4 hours ago, studiot said:

    The GFA is basically an agreement between two parties, those in Ulster and those Eire.
    They are the only ones who can directly 'break' the agreement.

    The rest of the parties involved are really bystanders since they are not actually present in the island of Ireland.

    In my view, the correct action for the UK government would be to take no action except to promote good relations.
    A border is not necessary.
    It currently works very well without one and would continue to do so if unhindered by the interference of outside parties and bystanders, most of whom regard the issue as ammunition in their dealings with other outside parties and bystanders.

    NI an Ireland are no longer in the same Customs Union. If there is to be no free trade agreement, then past the transition period checks on goods will need to begin. It will be seen as the UK giving the EU preferential treatment otherwise.

     

    Quote

    1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally  Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

    This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.

    Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group —   discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

    https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm

    Once the transition period ends, over a hundred countries are about to become involved here.

  14. 1 hour ago, studiot said:

    If you think EU standards are good, think again.

    Nearly all Euronorm standards are inferior to the good old BS they replaced.
    It is my opinion that the UK ought to be a beacon of higher standards, not lower.

    Yes WA does, but I see no evidence that the EU considers itself bound to follow any of them.
    Look at the way it bullied Eire a couple of years back over their due deomocratic process.
    They didn't like the resuult of the Eire poll so they made them keep going back to vote again until they returned the result the unelected commisioners wanted.

    The EU simply has no right to expect to interfere in what will be a totally sovereign nation after 31st Dec 2020.
    Next we will here they want to drill for oil off Cornwall, or somesuch.

    I'm glad you mentioned bridges, satellites and truck parks.

    What's wrong with with bridges ?

    The UK has been one of the major contributors to the EU satnav system to be.
    Yet, despite all that, the first thing the EU said in the negotiations is that they would not allow the UK access to it anymore and not pay back a penny we gave them.

    Was referencing Boris's Garden Bridge and OneWeb actually. You may actually end up rejoining Galileo now that OneWeb plans are being scrapped.

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/uk-goverment-could-rejoin-eu-s-galileo-system-92518

     

    Quote

    Truck parks ?
    Well the EU exports more to the UK than the UK does to the EU.
    Yet the UK has to build truck parks to accomodate the flood of EU trucks.
    Good show if we stopped that.

    Right! You should just stop all trade with the EU cold.

  15. 2 hours ago, CharonY said:

    That is roughly what I think, too. My biggest worry is if folks try to use the lowest common denominator. 

    My hope is that the US might adopt something closer to EU standards at some point in the future. Now that many Nation States are in or entering into one Union or another, I figure we'll start moving towards super-blocs next.

     

    2 hours ago, studiot said:

    I'm glad my OP provided you Gentlemen and Ladies with some lively discussion after initial adverse reactions had settled down.

    Nowhere did I say that I wished to prevent anyone buying American food and eating it or feeding it to the dogs or whatever.
    I said I don't wish to be stuck with it as the only stock on offer in the supermarket.

    So the argument should not be "should we allow US food or not" , in my view of course we should.
    But only so long as it does not displace other offerings.
    It is not so long since my celiac friends could not buy anything in the supermarket.

    I don't trust Boris not to "Cry Havoc and let loose the dogs".

    Talking of Boris and the other part of this thread.

    I don't agree.

    Ministers have been wrong often enough before and the gutter press even more often.
    If only they had adopted my solution to the Irish border question, there would have been no problem or issue whatsoever with either the UK or Eire.
    Mrs May could have chosen this path and had a trade deal by now, but insted let this Irish issue break her.

     

    The long and the short of it is there is no breach of international or national law.
    The situation is that at present the UK has left the EU but has agreed to adhere to all the rules and standards of the EU until at least 31st Dec 2020.
    After that the UK can choose to continue to follow some or all or none of these.
    The Bill does nothing to change this, merely allows the UK government to choose one of these options after the given date.

    The EU want to force the UK to continue with their rules on their terms.

    As to the Fish, catch quotas (as currently set by the EU) in UK national waters may be sold on an annual basis.
    My relatives in Aberdeen (one of the UK's principal fishing ports) tell me that the EU wish to force the UK to continue this into the indefinite future, as do the Scottish Nationalists.

     

    WA also contains parts that continue on past the withdrawal date. Everyone else will see the Internal Market Bill as the UK attempting to give itself an opt out.

     

    UK could have simply bought the quotas back honestly or worked out a gradual decrease of foreign fishermen. UK government just seems phenomenally cheap for all the money the manage to blow on bridges, satellite projects and truck parks.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.