Leaderboard

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis Probably more than you want to know. In a nutshell: fat metabolism is controlled mainly by insulin interacting with several other hormones and transcription factors to regulate the genes responsible for making or using triglycerides. (The evidence that high triglyceride levels are correlated with arteriosclerosis is pretty flimsy.) Eating fat doesn't make you as fat as eating an equal amount of calories in carbs-- Carbs stimulate more insulin secretion which sets off the enzyme cascade to store more fat and to burn less fat. A simplistic explanation on the evolutionary value of such a system: our ancestors roaming the hot areas of east Africa where we evolved, would do better if they stored less highly insulating fat, so when times were good and game (hi fat source) was plentiful, they could switch off their fat-saving genes. When hunting was bad and they were forced to eat weeds ( hi carb source), they had a better chance of surviving until their next good meal (meat) became available if they would switch on the fat saving genes. It appears insulin is the chemical signal for this. Blood levels of triglycerides are defined only after an 18 hr fast. Triglyds can be high after eating a fatty meal (up to a couple hundred mg%) and are meaningless. For high levels after an 18 hr fast, there is essentially no evidence that it correlates at all with arteriosclerosis in men, and only a very weak pos. corr. for older women...There's also the genetic condition of Familial Hypertriglyceridemia where levels are in excess of a couple thousand mg%. Those people have a slightly elevated risk of heart disease, but a very high risk for pancreatitis. Cholesterol levels are an entirely different matter, controlled almost exclusively by genetics, not diet. Critical analysis of the data shows that, in fact, only those with HDL (the good stuff; H for Happy) levels below 25mg% are at significant risk of early heart disease....and LDL (the bad stuff; L for Lousy) correlate rather poorly with risk. This whole concept of diet and arteriosclerosis is complicated by pharmaceutical profit motives and malpractice risks. It's generally not publicized that the benefits of regular exercise completely offset the negative risks of hi chol levels, or that higher levels of carnitine and CLAs in the diet (only found in meat) are highly correlated with improved risks. Best advice: do what your mother always told you-- eat everything in moderation. Maintain a normal body weight and exercise regularly. The rest is in your genes and you can't change that.

There is also the fact that when a new virus is encountered, the dangers are unknown so it makes sense to try and contain it as quickly as possible.

The mortality rate for flu is about 0.1%. The mortality rate for 19 NCov is about 2% It's about 20 times more likely to kill you. In the UK about 600 people a year die from flu- in spite of the fact that many people are vaccinated and that we have antivirals that help treat it. So, it's not unreasonable to imagine that, if there's a serious outbreak in the UK, it's more likely that you will catch it and, if you catch it, it's more likely to kill you. That's grounds for making a bit of fuss.

Oh, wait... Did you say 'run' ? JC thought you said 'ruin'.

Lower overall per household expenditures on healthcare leads to more money to put back into the economy. Fewer sick people leads to increased productivity. Better schools lead to higher economic growth and decreased poverty, thus higher income taxes and fewer social safety net expenditures. More entrepreneurs can start business when they no longer need to worry about unexpected medical needs which leads to increased job creation... I could keep going, but the point is your question is easy to answer. You make a mistake by framing it as cost as opposed to investments with clear returns.

One study finding a possible issue is not very concerning. Work has been ongoing for at least 40 years on the health effects of nonionizing radiation and no clear dangers have been found, so I would not be concerned. However, if everyone who has cell phone starts dropping dead I will withdraw this post...🙂

AI programmer...

Don't the Alka Seltzer tablets generate pressure in the test bottle ( as opposed to the reference bottle ), John ? Certainly not enough to account for the temp difference; but it seems pretty sloppy.

Instead of describing a physical rocket and figuring out how the different points of it accelerate, you can specify how you want the different points to accelerate. If all you're comparing is two points, you can have the two points move independently and then not even care about the physical aspects of a rocket. For example, if you want to see what happens when they perform the same maneuvers, specify that the two points have identical acceleration measured from some inertial frame (eg. Earth frame). Or if you want the rocket to be rigid, use Born rigidity equations. It's especially pointless to describe the physical aspects of the rocket, then ignore the physics in some tiny details (like assuming it's completely rigid with one source of acceleration, which is impossible), and then try to figure out other tiny details of the physics. Sure. If the top and bottom accelerate at the same time and rate according to an observer on Earth, those clocks always read the same from Earth. While accelerating, the bottom clock ticks slower than the top (in their reference frames), this can be verified from the Earth frame just by considering the always increasing time it takes light signals to go from the bottom to the top (takes longer because the top is moving away during the time the light travels) vs top to bottom (takes less time). If the rocket then coasts, Earth says their clocks still read the same. On the rocket, the clocks now tick at the same rate but the rear clock is behind, in agreement with relativity of simultaneity. If the rocket reverses and returns to relative rest with the Earth, still with the same timing and rate of acceleration as measured by Earth, the clocks as always remain the same according to Earth, and now the rocket agrees with that. This would describe the situation in Bell's paradox, where eventually the rocket (fixed length in the Earth frame) rips apart. If you change that, so the clocks don't always have the same velocity as each other as measured by Earth, they can end up still out of sync after returning to Earth's inertial frame.

The effects of CO2 on infra-red absorption have been intensively studied (theoretically, experimentally, and quantitatively) for well over 100 years.

Ok. Sorry to hear that you have lost your interest. Is there particular reason why you choose to blame that on the member's of this forum?

You know, I feel like the odd man out on this man made global warming thing. Is it an actual thing? I don’t know, maybe. It appears to me that all information I’ve seen consists of attempts, through various models, to correlate atmospheric green house gases generated by human activity with global temperature change, specifically warming. — Correlations, where they can even be demonstrated at all, mean little to nothing because correlation does not mean causation. Only actual experiments can verify whether a correlation is in fact the result of some cause and effect. — However, no truly accurate, controlled experiments can be done to verify or falsify any observed global correlations because it is impossible to even establish a control for a planetary climate experiment. Ideally, we’d need an exact copy of earth, minus humans. — I doubt the ability to accurately measure global temperatures as precisely as have been claimed, with the exception of the only very recent measurements obtained by remote sensing. Much of the data is collected from stations never intended for the purpose of determining global climate change. — Climate has changed repeatedly and dramatically over the millennia with the complete absence of man made technology, or even man for that matter. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that current changes are due to factors similar to what have happened throughout earth’s history, not something that came along in the last blink of an eye. I have been called stupid, brainwashed, denier, ignorant of science, fill in the blank for merely stating this view on other forums. Is it really so wrong to be skeptical given the above?

We know which options exist, given the validity of the laws governing gravitation (this can be worked out analytically). We then take the observational data available to us at a given point in time, and see which of these options the data fits best; this then becomes the current consensus. But this is an evolving process - as new data becomes available to us, the consensus can shift over time, as the larger data set may better fit a different option. This is the whole point of physics - it makes models which describe aspects of the universe as accurately as possible, but it does not pursue some spurious notion of “absolute truth”. A model is “true” only in the sense that it fits available data, and makes accurate predictions. As such, it is really more epistemic than ontic in nature.

Yup I'm done. You've officially killed my drive for physics. Thanks for the encouragement Go fuck yourselves.

Science? co2 has not been "studied well." Computer models are art, not science. There is absolutely no theoretical way to estimate the contribution of co2 to the GHE, and all "science" today is based on correlations. Check the correlation of [co2] vs temps for the period 1950 -1980 : negative, ie increased co2 must lead to cooling, if you're willing to equate correlation with cause & effect....The GHG Effect is theoretical with zero experimental evidence to support (or reject) it. [h2o] differences small? Compare deserts to rain forest please. Compare cloudy days & nites to cloudless. Of course there ae huge differences and huge effects......My point about anecdotes is that young people are no longer educated in school, but indoctrinated. They fail to question the teachings of the masters even when those run contrary to their own experiences. That's called belief on faith alone-- the very definition of religion and antithetical to science. .Again, check that energy budget graph posted above and find the absorption spectra of the various atm gases: ….O2 & n2 are 99% of the atm and its ave. temp is `288degK. They can only be warmed from 0 deg to 288 by absorption of visible light or by conduction from the heat of the surface, and there isn't that much energy subtracted by the O & N from the sunlight. Most of their temp is gained by conduction-- a fact miscalculated by the Kiehl & Trenberth study because it wouldn't fit the narrative to say otherwise. Error bars. Find an honest site that shows the historical temp records with error bars. You can draw a straight horizontal line and remain within the error bars throughout its course, ie-- statistically no differences in temps "measured" by proxy, at least after the great warming that occurred 12-15000 y/a or for the geologic record going back to the Cambrian... ..Check the temp record for the last 2000 yrs: a total range of only 1 degC. Using the often stated approximation of 1 SD is about 1/4th of the range of measurements, then no temps fall outside +/- 2 SD of the average, ie-- ~ 67% chance that all temp changes for the period are due merely to random variation about the mean. Before we let dictatorial govt regulations force us to return to an 1880s lifestyle with an inability to feed 7.5B people at a cost estimated to be $4 QUADrillion (that's 50x the Gross WORLD Product), we probably ought to make sure we have the science right....and we're not even close to that.