TonyMcC

Yes it gets pushed down with the food as you gulp. You can, if you so wish, gulp air into the stomach without eating but (imo) its not a very natural thing to do. Normally I would not expect air to be travelling through the nose unless the lungs were expanding and contracting. If the top sphincter is not a perfect seal I can imagine a small amount of air being sucked OUT of the oesophagus as you breath IN and a similar small amount of exhaled breath being forced INTO it when you breath OUT. I wonder if this is how some tabacco smokers develop stomach cancer.

You might like to look at this commercial tiller that was quite popular some years ago and that used an engine similar to yours:- http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7520828_merry-tiller-international-specifications.html

I think anyone who is willing, when necessary, to put their life on the line in an attempt to save the life of others can be classed as a hero. There may be quite a list of occupations that carry this level of commitment. However long or short the list I think for most people it would include police officers and firemen/women.

Surely the action of the lungs expanding draws air into them whereas the stomach doesn't alter in size in the same way? The stomach does not provide a partial vacuum to suck in air. (imo)The sphincters asociated with the oesophagus are probably there mainly to allow food in and prevent it coming back out.

There is a lot of research going on into flywheel energy storage. There is also quite a lot of history regarding transport. For more info google - flywheel energy storage -

Your two links seem to be about the ideas (which I find horrific) that whole classes of people can be considered to be either superior and encouraged to breed or inferior and prevented from breeding. I was wondering about evolutionary trends which may already have started taking place within a society. Trends that people are influencing by their own volition. I think that the examples you give were more to do with ideology and state control rather than based on science.

SMF - Firstly let me say that evolution and genetics is not my "thing". In considering the heading of this thread "The end of Darwinian Evolution" it occured to me that we may be not following an evolutionary pathway that will aid the development of human intelligence, particularly in developed countries. Of course my idea depends on two people who are very intelligent because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be more intelligent than the average. It also depends on two people who are less intelligent because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be less intelligent than the average. It is only an idea and I have no evidence that this is so - I would be interested to know of any evidence for or against the idea.

I think you are agreeing with me. I was wondering whether fewer children for high intelligence couples would lead to a reduction in average intelligence in developed countries. The reverse of that applies to undeveloped countries where increased intelligence would give an advantage in the fight for survival. Please don't think that I believe the people in undeveloped countries are somehow of lower intelligence. I think the trend, which may have been going on for a while, may work to the disadvantage of developed countries.

The one advantage the human race has over other species is a high level of intelligence. These days it seems to me that the more intelligent humans in developed countries are marrying later in life (reducing their chances of children) and deliberately having fewer children than the less intelligent humans. Will this eventually result in an overall reduction in the average intelligence of people in developed countries?

Colgate advise that you don't brush your teeth immediately after a meal. If you have consumed acidic food or drinks you should wait for at least 60 minutes. There was an article in the uk press to this effect quite recently. For colgate's advice : http://www.colgate.com/app/ColgateSensitiveNew/US/EN/Brushing-Right-After-A-Meal.cvsp

A relevant thought (just about) is that some people already elect to spend their retirement as permanent residents of a cruise ship. If you had a complete ship load of people book for this kind of life the ship would to all extents and purposes become a floating city. It could not be self sustaining with regard to food etc. but then cities never are. With computers and satellite links some of the residents might be gainfully employed and so earn their living costs. It wouldn't appeal to me, but might appeal to some people.

Its all to do with angle of attack. This is the angle the wing makes to the direction of movement through air. This movement causes an increase of pressure under the wing and,to a greater extent, a decrease in pressure above the wing. These cause the wing to be forced upwards (known as lift). Up to a point ( where the wing will stall) in general the greater the angle of attack the greater the lift. However as the angle of attack is increased the force needed to push the wing through the air also increases quite dramatically. This resistance to movement is called drag. When flying very close to the surface the aircraft will experience extra pressure under the wing . This increase of pressure reduces the necessary angle of attack needed to keep the craft flying. This reduction of angle of attack reduces drag - hence greater efficiency. There are other factors that improve efficiency when near the ground such as destruction of air vortices that form at the wig tips and which cause extra drag. The hydrofoil "wings" fly through water which is much thicker than air and so offers more resistance to movement! Also I doubt whether hydrofoils will be able to match the speed of proposed craft utilising ground effect.

I don't know much about fuel cells but if you google - hydrogen fuel cell aircraft - there does seem to be quite a bit of research along those lines.

In the uk there is an animal called a slow worm. It looks like a snake, lives like a snake but in fact is a legless lizard. At the other end of the scale whales have vestigial legs so legs "lost" in the course of evolution is not that rare.

A large factor in the efficiency of this machine is known as "Ground Effect". The actual fuel used is (imo) not really that important as far as efficiency is concerned although using hydrogen will result in less polution.

I absolutely agree. I could never have bought my house without a mortgage and certainly bank loans helped me purchase my first cars. I suppose I came across as "holier than thou". However I think debt should be kept to an absolute minimum and it should be appreciated that anything bought on a loan is going to cost more than the same item bought for cash. Impatience costs money. It is rare for interest charged to be less than money lost through inflation. Even "interest free" credit usually hides a better possible deal using cash.

Marriage will always be something of a gamble. If you meet someone and feel that there wellbeing is more important than your own and sense they feel the same about you then (IMO) its time to take the chance. If you find your first argument concerns who should have the last Rolo then that is a serious pointer!

People, such as myself, who have no debts get more for their money than people who are in debt. The simple reason for this is that we don't give away a portion of our income to banks etc. in interest. Banks, of course, like people who live their lives in debt.

I have to swallow an endoscope camera every two years which I do quite easily. Getting something like a toothbrush as far as the stomach would not be a problem as it is a fairly straight run. Sword swallowers use this feature. However getting a toothbrush through the small intenstine might be a real problem as it is long, thin and quite convoluted.

Old fashioned idea - How about getting married when you find someone you truly love? At that time I would not expect anyone to be making calculations concerning education, employment prospects or chance of having children. I married at 22 (my wife was the same age). I'm pleased to say that after more than 50 years together we agree that it was the right thing to do.

waitforufo said - "One last though on social security and medicare. Since each citizen is forced to pay under penalty for these benefits, the government better come through. That is why social security is the third rail of American politics. Each citizen is expecting to get what they already paid for". The main point of social benefits is that some will get more than they paid for and some will get less according to their needs. This is obviously true with pension schemes also. It seems to work quite well in the UK. Is it unfair that poorer, long lived people should benefit from the richer who die young?

Yes its a Blanik 2 seat glider that I did some of my training in during the 1960's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LET_L-13_Blan%C3%ADk

The nearest I can get to your feeling that there is more to us than the body plus brain is the idea of mind. As far as I know, exactly where the mind is located and exactly how it functions are unknown. However (IMO) the mind is part of the human system that helps give us free will.

I believe most of the cells that make up our body replace themselves over a period of about 7 years. I'm not an expert, but I believe this may not apply to brain cells. In a very real sense you are a different person from what you were 10 years ago.

There seem to be links between animal size and lifespan and also heartbeat rate and lifespan. It has been suggested that for all species the number of heartbeats in a lifetime is about the same. Here is one attempt to quantify. I will say that the subject and conclusions are debatable. http://www.math-physics-tutor.com/web_documents/bader2.pdf