sysD

No one here's qualified to do a differential.

3545

sweet, can i buy a skull?

LOL. There you go again. No one is attacking your theory - only the way you present it and the design of your experiment. You sir, have problems. Maybe you should actually try reading posts before replying to them? That being said, I'm done with this thread because you clearly cannot take criticism in any form. Maybe you should be researching personality disorders instead. Bye! edit - maybe your question and the format of your experiment would get a better response on the bodybuilding forums: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/

Ladies, please; step back for a second. SamBridge... please use indentations or line breaks between paragraphs. The wall of text there is kind of difficult to read. Also, spellcheck [only takes a sec =) ]. I'll correct some spelling errors in the quotes from you that I use for clarity's sake. [Also, try fully reading the responses people give you.] I think you're misunderstanding here. The previous poster was talking about lactic acid concentration. He said it was 7 cubic millimeters per litre. There are 1 000 000 mm3 in a litre. Incidentally, 7mph is only about twice the average walking pace. So, not that fast at all. Maybe a steady jog. That's cool, bro. But what I'm saying is that you need an objective way to measure your heart rate (eg. with electronics). Subjective methods such as "I put my fingers on my wrist and felt a difference in my heart rate" are unverifiable. Therefore you won't be taken seriously. There's a large margin of error in subjective methods such as the one you used.... I'm curious about your respiratory rate during the different stages of your "experiments." Increased RR usually correlates with increased HR... and vice versa. If you (consciously or otherwise) altered your RR after completing exercise, that may contributed to the lowered HR.... Holding one's breath means dropping respiration rate down to zero. I'm not sure what method you're using to lower your heart rate. You weren't clear on that at all. No one's really denying your original assertion/hypothesis... for some reason you've gone off on multiple tangents about how no one believes you ect... cool it down man. We're just talking here. To restate what you said, you don't have a problem with believing that you are right (without a controlled, rational experiment conducted). That's cool. Yet you need to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that you need to do what you're advising others to do - open your mind. In the same breath you say that you have a problem with those who disagree with your viewpoint, assuming that they believe that wilfully lowering one's heart rate can only be achieved via some otherworldly pseudo-science. This isn't true simply because it has been proved not to be true (research meditation). Stop assuming that others believe you're completely full of shit - no one has said that. You're projecting your own attitudes onto others. I'm not attacking you personally. I'm suggesting that you stop being so very defensive when people question you. Science is all about questioning stuff; its part of the process. To be blunt, if you can't handle it, gtfo. There! An answer! Simplicity is a beautiful thing, man. Trim away all the fat and the defensiveness and you get to the core of the point you're trying to make. I think that what you're proposing is probably possible, either via controlled RR or some sort of meditative state. However, without a proper experiment and data to back it up, this whole argument is pointless. I'll probably bow out of this thread now; I really don't think its going anywhere productive - too many people butting heads. Some sort of dick-waving contest. Have fun.

Yeah, like iNow said, this is really not a valid method based on empirical observations. If you actually want to assert this claim, you need to measure (at the very least) your pulse with electronics to get proper measurements. This isn't really hard to do, if you're willing to spend some money. I think the point that everyone here is trying to make is this: You have a hypothesis; this is fine. You need to carry out a proper experiment to test this hypothesis, without leaning toward any specific conclusion during its execution. Set up a procedure you can follow each time, in which you can alter variables you want to test for. Then simply get the equipment you need to measure data, and record that data, impartially. Do this experiment multiple times with different parameters. Record your resting heart rate as well... and do your experiment without trying to alter your heart rate (control data). You need to record all the data without bias, without expectation of a certain result. Just record that data. After you've got all this raw data, you can analyse it and draw conclusions. [You need to include that raw data in your final results.] The process isn't really that hard. The point everyone here is trying to make is that your current method is not objective or scientific in any way. You have a very interesting hypothesis, though, and I'd be interested in seeing you test it.

I'm skeptical, but I'll try to keep an open mind. I'd like to ask, how did you measure your heart rate? Fingers on the artery? [if so, which? radial (wrist), carotid (neck)?] I'm curious, like someone else mentioned here, about your O2 sat. I very much doubt you have a pulse oximeter lying around, though. Anyone else know of a convenient way to measure o2sat?

You're a third year medical student and you don't know how to do research? I don't think so.

Does it alter your brain chemistry? Yes. Is that synonymous with "Brain Damage?" No. As someone else here mentioned, its not really a matter of whether or not there are detrimental effects. Its the gauge of those effects when compared to other acceptable substances, such as alcohol or caffeine. Its impossible to get a truly scientific answer until the study of the brain advances to the level at which we now study other systems of the body. Ask your question again in ten years.

First of all, why are you asking us these questions, instead of a GP? Secondly, its ignorant to say that psychology has nothing to do with physics and chemistry. Psychology, at its core, is nothing but the product of a series of electrical impulses and chemical interactions. Mind-body duality does not exist. Its all one system. That being said, I agree with the second post suggesting cognitive behavioural therapy. CBT (as well as pretty much every other type of therapy, and learning for that matter), would not be able to function without the plastic nature of the brain. You need to be able to see your fear as a response to conditioning (even if you are the one conditioning yourself by reiterating thoughts about your fear in your mind or elsewhere, thereby ingraining those neural pathways). Picture your mind as a set of streams, flowing down a hill. As you think certain thoughts, water flows through a certain stream. As you repeat those thoughts, the streambed becomes deeper and therefore a more viable channel for water flowing down the hill (in this scenario, plasticity=erosion). Eventually, if you keep obsessing over that particular thought (streambed), you'll have a single riverbed deeper than all others, providing the easiest path of flow for water downhill. You need to consciously stop yourself from deepening that riverbed. Set that water to other purposes. Go to a doctor. I don't think anyone here is a qualified physician. Including myself. Take it all with a grain of salt, stop diagnosing yourself on the internet. Go to a doctor.

I said sativa potentially had medicinal value. The study was on CBD. Pubmed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276 About halfway through: What exactly are you arguing against? My only claims to the medicinal value of sativa were of stress relief and possible anti-carcinogenic compounds (specifically, CBD). Are you saying that cannabis isn't a relaxant?

It would depend on what the particular study is looking at. A study looking at the anti-carcinogenic properties of CBD (which has been shown, in 2007, to inhibit growth of breast cancer in vitro) would provide subjects with that particular chemical. The advantage of pills is that specific chemicals can be extracted from the whole mess of compounds in marijuana. Ideally, a large, controlled study would look at all possible combinations of compounds in a cannabis plant (cannabis sativa contains approx. 100 compounds) as well as each compound by itself as related to anti carcinogenesis. The trouble is that a lot of these studies look at effects on cancer cells in vitro (in a test tube) rather than in vivo (within the living). Human trials come with a whole whack of restrictions and government guidelines, considering that this potential medicine is still illegal in many states in the USA, and federally illegal in most countries.

not exactly conducive to a controlled medical study (chocolate and alcohol are psychoactive)

Changing RoA has effects on properties of the interaction, such as duration and intensity. The science would still stand, though. I think you're right about the current smoking culture of marijuana being prevalent - but could that change? I think that in a culture that's shying away from tobacco use due to health concerns, marijuana users might evolve as well. Increased education (avoiding the whole "reefer-madness" hysteria) might see the shift from smoking to oral administration. That, in turn, would ensure less detrimental side effects and more focus on the positive health effects (stress-relief, possible anti-carcinogenesis). I'm sure the THC advocates would love to incorporate that into their dog&pony show. [i'm not attacking pro-legalization movements, merely saying that I think they need to get their shit together!] I'm no sociologist, though.

I believe that any proper medical study investigating the links between THC and carcinogenesis would provide patients with pill-form THC... not a bushel of plant material to smoke. If they were investigating the effect of THC as well as other cannabinoids I assume that they would vaporize the plant material if testing an inhaled route of admistration. Oral administration is more likely, though, probably via an alcohol extracted product.

What are some adverse health effects that may occur from long term exposure to an environment with increased g-forces? Most of us know that there are deleterious effects to human physiology in microgravity environments, but what about the opposite? Hypothetical: Sam is spending his vacation on Jupiter, where he weighs roughly 2.6 times as much as he does on Earth. What effects to his body can be expected? I know this is a very broad question, so please just throw things out there. Everything from digestive issues to compression of CSF. Thanks.

Uhhh... I have no idea what you just said. It was very oddly worded. No offence.

Consider the following: Two objects rest on a wooden plank. One object is twice as heavy as the other. The heavier object is designated "H" while the lighter object is designated "L." A rope is attached to the center of the plank. A crane hoists the rope. Obviously, the plank will tilt. Which object will begin to slide first? The answer, which I found via the static friction coefficent formula (below), is that both objects will begin to slide at the same time. However, why is this the case? Doesn't inertia (the tendancy of objects to resist changes in motion) play into this scenario? While mass does not have an effect on friction, it certainly plays a role in inertia (Newton's First Law). us = Static Friction Coefficient Ffs = Force of Static Friction Fn= Normal Force us = | Ffs | / | Fn |

I'm learning about electromagnetic fields. My question is this: If a current running through a wire produces a magnetic field, why does current in computer hardware not strip data from the HDD? Is the magnetic field produced simply not strong enough? I'm not too sure of standard amperage in computer parts.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

I was wondering if dendrites grow in response to the electrical stimulus between neurons. If so, what is the mechanism of action? How exactly does it stimulate growth. Also, what are some things that can cause decay of dendrites and an increased bridging distance between neurons?

Hi, I was wondering what applications exist for n-dimensional figures (eg tesseract, hypercube). Could we start with 4-space?

EDIT************* Disregard the first post, please. I have a few problems relating to lines and planes (mostly vector, scalar, and parametric equations). Would someone please check my answers? Questions: 1. Write vector equations and parametric equations for: a) the line that passes through A(1,-3,1), parallel to vector u=(2,-2,1) b) the line through A(3,0,4) and parallel to x-axis c) the line through A(-1,2,1) and B(1,2,1) 2. Determine scalar, vector, and parametric equations for the plane that passes through the points A(1,-2,-0), B(1,-2,2), and C(0,3,2). 3. Write a scalar equation for the plane that contains the point (-1,2,0) and is parallel to the plane (x,y,z)=(1,-2,1)+s(3,1,1)+t(4,-2,1). Answers: 1. a) Vector equation: (x,y,z)=(1,-3,1)+t(2,-2,1) Parametric equations: x= 1+2t y= -2t-3 z= 1+t b) Vector equation: (x,y,z)=(3,0,4)+t(1,0,0) Parametric equations: x= 3+t y= 0 z= 4 c) Vector equation: (x,y,z)=(-1,2,1)+t(2,0,0) Parametric equations: x= 2t-1 y= 2 z= 1 2. Vector AB = (0,2,2) Vector AC = (-1,5,2) Normal Vector = N = AB x AC = (-10,-2,0) 0= -10x-2y+0z+d Sub in values from Given Point A 0 = -10(1) - 2(-2) + 0(0) + d -d = -10 +4 -d = -6 d = 6 Therefore, the scalar equation is equivalent to: -10x - 2y + 6 = 0 Vector equation: (x,y,z) = (1,-2,0)+s(0,0,2)+t(-1,5,2) Parametric equations: x= 1-t y= -2+5t z= 2s+2t 3. Normal Vector = N = (3,1,1) x (4,-2,1) = (3,1,-10) 0 = 3x + y - 10z + d Sub in values from Given Point -d = 3(-1) + (2) - 10(0) -d = -3 + 2 -d = -1 d = 1 Therefore, the scalar equation is equivalent to: 3x + y - 10z + 1 = 0 Are these answers correct? Thanks in advance.

Thanks.

figured it out.. how do i delete a topic?