The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« Last post by Scarysheep on Today at 01:23:27 »
Hello, everybody. I found this forum a few months ago, but have only now decided to post.

I figure I better introduce myself first:
    My symptoms include: Fatigue, sleepiness- even with over 12 hours of sleep, joint/muscle pain, general discomfort, dry lips/hands, irritability, loss of social skills, loss of concentration and ability to recall a passage after I've read it, shakiness, sticky/sandy feeling eyes, shallow breathing and constant feeling of coldness.
    My symptoms start immediately after orgasm and grow in intensity over days one and two, and remain constant through day five. On day 6, they taper off throughout the day and by nighttime on day 6, I feel wonderful. It takes about 12 days to recover entirely.
    I am 17 years old and have had these symptoms as long as I can remember and they are absolutely debilitating. I've had several blood tests done, none of which yielded meaningful results except a high-ish prolactin level, which I've been taking wellbutin for 3 days now with no relief of symptoms yet, though from what I've read hear, I'm not optimistic. I take 250 mg flush Niacin daily before bed, which takes the edge off the shakiness and weird eye feeling, but at the cost of drymouth. The unpredictability of nocturnal emissions is the bane of my existence and has equal effect as intentional orgasm (which I've pretty much given up entirely).
    Things I've noticed: When I take niacin while feeling pois, the flush does not cover entirely like normal, its patchy, as if the blood flow is not as it normal is. I've been experimenting with gluten-free for the last 3 days; no conclusive results yet, but I almost feel an improvement already. I'll continue experimenting with this for a few more days or weeks, depending on improvement. My sitting blood pressure is normal, but (at least at the doctor's office), my standing blood pressure was high.
    Interesting note: I measure my pois days by how well I can play my trombone. The bad days, I can barely play well, but on good days, I'm amazing- like got one of the top scholarship spots for my state's best music school good. I want to be able to pursue a career in music, but this condition is so bad it may end up ruining me.

That's pretty much all I've got. Please feel free to ask me questions or for specifics and I'll try to get back to you! I truly believe we can get to the bottom of this medical mystery. If there's anything you recommend I try please to not hesitate to suggest it.

hi guys
...etc.
gpg
Also, Mr. gpg, how would you recommend I start looking into your adrenaline based solution, since I have some blood pressure issues and you seem to have a good lead here?
2
New Theories / Re: Gravitational feedback and black holes
« Last post by jeffreyH on 16/04/2014 23:24:57 »
The smaller the scale the more insignificant the difference in field strength will be.
3
Just Chat ! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« Last post by demografx on 16/04/2014 23:16:28 »

I think Jumbo has given his keeper the brush off.




To Don _1: "Don , this is my story and I'm sticking to it !!
                  yours,
                  Felix"

4
I really don't know how that would work. If you are viewing the photon as a wave it would have to spin in all directions at once as it would contact all edges. You could ask what happens to the portion of the wave that doesn't make it through the slit?
5
New Theories / Re: Gravitational feedback and black holes
« Last post by jeffreyH on 16/04/2014 23:07:32 »
Any spherical mass M with uniform density will exert a gravitational force on any point P, at a set distance from its centre of gravity, inversely proportional to the density of M.
6
But if fe is work done, or elastic potential energy  of the catapult. Can we say 1/2fe = average work done
7
New Theories / Re: Time stoppage not based on the speed of light.
« Last post by David Cooper on 16/04/2014 21:23:52 »
I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't matter be left in the center of the ball or did all matter/energy expand away from the center without exception at the same rate of speed?

Nothing would be left at the centre, but I should point out that the idea of the expanding bubble is not necessarily correct - it's just the easiest model to understand and is particularly useful as a way of explaining why the centre can't be identified in the universe as it is now. An alternative way of looking at things eliminates the bubble with mathematical tricks which mean that if you go in a straight line in one direction you will eventually come back to where you started but without going round in a circle, so there is no single model that can be pointed to as the correct one. It's easiest to stick with the bubble though, and it may represent how reality actually is. The 3D fabric of the universe which we can move around in is all contained in the surface layer of the bubble, and because the centre of the universe is not in the surface of the bubble, we cannot go there any more - everything that started at that point has been kept inside the surface layer and been dragged out and away from that central point by the expansion of the surface, dragged away in all directions from the hidden centre, and at an accelerating pace.

Quote
I've been imagining it more as an explosion in the normal sense, where everything would radiate away from the center at differing speeds, but with more stuff (that's the best word I can come up with) closer to the center, lessening at the edge, with accretion taking place throughout.

That is something you have to get away from because that describes an explosion inside an existing space, but with the big bang it's radically different because the space (the surface of the bubble) is being created by the explosion along with the content, and all the matter is then dragged along by this expanding space. Galaxies were not exploded apart from each other, but are sitting more or less still within an expanding space as the bubble gets bigger. This is why you will often see it shown in TV documentaries by using a balloon which has pictures of galaxies drawn on it and which is then blown up to show how they move further apart as it's inflated. That doesn't explain why the galaxies themselves aren't expanded by this process (maybe they are a bit - I don't know), but it does show why this is quite different from a little explosion within a universe where space is already there for stuff to move through and things can be made to expand through that space by setting off bombs.
8
i think you have used the wrong formula...
basically what you should think is... that the work done to the catapult... will convert... totally into kinetic energy of the stone...
force in the formula (F e ) is F ..and  you are explicitly writing it 1/2 F... is already given to us as the avg...force.. we don't need to take the avg..of the avg force...
so...   F e = 1/2mv^2
and now.. you will get it right...  :)

But where on earth did the expression fe came from? What does fe mean here?
66e4af8461d55d52a53283021393c3b6.gif

 = 44. 27 m/s
9
New Theories / Re: Time stoppage not based on the speed of light.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 16/04/2014 20:58:59 »
One other point worth noting. As light cannot escape a black hole then maybe gravity can't escape either. If gravity waves are trapped around the singularity then when the big bang happens it may well be a gravitational shock wave that draws out the mass. Initially this will be a strong force but die off with distance due to its inverse square nature until its action is almost but never quite negated.
10
New Theories / Re: Time stoppage not based on the speed of light.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 16/04/2014 20:50:43 »
I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't matter be left in the center of the ball or did all matter/energy expand away from the center without exception at the same rate of speed?   I've been imagining it more as an explosion in the normal sense, where everything would radiate away from the center at differing speeds, but with more stuff (that's the best word I can come up with) closer to the center, lessening at the edge, with accretion taking place throughout.  No matter what, it all seems to go against an increasing rate of expansion (unless I imagine it as a drop of oil on the surface of water, and the expansion only takes place in certain areas until it levels).

Considering the amount of work you've done answering my questions, thank you for helping put some of the circular thoughts of this 19th century gentleman(?) scientist to rest.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to determine the point source for the big bang. Mass may well still be present at the source but the density would be so low that it may as well be zero. Imagine a normal explosion with a shock wave, except that in the case of the big bang there was no medium for the shock wave to move through except the expanding mass. The shock wave was likely dragging out the mass from the centre until the force died down below a certain level. This is what is known as inflation. It may not have happened exactly as I described so don't take that as fact but something caused an acceleration. This eventually slowed. The result would have been most of the material being condensed in close proximity to this spherical shock front.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length