1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / The Shape of Neutron stars ?
« on: 06/08/2007 12:11:38 »Ian - don't you think that gravity & the strong force would hold it as a sphere despite the rotation?
depends on spin speed.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Ian - don't you think that gravity & the strong force would hold it as a sphere despite the rotation?
i am thinking that a short sharp sock of electricity can kill bacteria, if this is so. could i rub some balloons on my kitchen work surfaces, making them charged, to zap them with static electricity?
quote:
Originally posted by David Sparkman
The previous advertisement was not paid for.
These sparkplugs have been around for 40 years. By having a center electrode (cathode) and a ring of anodes, the gap does not open up as the anodes wear away. As for plasma, that is just an ionized gas that happens in any spark. If you wanted to change the amount of plasma you would have to change the spark coil that generates the energy and make it larger. That would lead to more breakdowns in the spark plug cables.
New sparkplugs are always more efficient, and should be changed as needed. But as for free lunches, there aren’t any. People have been working with super computers for some time to optimize the gas combustion engine. You want better mileage, buy a smaller engine, or better yet, buy a hybrid. But first calculate how high gas will have to be to pay for the additional cost of a hybrid, and the uncertain life of a new engine design.
I am on the road for the week: I will be in the South Bend, IN area and in the Milwaukee WI area, see you guys and gals.
David
quote:
Originally posted by Ray hinton
D"OH[xx(]
RE-HAB IS FOR QUITTERS.
quote:
Originally posted by Simmer
Apologies, esecallum, for being so dismissive of your second post (which I read first) because it was based on an unsupported, anonymous statement. No-one could say this about this post!
I notice all of the quotes are from Ian Sinclair's "the vaccination debate", http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web3.html, a very extensive site with some interesting points to make.
I'm not convinced, however. Apart from anything else, vaccination costs a lot of money and has acknowledged side effects. Why would governments, with their very expert advisors and access to any information they want, persist with it if it weren't any good? Why would medical charities, with all their experience and expertise, make vaccination their first priority in alleviating poverty in Africa?
Obvously a lot of very well informed people think it's is effective.
quote:
Originally posted by Simmer
I think that "Dr Randall"'s astonishing revelation would be more convincing if supported with some evidence. An anonymous person making an unsupported statement doesn't stack up against published work that anyone can read and check.
quote:
Originally posted by coqui
I do not agree that bras are for support. There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction. When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support. In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support. The same goes for the bra. They are only for fashion. And they create weak, droopy breasts. It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.
Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study. They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group. Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.
And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!
The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts. The breasts become reliant on the bra for support. It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free. However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.
I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap. However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer. (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation. Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.
As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction. Self-massage would be best. But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject. After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.
Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?
quote:Too hot to handle
Originally posted by robbins48
There was an independent inventor/scientist on one of the science channel or discovery channel programs. He had invented a plaster-like substance that was extremely heat resistant. He spread it all over a football helmet, let it set up, put on the helmet, had an assistant apply heat from a torch (oxy-acetylene or the like) to the substance to demonstrate that it was not a heat conductor. Does anyone out there remember this? It may have an application for something I'm working on.
quote:
Originally posted by robbins48
There was an independent inventor/scientist on one of the science channel or discovery channel programs. He had invented a plaster-like substance that was extremely heat resistant. He spread it all over a football helmet, let it set up, put on the helmet, had an assistant apply heat from a torch (oxy-acetylene or the like) to the substance to demonstrate that it was not a heat conductor. Does anyone out there remember this? It may have an application for something I'm working on.
quote:The approch you are advocating is correct.
Originally posted by David Sparkman
You assume I haven't read it, you are wrong. The congressional record is full of all sorts of things including several telephone books senators read it during filibustors. You are approaching respectability in the wrong way.
Since you didn't understand me, I will repeat myself once more for you:
1. You must first prove the efficency of CS on what ever you are trying to kill/cure. Start with adding CS to cultures of various bacteria to see which ones are affected and at what dosage. This is pretty easy. Publish your work in the Jornal of American Medicine.
2. You must be able to show that CS can in some way or form pass though the intestine wall and enter the bloodstream where it can then reach most of the locations where bacterium grow. This will be difficult, but if you want to cure malaria, you can't do it in the stomach. It is in the blood. Perhaps you don't need to show the actual mechanism, but just dose the patients and then test their blood for silver compounds. Document your proceedures so that others can repeat them and confirm your work.
3. Move on to human trials (you may need government approval for this). Investigate all previous papers on the subject paying attention to any reports of toxicity or side effects. Come up with hard numbers on dosage levels for various dieases, and percent cure rates. Then and only then will doctors take the time to take you seriously.
4. Or you could go the homeopathic route and make all sorts of claims, rent air time, and sell to people who are desperate. But then again if you can't prove your claims, you might run into some problems. The size of the problems depend on the government you have offended.
David
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher
Syd Singer is a friend of mine, who has done some amazing research. He has written a book on this subject, aptly named "Get it off", His logical approach to lymph drainage and an inevitable cause of toxin build up where the wire from the bra is pressing tight against the skin sounds plausible. Furthermore, one only has to look for evidence in non-bra wearing populations to see if there is a correlation between breast cancer and the under-wired bra.
I am sure Syd would love to hear from you guys and girls.
http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
quote:Please,please check this out.
Originally posted by David Sparkman
Indeed it is a wonder drug hehe. It has some antibotic characteristics and putting it in the outter ear was an interesting application. It seems to be "safe" to use externally, and I know of no significant toxic affects.
The problem is suggesting that it is a potent cureall instead of a good for certain ailments. The silver has to either produce a toxin that kills bacteria, or react directly with the outer membrane of the bacteria. Remember that 50 microns is hugh compared to a bacteria. The 50 micron size would help it form reaction products faster.
On the skin's surface it wouldn't form much besides silver oxide. Internally, there is Silver sulphide and a host of organic molecules that could form. I suggest this because you would then produce a significant surface volumn to react with the microbs, and posibly form compounds that could pass though the intestine wall and be taken into the blood stream. Then it would be an interesting material. But until you can show a transport means to get it into the blood stream, you don't have an internal medicine that can be taken orally as was done in some of these experiments. And colloidal silver by itself is far too large to enter the blood stream.
To suggest that it is an antiviral would be a little more difficult to accept, but would again need a transport mechinism to get it into the bloodstream.
I would consider using it for external applications with a good backup anticeptic. But I would like to see some proof that the expensive material is not just going down the toilet, and they are depending on luck, fortune or fate for me to get well and tell others, or die and not be able to ask for my money back.
David