Hypography Science Forums: CraigD - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

davekm, on 22 May 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

When there are more amino acids in the blood, more are absorbed by cells, including those in the brain.

Amino acids, however, aren’t formed from sugar or other carbohydrates.

Quote

I believe you have this relationship backwards.

Increased epinephrine (AKA adrenaline) is not caused by glucose or other sugars. Epinephrine indirectly increases blood glucose, mainly by causing the pancreas to release glucagon and suppressing its release of insulin, which causes cells, especially the liver, to release glucose.

Quote

The point I tried to make in my previous post is that we need to be skeptical of the assumption that “the sugar high”, as it’s commonly believed to, actually occurs. Before considering what causes a thing, it’s important to define precisely and objectively what that thing is, and devise objective ways to measure it.

I’m unaware of this having been done with the “sugar high/crash.” Rather, the evidence for it I’ve heard and read consists of anecdotal confirmation, both of the expectation that consuming sugary food and drink makes one “high” and more active, AND that it makes one low and less active. I suspect that both observations are true, or false, depending on the psychological and physiological specifics of different situations.

It would be a good science, I think, to track down existing research along these lines – or, if none or too little exists, create some. This would allow a better and more conclusive answer to this thread’s title question, “is [the] sugar high and crash a myth?”

pascal, on 22 May 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Stronger than just a coincidence, it’s the evaluation of the equation



for an arbitrary value of B=10.

That it appears true, not just for when Fib is the classical 2-fib sequence, but for any n-fib sequence, tickles my sense of amazement and wonder.

Quote

Provided we follow the convention of starting the sequence with n-1 zeros followed by a 1, the equation holds for all integer n>1. Sketching with numbers and s replacing s:

Quote

Like Turtle, even searching the internet, I can’t figure out what a sister Pascal triangle is, Jess. Can you explain

Welcome to hypography, Larry! Please feel free to tell us something about yourself by way of a personal introduction.

Larry, on 20 May 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

I find video a poor medium for discussing physics. Can you express your observations about Relativity as text (you can include embedded graphics and equations) in a post?

Boerseun, on 09 May 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Do you realize, Boerseun, that up to this point, you’ve described almost exactly (a bit different is size, as Manhattan island is only about 60 km²) the premise of John Carpenter’s 1981 cult classic film Escape from New York?

Though deserving of its characterization as a “B movie” (that is, lower production quality an “A movie”) IMHO Escape is a must see for any even semi-serious student of SF, film, American culture, the politics and sociology of incarceration, or just plain fun. I’ve lost count of how many times I watched it, many of them at SF conventions and “midnight cult” theatre showings.

There were some similar fictional treatments of this idea in later years, such as the 1992 film Fortress, and Carpenter’s higher-budget but less well received 1994 sequil Escape from L.A., establishing this as a SF trope, I think.

Quote

Boerseun’s proposal splits from the Carpenter screenplay here, as the movie’s exile land was legally a maximum security prison, no exits allowed.

Neither Carpenter’s screenplay or B’s proposal addresses an old question of mine on the subject: the legal status of the children of the inmates. Unless the sexes were segregated in separate prison/countries, or all inmate/citizens sterilized, I think this would become a sensitive political issue!

There is a well known historic precedent for something somewhat like this proposal: the “convictism” of Australia by Great Britain in the late 1700s. To the best of my knowledge, none of the children of even convicts sentenced “for the rest of their natural lives” in Australia were systematically barred from travel and migration to other countries. The convict and free Australian colonists weren’t kept strictly separate by electric fences and army patrols (I’m pretty sure England couldn’t have begun to afford this then, and am unsure if any state could today, especially as I can think of no unsettled “free” lands to be had now), this isn’t an exact precedent, but I imagine any present-day penal colony would likely have the same outcome.

I imagine this would make any ongoing scheme along these lines complicated, as, if Australia is a good predictive model within, a decade or two, the colonies will object to prisoners being sent to them, and want, with good claim, to be re-integrated with non-prison society. Having been a “no rules” anarchy for a generation, however, such re-integration might be more of a problem than the prison originally solved.

To me, the idea, which seemed plausible in 1980s America (enough for filmwriters in 1981 to predict it occurring in 1988), seems less so now. Boerseum’s post, though, makes me think it may seem plausible in present day South Africa, and wonder if SA fiction writers are producing any explorations of it.

storyteller, on 16 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Storyteller’s previous posts, and replies to it, were moved to the Strange Claims forum thread Strange replies to “Why Doesn't The Speed Of Light Change?” More such posts should be made there.

Hypography’s site rules, which, when we joined, we agreed to read and follow, include an important ground rule: in general, back up your claims by using links or references. Posts that fail to follow this rule may be moved to the strange claims forum.

The main purposes of this rule is to encourage members to research their claims before posting them, and to allow readers to follow these links to better understand the posts. In my experience, the vast majority of claims that “mainstream” theories fail to give understandable answers to common questions are due to a failure to study these theories well enough. Likewise, most “new alternatives theories” show a lack of appreciation of research into discarded old theories that were discarded in the course of the development and acceptance of mainstream theories. In short, before rejecting the most popular current theories, I believe it’s important to understand them at least well enough to recognize old objections to them.

I think claims like Storyteller’s – essentially, that explanations that avoid the counterintuitive strangeness of special relativity can explain phenomena like the Michaelson-Morley experiment – are examples of what I meant here

CraigD, on 15 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

of refusing to accept the deep strangeness of the theory of relativity.

Reluctance to accept strange ideas is a healthy, skeptical tendency, and discussions of it worthwhile and well-aligned with the goals of hypography. Storyteller, if you're interested in such a discussion, continue it in Strange replies to “Why Doesn't The Speed Of Light Change?”, but making the extra effort to back up you claims with links or references of some kind. I hope this can lead to everyone having a deeper understanding of both physics and each other.