jp555

54 ms·

571.
by jp555 13y ago
vacuum propeller. Imagine if a submarine had to carry all the water it's propeller pushes on? That's rockets today. If we could make a vacuum propeller, that acts directly upon space-time, it would radically transform the prospect
572.
by jp555 13y ago
Agreed, although not entirely original. Inspired by actual work in this area - http://www.spacecraftresearch.com/MII/MII_overview.html I was getting my head around what "100µm" and a "few micrograms&quot
573.
by jp555 13y ago
wow, someone tell the Nobel people that this guy has experimentally tested space-time modification and shown it does not accumulate bow-energy as it covers distance. I kid, but those that claim the bow-energy problem also have to prove it f
574.
by jp555 13y ago
Regarding negative-energy; I think you mean "nothing in our current understanding prevents something like what we describe as negative-energy from having existed at some time in the life of the Universe". Very different from &quot
575.
by jp555 13y ago
yes. We see the stars today as they were thousands of years ago. It's thousands of light years away from our perspective, but from the perspective of the photons the trip took zero time as it was a zero distance. SR is weird like that.
576.
by jp555 13y ago
It was more the thought exercise itself than a practical approach. I just wanted to consider the benefits of very low mass offers to space travel. Sounds like you're talking about panspermia, which does seem very likely to me as well
577.
by jp555 13y ago
you mean the drive that if it were used it would annihilate your destination in a immense-burst of gamma energy? Not to mention we have no idea how to effectively modify space-time. It is interesting, but the drive is basically "if we
578.
by jp555 13y ago
> (remember technological progress is exponential not linear) No it is not. For example, airliners fly about as fast as they did a generation ago, and if you buy a desktop computer today it won't be noticeably faster than the ~3 yea
579.
by jp555 13y ago
With over 400 million active monthly users, that would be much closer to $399,000,000 than $0.99 every year. WhatsApp has nearly twice the active users as Twitter, and many more than Skype, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Angry Birds. Not onl
580.
by jp555 13y ago
These are an EXCELLENT resource - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles Read them all, or only the topics that matter to you; Lyle is one of the best in the world.
581.
by jp555 13y ago
Edge cases are exactly that; not typical and therefore need special consideration. But these are rare in the general public. I didn't say its ALL about energy, just that nothing comes close to the contribution of calories in weight-los
582.
by jp555 13y ago
I wish there was a way to answer that appropriately in the space of a comment. Regarding nutrition, this is what I tell people to start with: http://www.amazon.ca/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gr... It's a great
583.
by jp555 13y ago
Nope. As far as having an effect on weight loss, net-energy balance (energy added - energy used) is several magnitudes more important than anything else, and the "energy added" side of this equation is entirely calories. Hormones
584.
by jp555 13y ago
What is a foot? is it something? No! It is a unit of measuring distance, That's it. Doesn't matter at all.
585.
by jp555 13y ago
It's frustrating. But I've been there. First coupe years slow-carb, low-carb, plaeo, grain-is-poison. All diets work. But it was only after I got the fundamentals really down, and just did the work required that my body snapped
586.
by jp555 13y ago
Exercise can stimulate profoundly positive physiological changes, and that alone is a good enough reason to do it. But people forget that they burn more calories during a single night of sleep than they do doing 3 hours of cardio a week. Ba
587.
by jp555 13y ago
Not your IMHO, you mean due to your out-group homogeneity bias. Pilots are generally NOT paid well, and the idea that lawyers and doctors don't have to constantly be retraining is ludicrous. Even actors and CEOs must constantly learn &
588.
by jp555 13y ago
Muscle is not the only tissue involved with moving a weight around. Obviously you need a skeleton that can bear the load, and a heart & lungs fit enough to pump adequately oxygenated blood. But don't underestimate the large role a
589.
by jp555 13y ago
Fat does not "clog your arteries". The buildup of plaque in arteries is a complex process. But it has much more to do with chronic inflammation and the immune system's response to it than dietary fat or cholesterol. In fact t
590.
by jp555 13y ago
You're right I shouldn't have been so crass. It's just that the more I learn the facts about nutrition science the more I rage at the mythology; and Taubes is a king of myth. When I started learning, I fell for the fallacious
591.
by jp555 13y ago
> You mentioned there is very little other than fat in beef but don't forget that there's mostly protein. No, I meant that the experiment I linked to didn't test fat's insulin stimulating ability in isolation. I didn&
592.
by jp555 13y ago
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&... . The data shows beef causes a much larger insulinogenic response than rice. There is little there isolating fat, but your first link is inte
593.
by jp555 13y ago
> Chemically it is insulin that triggers the signal in our body to store fat. A misleading oversimplification. Maintaing a net-energy-surplus is the causes of fat storage. Insulin is just one piece of the mechanics of how surplus energy
594.
by jp555 13y ago
It's not a complete comparison, just comparing the impacts of deca-billion capital expenditures. But you're right they're completely different in a lot of ways. Apple "builds" more than one aircraft carrier a year (
595.
by jp555 13y ago
$15B for devs since the ecosystem was created (with most of the growth recent) does not compare to the lifetime value investors place on the entire company. $15B is two aircraft carriers. In less time to build one.
596.
by jp555 13y ago
> Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? > And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active o
597.
by jp555 13y ago
Every gram of stored carbs (glycogen) gets stored with ~3g of water. By cutting carbs you use up stored carbs and rapidly lose this water-weight. This is why low-carb diets work so well at first, But it's not fat you're losing.
598.
by jp555 13y ago
Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose we
599.
by jp555 13y ago
In the first few minutes of "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" he shows that the average daily caloric intake has increased on average something like ~200 calories in recent decades, shows it's mostly sugar calories, then spends the r
600.
by jp555 13y ago
how do you know that? There are so many possible confounding variables that make that claim doubtful.

More ›