So it makes sense that there is some conceivable pattern for every finite list of numbers (things, etc) that could either be disproved or not disproved (never proved of course; nothing is ever proved in science, just not disproved) by the addition of another element. Sure, we may not be smart enough to come up with conceivable patterns for really long sets of elements, but it seems like as long as that set is finite, such a pattern must exist.
I don't know why this is interesting. It just is. I wish I could remember my topology. It's like the concept of a cover or something... anyway, as the world is mostly finite (leave infinity for math and physics groping for solutions), there should be a pattern to everything.
That's kind of comforting, even though of course most of those patterns are probably wrong. But who would ever know if the additional element is never given, if the pattern is never explicable?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
2 things
1. It bothers me when people say I'm "converting oxygen to carbon dioxide." Oxygen is absorbed through the linings in the alveoli in the lungs into the capillary beds where it is distributed through pulmonary circulation. Once distributed, it serves as the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain. The electron transport chain is a series of redox reactions that generates the proton gradient in the Krebs cycle that provides energy for the pump that drives the creation of ATP, cellular energy.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is, I think, a byproduct of the citric acid cycle, which is a separate event from the electron transport chain and the Krebs cycle. The citric acid cycle generates the electron carrier molecules needed for further redox reactions by transforming carbon-based molecules.
This carbon dioxide waste is carried in the blood back to the lungs where it is absorbed back through the alveoli down a concentration gradient and respired back into the atmosphere.
You are not "converting oxygen to carbon dioxide."
2. I think it's really interesting that we have a stronger memory for visual things than for other senses. I think it's true that olfactory stimuli provide the strongest memory inducer, but try this exercise: conjure the image of your bedroom, or office, or whatever room you're not at at the moment. It's pretty clear, right? Now conjure the taste of chocolate cake. I mean, I want you to really taste it the way you really see your room. It doesn't work as well, does it? I wonder why that is? Maybe the visual component of our engrams is stronger than the other components? I don't know enough to know that. Hopefully some day I'll find out.
That's all for now folks.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is, I think, a byproduct of the citric acid cycle, which is a separate event from the electron transport chain and the Krebs cycle. The citric acid cycle generates the electron carrier molecules needed for further redox reactions by transforming carbon-based molecules.
This carbon dioxide waste is carried in the blood back to the lungs where it is absorbed back through the alveoli down a concentration gradient and respired back into the atmosphere.
You are not "converting oxygen to carbon dioxide."
2. I think it's really interesting that we have a stronger memory for visual things than for other senses. I think it's true that olfactory stimuli provide the strongest memory inducer, but try this exercise: conjure the image of your bedroom, or office, or whatever room you're not at at the moment. It's pretty clear, right? Now conjure the taste of chocolate cake. I mean, I want you to really taste it the way you really see your room. It doesn't work as well, does it? I wonder why that is? Maybe the visual component of our engrams is stronger than the other components? I don't know enough to know that. Hopefully some day I'll find out.
That's all for now folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
