-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
Have You Ever Wondered....
- Thread starter kittkatt
- Start Date
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,498
- Purraise
- 39
Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) binds to cylooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in cells, without something to inhibit it the COX-2 makes prostaglandins which send the pain signals to the brain. Acetaminophen isn't as well understood, it still inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2 but not very strongly and has little antiflammitory properties. Instead it acts on the central nervous system to reduce pain. There's a lot more too it in that, but it's more technical and less chopped up then I made it.Originally Posted by KittKatt
I thought of another: when you get a headache or any other kind of pain and you take a specific pain killer (such as an Excedrin for a headache), how does the pain killer work for the specific part of the body??
The caffeine in Excedrine works by causing vasoconstriction. When you get a headache the pain is caused by vasodilation, inflammation, and damage to that specific area.
And it doesn't work for a specific part, exactly. It inhibits the COX-2 where they are and hopefully decreases the prostaglandins. As I'm sure many can attest to, sometimes pain meds help and sometimes they may help the pain in one place, and other times they do nothing or only half help. Also, waiting till the pain is already bad decreases how well any pain killer will work as the amount of prostaglandins is high by that time - I know this, yet will wait and wait.
And yes, I have a problem with reading/researching random things and remembering useless information.
Originally Posted by strange_wings
And yes, I have a problem with reading/researching random things and remembering useless information.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
I figured some geniusOriginally Posted by strange_wings
Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) binds to cylooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in cells, without something to inhibit it the COX-2 makes prostaglandins which send the pain signals to the brain. Acetaminophen isn't as well understood, it still inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2 but not very strongly and has little antiflammitory properties. Instead it acts on the central nervous system to reduce pain. There's a lot more too it in that, but it's more technical and less chopped up then I made it.
The caffeine in Excedrine works by causing vasoconstriction. When you get a headache the pain is caused by vasodilation, inflammation, and damage to that specific area.
And it doesn't work for a specific part, exactly. It inhibits the COX-2 where they are and hopefully decreases the prostaglandins. As I'm sure many can attest to, sometimes pain meds help and sometimes they may help the pain in one place, and other times they do nothing or only half help. Also, waiting till the pain is already bad decreases how well any pain killer will work as the amount of prostaglandins is high by that time - I know this, yet will wait and wait.
And yes, I have a problem with reading/researching random things and remembering useless information.
An extension for the universe expanding one--- pretty sure its always expanding, but its not expanding INTO anything, its expanding into nothing, is how I understand it....UNLESS the nothingness is expanding into something too....the mind boggles. And yet, I find it hard to think about nothing, how were all floating in a huge nothingness. What does nothing look like?
and another extension to the original question, a show I once watched on TV about the universe expanding. Apparently the universe, all universes, are held together by gravity. That is why there are pockets of stars (universes) out there, and not just a random bunch of stars extending on forever. But, to counteract the gravity, did you know that space expands? That nothing gets bigger?
That is why the universe is not just one big ball of stuff, its all separated by pockets of nothing, being held apart somewhat, yet is all together as well held together by gravity, if that makes sense. The scary part is, the nothing is ever so slightly stronger than gravity. As the nothing gets bigger, gravity has less of a hold on the universe, and so the nothing can get bigger faster. Soooo...we are slowly accelerating away from everything, and everything is slowly accelerating away from us! Right now it is an infinitesimally small movement, but eventually the universe will break apart from the nothing around it! That'll apparently take millions of millions of millions of years though, it'll be long after the sun implodes and destroys earth anyway. But, if there are people out there that have found another planet to live on, they may somehow survive the zillions of generations to witness it. That will be the time when we are truly alone.
Dont know about you, but it sure scares me!
On a happier note, have you ever thought about the way we see things? Take color for instance. When I see the color blue, I know its blue, blue is blue, green is green, and red is red. You see it like that also, red is always red, blue is always blue, and green is green. BUT.....if I look at a blue paper, then you look at it, we both know it as blue, but do we see it the same way? Maybe what I think is blue to you looks red (though you still call it blue, as thats what you were taught it is called), and to someone else its green (same story). All this might exclude colorblind people though, lol. Just some more food for thought, one that can occupy me for hours
and another extension to the original question, a show I once watched on TV about the universe expanding. Apparently the universe, all universes, are held together by gravity. That is why there are pockets of stars (universes) out there, and not just a random bunch of stars extending on forever. But, to counteract the gravity, did you know that space expands? That nothing gets bigger?
Dont know about you, but it sure scares me!
On a happier note, have you ever thought about the way we see things? Take color for instance. When I see the color blue, I know its blue, blue is blue, green is green, and red is red. You see it like that also, red is always red, blue is always blue, and green is green. BUT.....if I look at a blue paper, then you look at it, we both know it as blue, but do we see it the same way? Maybe what I think is blue to you looks red (though you still call it blue, as thats what you were taught it is called), and to someone else its green (same story). All this might exclude colorblind people though, lol. Just some more food for thought, one that can occupy me for hours
OMG, someone else is as strange as I am!! I was going to post the exact same thing because I've wondered about that my whole life! That's one of those topics I would bring up with friends while drinking and they would cut me off!Originally Posted by Kernil
On a happier note, have you ever thought about the way we see things? Take color for instance. When I see the color blue, I know its blue, blue is blue, green is green, and red is red. You see it like that also, red is always red, blue is always blue, and green is green. BUT.....if I look at a blue paper, then you look at it, we both know it as blue, but do we see it the same way? Maybe what I think is blue to you looks red (though you still call it blue, as thats what you were taught it is called), and to someone else its green (same story). All this might exclude colorblind people though, lol. Just some more food for thought, one that can occupy me for hours
And, honestly, some outfits I've seen, I KNOW they can't see the same colors I see!
i used to have a friend who was colorblind... he said the different colors were all gray... but different shades of gray. i figure it's like watching black & white TV.
...But if the universe can float in it, it's not nothing -- if you see what I mean.
If it has a location, it must exist. If the universe is expanding into it, that implies time, and if it has duration, it must exist. If there's an "in here," then there must also be an "out there!"
Our planet may be a mere speck of dust in some larger universe. Our entire galaxy may exist inside a snow globe on some alien's curio shelf.
Or, considering the relatively huge gaps between the subatomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the molecules that make up (so far as we know) everything, our universe may exist on a dimensional plane that's shuffled like a card in a great deck of universes, and each of those universes may be very different from ours, or it may be identical to ours except in time, and what we perceive as time may actually be the result of our progression through the deck from one universe to the next, so that all the moments actually exist all at once, and duration is only an illusion...
If you think about this stuff too long, you can become convinced that we don't exist at all, but are products of our own imaginations. Which is almost comforting, because once you accept existence, you have to consider nonexistence... and it seems less upsetting never to have existed in the first place.
I think.
(Therefore I am. Which I guess blows that theory...
)
If it has a location, it must exist. If the universe is expanding into it, that implies time, and if it has duration, it must exist. If there's an "in here," then there must also be an "out there!"
Our planet may be a mere speck of dust in some larger universe. Our entire galaxy may exist inside a snow globe on some alien's curio shelf.
Or, considering the relatively huge gaps between the subatomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the molecules that make up (so far as we know) everything, our universe may exist on a dimensional plane that's shuffled like a card in a great deck of universes, and each of those universes may be very different from ours, or it may be identical to ours except in time, and what we perceive as time may actually be the result of our progression through the deck from one universe to the next, so that all the moments actually exist all at once, and duration is only an illusion...
If you think about this stuff too long, you can become convinced that we don't exist at all, but are products of our own imaginations. Which is almost comforting, because once you accept existence, you have to consider nonexistence... and it seems less upsetting never to have existed in the first place.
I think.
(Therefore I am. Which I guess blows that theory...
I keep wondering if our universe/solar system is a portion of a cell that makes up another lifeform and we're just all molecules or something. Maybe our Universe is an individual cell, I dunno. I've been thinking about this since I was a child, then one of the opening scenes on The Simpsons had something like that came out a few years ago and explained exactly how i felt about the issue. I finally found the description of it if you don't understand what i'm saying
From Episode 327, March 14, 2004
\tIn a parody of the science short film, Powers of Ten, the Simpsons sit down on the couch as normal when suddenly, the camera pans out, revealing an overhead shot of the house, an overhead shot of the neighborhood, an overhead shot of the United States, an overhead shot of the North American continent and the Western Hemisphere, an overhead shot of the Earth, the solar system, and Kang and Kodos standing next to their broken spaceship. Soon, many stars fill the screen as they form into the Milky Way. Other galaxies form and turn into atoms, which turn into simple molecular structures, which turn into more complex molecular structures, which turn into DNA helices, which pan out into a blank yellow expanse, which reveals to be Homer’s head and returns to the couch scene. Homer stares blankly for a few seconds, then utters, “Wow!”
I've also always wondered if everyone sees the same colors as everyone else. Green to one person might look like my black or red to me.
From Episode 327, March 14, 2004
\tIn a parody of the science short film, Powers of Ten, the Simpsons sit down on the couch as normal when suddenly, the camera pans out, revealing an overhead shot of the house, an overhead shot of the neighborhood, an overhead shot of the United States, an overhead shot of the North American continent and the Western Hemisphere, an overhead shot of the Earth, the solar system, and Kang and Kodos standing next to their broken spaceship. Soon, many stars fill the screen as they form into the Milky Way. Other galaxies form and turn into atoms, which turn into simple molecular structures, which turn into more complex molecular structures, which turn into DNA helices, which pan out into a blank yellow expanse, which reveals to be Homer’s head and returns to the couch scene. Homer stares blankly for a few seconds, then utters, “Wow!”
I've also always wondered if everyone sees the same colors as everyone else. Green to one person might look like my black or red to me.
Why did I open this thread?
My brain hurts now.
Along time ago about ten years I saw a documentry on PBS it was called "Is the Universe expanding?"
That documentry kept me up for days thinking about what the universe is expanding into. Until one day I let that thought go. That thought was now reopened when I opened this thread.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
My brain hurts now.
Along time ago about ten years I saw a documentry on PBS it was called "Is the Universe expanding?"
That documentry kept me up for days thinking about what the universe is expanding into. Until one day I let that thought go. That thought was now reopened when I opened this thread.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
If you really like to think about pointless stuff you should take the History of Math course here at Platteville. The last 2-3 weeks is dedicated to proving that we actually know nothing about mathematics. Here is what I remember:
If the system we have come up with known as mathematics is real you should be able to break it down to its simplest term and then it would logically progress from there. But what is that simplest term? It you try to logically break the mathematic system down this is how it goes(according to mathematicians in the 19-very early 20th centeries). Advanced Mathematics is based on calculus which is based on algebra and geometry which are both based on arithmetic which is based on numbers which are parts of sets(the set of integers, the set of real numbers, the set of complex numbers, etc). So by this break down the smallest system with in mathmatics is sets. So many people started to work on set theory and they were fine when they were working with finite sets. They could calculate intersections and unions and find the cardinality. Then someone came along and developed the idea of the Super set. The Super set is a set with larger cardinality then its subset. For example {1,2,3,4} is a super set to {1,2,3}. This man then said that every set imaginable has a super set. Then someone said "Well what about the integers, there not a finite set" so they started to work on infinite sets and this is where the problem came. The set of all numbers up to infinity is what an infinite set is. But since all sets have a super set then what is bigger than infinity.
Set theroy was supposed to be the foundation that all of mathematical thought was supposed to be built up from. But it now had a large crack in it and thanks to the work of a few other men it started to crumble and fall apart. This is where mathematics starts to break down and there are more examples and theroms that prove that we really don't know any of the mathematics that we claim to know. I just don't remember enough of the examples to state them here. With out a firm foundation how can we build the rest of mathematics, in other words how can we be sure of anything if were not sure of the basics.
This also begs the question: Was mathematics invented or discovered? This was actually the topic of the final paper we had to write in this history class.
If the system we have come up with known as mathematics is real you should be able to break it down to its simplest term and then it would logically progress from there. But what is that simplest term? It you try to logically break the mathematic system down this is how it goes(according to mathematicians in the 19-very early 20th centeries). Advanced Mathematics is based on calculus which is based on algebra and geometry which are both based on arithmetic which is based on numbers which are parts of sets(the set of integers, the set of real numbers, the set of complex numbers, etc). So by this break down the smallest system with in mathmatics is sets. So many people started to work on set theory and they were fine when they were working with finite sets. They could calculate intersections and unions and find the cardinality. Then someone came along and developed the idea of the Super set. The Super set is a set with larger cardinality then its subset. For example {1,2,3,4} is a super set to {1,2,3}. This man then said that every set imaginable has a super set. Then someone said "Well what about the integers, there not a finite set" so they started to work on infinite sets and this is where the problem came. The set of all numbers up to infinity is what an infinite set is. But since all sets have a super set then what is bigger than infinity.
Set theroy was supposed to be the foundation that all of mathematical thought was supposed to be built up from. But it now had a large crack in it and thanks to the work of a few other men it started to crumble and fall apart. This is where mathematics starts to break down and there are more examples and theroms that prove that we really don't know any of the mathematics that we claim to know. I just don't remember enough of the examples to state them here. With out a firm foundation how can we build the rest of mathematics, in other words how can we be sure of anything if were not sure of the basics.
This also begs the question: Was mathematics invented or discovered? This was actually the topic of the final paper we had to write in this history class.
Yes, a very good question indeed! We always assume that math is universal, and we imagine using binaries to communicate with aliens, etc. But what if it's not? How could we even begin to cope with a universe in which 1 + 1 does not equal 2?
If there's anything we know, it's that we don't know everything.
CarolPetunia;2361879 If there's anything we know said:
What really makes my head hurt is particle wave duality.
How can it be both?
How can it be both?
Here's some silly ones for ya:
If you choke a Smurf, what color does he turn?
Why do you drive on a parkway but, park in a driveway?
If a microwave can heat something up really fast then why can't a freezer cool something down just a quick?
If you choke a Smurf, what color does he turn?
Why do you drive on a parkway but, park in a driveway?
If a microwave can heat something up really fast then why can't a freezer cool something down just a quick?
I've always imagined that it isn't that it's both a particle and a wave, but that it's some third thing that can behave both as a particle and as a wave. But what conditions (if any) dictate which it behaves as at any given moment... I dunno.Originally Posted by AlleyGirl
What really makes my head hurt is particle wave duality.
How can it be both?
Maybe "wavicles" exist only to have inspired the development of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I'm not sure.
Arrrrrrgh! I love you guys, but this was definitely NOT a thread that I should have opened tonight! I'm already up because of a bout of insomnia.....and this ain't helping, lol!
