This is pretty much as simply as I could put everything, it's a long relatively disorganized post so be prepared:

>> ^blutruth:

Also, I'm not a doctor, just some guy with access to a search engine, so don't take my word for it.


Thanks blutruth for looking into these kinds of claims instead of just watching videos as fact like most people do. I, on the other hand, AM in the medical field, and slightly disagree with this video.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Thanks for sources blutruth. But I have a problem with your simple in/out calcualtion. If you drink less there is also less to come out. I.e. if you drink a lot you will pee a lot and your pee will be colorless. If you drink less water you pee much less, but it will become ever more yellow/brown. The big question is at what color is your pee showing you, you drink too little.
There is a lot of range in the insensible water loss, which as stated in the clip means you don't have to drink much if you don't do much physical activity.


cybrbeast you are simplifying your argument too much. The simple in/out calculation is exactly that, simple. The information backing it has to do with body self-regulation with Urine/Plasma Osmolality tied to with Glomerular Filtration Rate, reabsorption of relevant electrolytes, and hormones controlling these functions. After studying the method of how a body detects it's own fluid level(effective circulating volume, also blood pressure), and working out how each system in it's own produces an effect on either water loss/retention, we worked out the approximate numbers of a person's water requirements. We even have a formula to check a person's current water deficit:

Water Deficit = 0.4 x Lean Body Weight x (plasma [Na]/140 -1)
(Renal Pathophysiology: The Essentials by Rennke/Denker pg. 90)(http://www.amazon.com/Renal-Pathophysiology-Essentials-Helmut-Rennke/dp/0781796261/)

The best way to answer your second question is about pee color, is to look at urine osmolalities. Urine osmolality can range from 50-100 mOsm/kg to 1000-1400 mOsm/kg(same renal book, page 206). The lower the osmolality, the more concentrated your urine is(and the more yellow it is) and the more water your body is retaining. There is no "perfect pee," from what I have learned, only a pretty relaxed range which anyone with access to fluids can maintain. If you want a specific color or osmolality you won't find one.

You are right when it comes to the large range of the insensible water loss, but you would be surprised what would make you lose that water and how much of it. Unfortunately I don't have time to look up the exact numbers of insensible water loss, but off the top of my head I can list physical activity (through sweating), breathing, environment with low humidity or high temperature. These little things can all add up to water loss.

Also stimulants like amphetamines, methamphetamines, caffeine, and depressants such as alcohol can lead to increased water loss.

What I'll also add to this is that it isn't only water that you lose throughout the day, but also electrolytes that need replacing through food and other sources. Drinking something such as distilled water will not do you any good, some of the best things to drink are isotonic solutions and juices that have many other nutrients and not just water that keep you going. Thanks for your time.

Nordlichreiter looks through his periscope, seeing the aftermath settling he breaths yet another sigh of relief. Wait, what's that over to the left on that mountain.

"Fuck," Nordlichreiter says as he retracts his periscope. It seems the dust had settled only to see counter attacks in full force.

Nordlichreiter returns to his command console, he hits the big red button, and begins to cruise 4chan on the 150 inch Plasma TV.

Good point... maybe a 42" plasma in the middle, with 1080P resolution, and then two vertical oriented 24" LCD on the sides, still, cool to see a single commercially available card rendering this!!

So, generally speaking, space itself is a product of the big bang. All of the the known material universe and the space and energy between it and throughout it, including the "last scattering background", all exploded out from its primordial origin, not into space ... but into ... what? Where was this opaque ball of plasma? What was outside of it? How did it get there? This is what makes me crazy. That and wondering what exactly is "space". When you remove everything from it, what is it? And how did it get there?

You cant see back to the beginning though. The universe was a opaque ball of primordial plasma until some point, you're not going to see in there. But you can see this opaque remainder though -- and its everywhere you look in space. It's called the cosmic microwave background, and is the "last scattering surface". This is the moment that space became transparent.

These are interesting theories about the future of mankind. But I would never hold my breath for the human race to give up their traditions and beliefs systems, not too mention power, profit ie capitalism to enjoy a knowledge-based transcendence into the universe. And I doubt many would be comfortable with handing over control to any sort of AI system - self-aware or not.

I really hope we are able to get off this planet and accelerate our search into the universe. We may be in luck with that new plasma engine that could take 8-9 days to reach Mars. But we will need to send someone up there first which will take a year, I think? And then send resources and continue planet hopping that way until we actually have some sort of efficient technology for exploring. Why we haven't begun colonizing is beyond me. We can fantasize about humankind evolving and what may be out their but we still have many minuscule steps to take before we reach the real stairwell that will lead us anywhere at all.

I honestly think we'll be eradicated before we ever take the minuscule steps needed. It's a pity that the hive-minded Formicidae colonies are probably exploring space without even recognizing it's magnificence.

^
^
yeah, even a very high-strung fusion configuration such as a Tokamak wouldn't do much if it went out of control... iirc, the plasma inside a flourescent light is ~45.000 degrees C, but the density is so low that it can be contained in a thin glass tube with no problems.

Also, it's only a couple of months until we get the polywell "WB-8" report, at which point they will hopefully get a lot more funding and achieve breakeven before everyone else .

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The problem to me with a fusion plant is the energy density. If a catastrophe were to happen, how much of a city would go with it...or how much of a country? I have always liked the idea of everything being its own power station.


It's considered not to be a large risk in fusion as the plasma would have little density even though it's volume might be large. You could stop it with a confinement structure (worst scenario). Also there is no risk for a runaway event.

Well, at that distance there would be NO shock wave.
Much closer by there would be a small burst of plasma that would probably punch a few holes in ISS seams and destroy solar panels, but the intensity of the light would be the bigger worry, burning and melting every surface, starting fires inside the station through what light gets through the windows.
Also, the way i understand it though, the ISS would be pretty much untouched by any EMP.
It takes a considerable length of wire to induce power failures, and the ISS is probably protected from surges more than usual, being in space and all - as long as it's not too close to the blast.
Nukes would look damn awesome from orbit, but nothing like that.

I would have to say *lies because of the 'science' guy at the end implying that this will replace launch tech on the shuttle. I'm fairly sure plasma rockets don't generate enough power for a launch vehicle.

Wiki on fusion. "In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple like-charged atomic nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy, which allows matter to enter a plasma state."

Plasma is also known to some as the 4th state of matter. It is ever present in fusion, though not limited to. Most discussions about plasma though involve stars by and large.

>> ^westy:
surly the faster you go the more you have to decelerate so say u got to mars in 30 days as aposed to 1 year you would have to spend ages going around its gravity feailds before u lost enough speed to safely enter the atmosphere. ethor that or you are going to have to waste a tun of fuel to brake.


Its quotes like this that show who has and who hasn't played a game from the Elite series.

How fitting that Commander Pavel Andreievich Chekov discovers plasma propulsion.

>> ^JAPR:
Wow, 2010 really IS the future! About damn time a new decade/century/whatever means something cool for futuristic technology.


The 2000s saw more scientific/technological progress than any decade in the history of humankind. That's assured just by the continually accelerating rate of progress.

Not only (1) are scientists and innovators around the world better connected with each other than ever before, but (2) a greater proportion of humankind is contributing than ever before. It used to be just a handful of nations, led by North America and Britain, but now we're at the point where China is actually 2nd only to the US as a producer of scientific knowledge, and it's expected to pass the US in 2020.

Does anybody remember what the internet was like in 1999? I'd rather gauge my eyes out.

The 21st century, in which depravity is the norm. Right, let's use that plasma drive to spread beyond the confines of this planet before we destroy it. That sounds like a great idea.