Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 11-06-2002, 11:19 PM

Vander,

Did you know that rehabilitation therapists use aquatic therapy to help patients recover? One such benefit is that the hydrostatic pressure of the water reduces the pooling of blood in the lower extremities and forces it to return to the trunk. This is due to the external hydrostatic pressure negating the effects of the internal hydrostatic pressure, thus lowering blood pressure and decreasing blood pooling.

Sure transmural effects are negligible, so negligible that they are used in medicine.

Of course, if you would just give us your calculations then you can prove us wrong.

Show me the math.

~~RvFvS~~

BTW: Here are some links to Aquatic Therapy.

<a href="http://www.ucpa.org/ucp_channeldoc.cfm/1/15/11500/11500-11500/3168" target="_blank">upca.org</a>
<a href="http://www.ask-the-doc.com/html/body_water_dance.htm" target="_blank">Ask the doc</a>
<a href="http://www.rehabinternationalpub.com/issues/fall2002/12.asp" target="_blank">Rehab Intl</a>

sh0k0nes · 11-07-2002, 07:26 AM

Does this thread remind anyone of the Biblical Equations one with ICD??

Is it that hard to see when you're mistaken?

Kev

Dr Rick · 11-07-2002, 07:58 AM

By now even John must know that his arguments are meritless. He does not comprehend physics or physiology, but cannot bring himself to concede as much. His assertions on this thread have been wrong from the beginning, and he has made himself look like a fool by persisting in defending them and insulting those who are well-versed in this area along the way.

To everyone else;

Is there anyone, anyone at all following this thread that thinks Vanderzyden has made a valid argument somewhere along the line? I'd be happy to address any comments about the physiology and anatomy of the fetal circulation, and we obviously have some experts here that could answer any detailed questions about the physics.

Rick

Xixax · 11-07-2002, 08:02 AM

rmd:

No, after reading the entire thread again, I think it would be in the benefit of VZ if he admitted concession on his gravity and placental pressure arguments.

If he does not, and continues to defend that position, his credibility will be undermined in all forums he takes part in here.

Let's see if honesty is one of his attributes ( if he only knew the number of times I had to admit to being in error on a public forum at first! It's humbling ).

scigirl · 11-07-2002, 08:02 AM

From <a href="http://www.rehabinternationalpub.com/issues/fall2002/12.asp" target="_blank">http://www.rehabinternationalpub.com/issues/fall2002/12.asp</a> (rufus's third link, I believe):

Quote:

Hydrostatic pressure exerts about 15 pounds of pressure on all areas of a submerged body.1 This is experienced as a resistive force to the expansion of the rib cage during breathing. Patients with compromised respiratory ability do very well training primary and secondary respiratory muscles against the hydrostatic pressure of the water. However, caution should be used when patients with a vital capacity of less than 1 L are immersed in water because the added pressure of the water can compromise respiratory function.2

Hydrostatic pressure is also responsible for the centralization of blood volume, which in turn causes a decrease of edema in the lower extremities.3 Treatment of these lower extremity injuries in the water is efficient because the edema is addressed during the entire length of the treatment while the patient and therapist focus on meeting other goals.

It is important to understand that, as blood is shunted from the lower extremities into the trunk, it has an impact on the cardiovascular system. The enhanced venous return results in increased heart volume and central venous pressure as well as decreased heart rate.4 Relatively speaking, however, the change in heart volume is approximately equal to the effect of assuming a supine posture from a standing posture. The change in blood pressure is less than would be typically seen with moderate exercise. The overall change in heart rate depends on the temperature of the water and the amount of exercise, if any.5

I think it's worthy to point out that a lot of science in biology deals with relative, not absolute changes.

It's clear to me that in a fluid environment, gravity is much less of a problem for the circulatory system. Thus, the placement of fetal vessels does not matter, in regards to gravity. And like I have stated a zillion times, gravity is acting on different axes, and Vanderzyden's 'solution' to this conundrum is not satisfactory:

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
To address scigirl's previous concern: All of these considerations still apply if the baby is inverted (or horizontal) in the womb. The gravitational force simple works in the opposite direction--where it assists in the effluent in one case, it assists in the influent in the other.

That just doesn't make any common sense - if gravity is assisting in the effluent in one case, it is clearly going to negatively affect the affluent in the other.

In a terrestrial environment, it is a problem - and animals such as giraffes have compensated for this, but not by alternative placement of vessels.

I still do not understand the whole point of vanderzyden's argument and how it relates to intelligent design. And yes, John, I read through the entire thread. If so many of us here don't understand your point, perhaps you just aren't explaining yourself well enough?

As a side note, I just can't imagine how it must be to live in Vanderzyden's world. All the science textbooks are wrong (about genetics, evolution, fossil record, and now, even animal physiologists are all blatantly wrong about basic physics principles!). However, the Bible is absolutely and factually true, even though it was not written with the same scrutiny and evaluation as the science texts.

I just don't get how anyone can hold such a tenuous position.

scigirl

scigirl · 11-07-2002, 08:10 AM

Here's the website that Vander posted as evidence of his position:

<a href="http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/3a.html" target="_blank">http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/3a.html</a>

I read through it, and it is clear that they are talking about adult humans (and not fetuses, or that guy from waterworld with gills):

Quote:

There is another pressure variation within the body which occurs when one part of the body is at a different elevation than another. This is called "hydrostatic" pressure, and arises because of the gravitational potential energy of the blood. Essentially, blood that is at a higher elevation has greater potential energy, and it "pushes down" on the blood at lower elevations. In fact, we will often think of pressure as an energy density (energy per unit volume), so we can think of the hydrostatic pressure as a gravitational potential energy density. The hydrostatic pressure difference due to a difference in height is given by

DP = r g Dh,

where r is the density of the fluid (which for blood is 1.05 g / cm 3), g is the acceleration due to gravity and Dh is the difference in height. If we use cgs units, g = 980 cm / s 2, Dh is measured in cm and the pressure is then in dynes / cm 2. We will usually ignore the hydrostatic pressure, by assuming that our patients are lying down.

Does anyone know much about buoyancy? I would like to see two different calculations - one for an adult human, and one for a fetus.

Incidentally, that site published the following advice (Vander, please note!):

Quote:

Do not place too much faith in these numbers until you compare the results with actual experimental data. After all, construction of a theoretical model is pointless unless it is calibrated with empirical data. Only then is it allowable (possibly!) to extrapolate the model's results.

That's a sentence from a scientist. You would do well to heed their request.

scigirl

scigirl · 11-07-2002, 08:25 AM

HAHAHA! Look what I just found:

A Christian website that explains how the circulatory system evolved!

<a href="http://healthychristianliving.com/circulatory%20system.htm" target="_blank">http://healthychristianliving.com/circulatory%20system.htm</a>

Go figure...

Quote:

The evolutionary sequence inferred from comparative anatomy is replayed in every human fetus. In the human embryo six pairs of branchial and aortic arches are created. The fate of each one can be traced into the adult form. The first two arches are lost. The termination of the ventral aorta persists as the internal carotid artery to the brain, while the third arch becomes the external carotid artery to the neck and face. Of the two fourth arches, the right one is lost (except as the base of the right subclavian artery) while the left arch persists. The fifth aortic arch is lost and the sixth becomes the pulmonary artery. The connection of the sixth arch with the dorsal aorta is retained until birth.

scigirl

Ted Hoffman · 11-07-2002, 09:00 AM

To Mr John Vanderzyden,
Carlifornia USA,
4345-03453-67

RE: THE WAY FORWARD FROM HERE

Dear Vander,

As your self-appointed advisor, I think its time we retreated and regrouped. We cant go on with this discussion with our foot stuck in our mouth.

First thing we have to do is make a graceful but unequivocal mea culpa by admitting error in concept and stating that we dont have any calculations to back up that erroneous claim about gravity having any effect on the blood pressure of the fetal blood circulatory system.

Secondly, we should admit being guilty of plagiarising when we were defining/ describing transmural and perfusion pressure (in page 10). We failed to enclose the words we lifted in quotation marks, as we should have.

Thirdly, we should come clean and admit we know nothing about fluid mechanics and that we have no mathematical proof to back any claims that would require knowledge of physics.

Fourthly, we should admit that the challenge we were given by Coraphygs about the two-inch Schedule 40 mild steel pipeline is too difficult to take on. We can simply tell him its of no relevance to this discussion.

Sixth, in response to pz's question we should admit that there are other challenges we have failed to take up like the one Intensity laid down in BC&A forum and others we have lost track of.

Fifth, lets just apologise to everyone for evading their refutations and for wasting their time, being generally obnoxious and silly.
Lets ask for more time to go and study and clear our heads. Its time to retreat, dear sir. You have been in many battles and should know this.

Remember, we have time on our side - this thread is going nowhere. We are outnumbered here, but we have brains and we have access to up to date scientific info. Making an apology will attract goodwill and dispel the disrespect we have heaped upon ourselves. Admitting error will garner us the sympathy we need and at the same time help the tempers cool for rational debate. Plus we can take time to focus on the weak points of our positions. Then when we make our comeback, we hit them with a bang.

If you reject my advice, consider this post a formal resignation.
I will then jump ship and cross over to the other side.
If Jack the Bodiless thinks he has torpedoed your ship, what I will do will make his torpedoes look like gentle pats on a thick skull.

If you do reject it, you better get a parachute coz you are about to go down.

Your respectful advisor,
Intensity

pz · 11-07-2002, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:

If Jack the Bodiless thinks he has torpedoed your ship, what I will do will make his torpedoes look like gentle pats on a thick skull.

If you do reject it, you better get a parachute coz you are about to go down.

That is one seriously addled mixed metaphor, but it does seem somehow appropriate. I can picture Vanderzyden standing on the deck of a sinking ship, solemnly announcing that it cannot possibly be going down because he has not been able to find any parachutes on board.

Vibr8gKiwi · 11-07-2002, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
If Jack the Bodiless thinks he has torpedoed your ship, what I will do will make his torpedoes look like gentle pats on a thick skull.

He'll just add you to his list of ignored posters and pretend you and your arguments don't exist. He is a master of thought-terminating techniques (even better than most Christians). He derails trains of thought that conflict with his position before they get a chance to lead him to reality. You likely won't bother him a bit.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-06-2002, 11:19 PM	#301
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Vander, Did you know that rehabilitation therapists use aquatic therapy to help patients recover? One such benefit is that the hydrostatic pressure of the water reduces the pooling of blood in the lower extremities and forces it to return to the trunk. This is due to the external hydrostatic pressure negating the effects of the internal hydrostatic pressure, thus lowering blood pressure and decreasing blood pooling. Sure transmural effects are negligible, so negligible that they are used in medicine. Of course, if you would just give us your calculations then you can prove us wrong. Show me the math. ~~RvFvS~~ BTW: Here are some links to Aquatic Therapy. <a href="http://www.ucpa.org/ucp_channeldoc.cfm/1/15/11500/11500-11500/3168" target="_blank">upca.org</a> <a href="http://www.ask-the-doc.com/html/body_water_dance.htm" target="_blank">Ask the doc</a> <a href="http://www.rehabinternationalpub.com/issues/fall2002/12.asp" target="_blank">Rehab Intl</a>

11-07-2002, 07:26 AM	#302
sh0k0nes Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: London, England Posts: 8	Does this thread remind anyone of the Biblical Equations one with ICD?? Is it that hard to see when you're mistaken? Kev

11-07-2002, 07:58 AM	#303
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	By now even John must know that his arguments are meritless. He does not comprehend physics or physiology, but cannot bring himself to concede as much. His assertions on this thread have been wrong from the beginning, and he has made himself look like a fool by persisting in defending them and insulting those who are well-versed in this area along the way. To everyone else; Is there anyone, anyone at all following this thread that thinks Vanderzyden has made a valid argument somewhere along the line? I'd be happy to address any comments about the physiology and anatomy of the fetal circulation, and we obviously have some experts here that could answer any detailed questions about the physics. Rick

11-07-2002, 08:02 AM	#304
Xixax Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,101	rmd: No, after reading the entire thread again, I think it would be in the benefit of VZ if he admitted concession on his gravity and placental pressure arguments. If he does not, and continues to defend that position, his credibility will be undermined in all forums he takes part in here. Let's see if honesty is one of his attributes ( if he only knew the number of times I had to admit to being in error on a public forum at first! It's humbling ).

11-07-2002, 09:00 AM	#308
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	To Mr John Vanderzyden, Carlifornia USA, 4345-03453-67 RE: THE WAY FORWARD FROM HERE Dear Vander, As your self-appointed advisor, I think its time we retreated and regrouped. We cant go on with this discussion with our foot stuck in our mouth. First thing we have to do is make a graceful but unequivocal mea culpa by admitting error in concept and stating that we dont have any calculations to back up that erroneous claim about gravity having any effect on the blood pressure of the fetal blood circulatory system. Secondly, we should admit being guilty of plagiarising when we were defining/ describing transmural and perfusion pressure (in page 10). We failed to enclose the words we lifted in quotation marks, as we should have. Thirdly, we should come clean and admit we know nothing about fluid mechanics and that we have no mathematical proof to back any claims that would require knowledge of physics. Fourthly, we should admit that the challenge we were given by Coraphygs about the two-inch Schedule 40 mild steel pipeline is too difficult to take on. We can simply tell him its of no relevance to this discussion. Sixth, in response to pz's question we should admit that there are other challenges we have failed to take up like the one Intensity laid down in BC&A forum and others we have lost track of. Fifth, lets just apologise to everyone for evading their refutations and for wasting their time, being generally obnoxious and silly. Lets ask for more time to go and study and clear our heads. Its time to retreat, dear sir. You have been in many battles and should know this. Remember, we have time on our side - this thread is going nowhere. We are outnumbered here, but we have brains and we have access to up to date scientific info. Making an apology will attract goodwill and dispel the disrespect we have heaped upon ourselves. Admitting error will garner us the sympathy we need and at the same time help the tempers cool for rational debate. Plus we can take time to focus on the weak points of our positions. Then when we make our comeback, we hit them with a bang. If you reject my advice, consider this post a formal resignation. I will then jump ship and cross over to the other side. If Jack the Bodiless thinks he has torpedoed your ship, what I will do will make his torpedoes look like gentle pats on a thick skull. If you do reject it, you better get a parachute coz you are about to go down. Your respectful advisor, Intensity

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.