Lipid membranes

>>7686589
WAT ARE MICELLES

>>7686605
What is your point? or are you just spouting buzzwords?

I propose you should stop posting the same thing
>here is experimental evidence against the membrane-pump theory for the maintenance of high K+ and low Na+ concentrations in resting cells. Ling has shown (1962) that under specified conditions, the Na pump alone would consume 1530 times the total energy available to the cell.
>This objection to the steady-state model, presented in detail fifteen years ago (Ling, 1962), has been confirmed in general principle by Jones (1965) and Minkoff & Damadian (1973, 1974). A second example of experimental evidence against the pump model consists of the demonstration that the levels of Na+ and K+ in the cell do not depend on the rate of outward Na+ flux, as demanded by the pump theory (Ling & Ochsenfeld, 1976).
what we know now, which we didn't know then, is that Na+/K+ ion flow is facilitated by using opposite concentration gradients, that Na+ pumps do not move solely Na+, and that cells also have general-purpose ion diffusion pores. all of those are theoretical details which have been well documented and demonstrated in the decades since this paper came out

Also, the explanation of the results is that they didn't know how ion pumps work...Please read the fucking links you posted.

Alright, I suppose you genuinely didn't read the articles...

>>7686640
>>7686649
>>7686731

Nope I didn't read them.
Some pleb used to post this thread years ago, and I wanted to find a proper answer, so I thought I'd copy paste what he wrote and see if anyone knew.

>>7686799
you can't even read a few articles on the topic that interests you. which makes me think you won't read any explanation posted either.
let the thread die or read through the articles and then think about it and come back if you need to.

>>7686799
Well almost 1.5 years ago rather.
That's the earliest thread on the subject I can find on warosu

>>7686801
It doesn't interest me enough to read a few articles on it. Especially not 2 articles by Ling.

Looking through warosu, no one has been able to find an article that "proves" the lipid bilayer.

If I were to happen upon a paper which was a review of evidence, then I'd probably read it to be quite honest. I'm just not going to waste my time on the papers in my OP

I think it'd be cool if someone compiled a list of all of the crazy things people have shitposted on sci about. I mean the times when it's obviously one person making threads and replying to every post in the thread so that they always reach 100+ replies, and then they keep doing this for weeks (essentially amounting to a forced meme, bludgeoning everyone on this board with an idea until it becomes controversial). I know there must be at least 100 instances of this happening here, it's currently happening with flat earth.

This phenomenon is a perfect example of a vocal minority (one person) actually affecting the conversation at large regardless of the veracity of their claims or how thoughtful they are; persistence is all that is required. The internet enables the proliferation of bad ideas just as well as it enables the proliferation of good ones.

It would be quite interesting. Warosu has threads as far back as May 13 2010, if you care enough to look for common themes for a list.

It's interesting, even more so, because these threads question things which are "obvious", but which the average person cannot prove or disprove

>>7686824
I've tried discussing this on sci before.my theory is that being anonymous can breed good ideas, but in reality the majority will always win. the majority isn't always right though.
imagine we knew who everyone was. I'm sure we'd see that most threads/comments are from underage people and that actual doctors get corrected for their grammar. then we'd say sorry to the doctor and b& underage.

but for all we know this is a board full of mothers against constant yak sucking spewing their two cents on any topic they can.

>>7686833
Meant this as a reply to yours
>>7686840

>>7686833
>>7686841
I was quoting you, dunno what happened

>>7686846
Quite sure he deleted it and reposted it again for some reason. Probably a type or something

lol you post this thread like twice a year and get btfo everytime. lipid membranes are real you half wit

>>7686856

You pleb. I literally copy pasted the lipidtards posts because it gets guaranteed replies

Go circle jerk yourself somewhere else

>>7686799

>>7686589

What do cells have instead? A protein lattice? A cell wall?

>>7686979

Well, if I truly wanted to troll, I would claim that they are a syncytium, following reticular theory

>>7686979
Cells are a social construct.

>>7686589

> I propose that lipid membranes do not exist

What do you propose exists in place of them then?

>lipid membrane asshole is back
god i've missed you

>>7686589
Why do you use I when it's Gilbert Ling's theory. At least give him credit for the idea.

the funny thing about gilbert ling and the anon who keeps posting his shit is that most of /sci/ straight up can't argue against him

a good scientist shouldn't have to rely on disciplinary dogma; they should be able to explain why a fundamental concept like lipid membranes is a better theory than structured water given the evidence

most anons don't think critically and just shit out observations that are trivially explicable with structured water theory. to correctly and thoroughly argue against structured water, you have to critically examine the faults in the theory, and very few anons manage to do this