Leaderboard

My friend and I were playing in the field. We found some stones and began stacking them. We’d go home to our family, have dinner, then for some reason we’d come back to the field the next day and the day after that and keep stacking stones. Soon, as we continued stacking them, they became taller and taller then still taller some more and a wall began to form. Others from the village soon noticed and before we knew it they began stacking stones of their own right beside us. The wall grew and changed and evolved, but had a history and told a story of our community; of our shared experience. It became an organic expression of time and effort and people would always learn new things about the universe and about themselves when gazing upon it. Then one day my friend realized that sometimes others around us were better at stacking stones than he was. He saw that, even though many of his stones were perfectly fine, some were clearly mistakes. He was embarrassed, especially when his work was compared to that of others who’d been practicing stone placement for a very long time; much longer than he and me. My friend then asked all of us in the community to remove his stones, to pull them from the wall. He kept advocating for us to rip out his stones and pretend they never existed, but we could not. If his stones were removed, all of the others placed on top of them would become unstable. If his stones were removed, the whole wall would crumble and fall and nobody wanted that, not even him. So, my friend had to live with it. He had to recognize that, even though his stones weren’t placed perfectly, they were critical to the structure of the wall itself. It could not exist in its truest form without them. Removing them would ruin the work of everyone else and my friend had to use it as an opportunity to learn from his errors and become a better version of himself. Your posts are part of our wall. Like a tapestry or quilt, it would never be the same without them. We’re sorry you want them removed, but we’re also thankful you shared them with us and appreciate what you’ve contributed, but we can’t pull that thread or remove those stones no matter how many times you ask. We’re a part of the wall too, and that just wouldn’t be fair.

The force can come from inside the frame, but for translation it means there are two frames.

Rotation increases the radius, since these are not ideal rigid spheres. So it is not clear what the result would be. It should. Meanwhile, translation will not. The key here is, as you note, energy is added to the object, and it remains in the same frame of reference. The mass must increase.

If you want that much you misunderstand the word need. If Berty had google how would Jeeves take a liberty?

Ignoring the debatable point whether octopuses are more intelligent or not, many other species (horseshoe crabs, tarantulas, various snails and centipedes) all use the same molecule for oxygen transportation. There is no obvious correlation with intelligence.

Just to have a go at putting this into words: You can think of mass as a measure of the "stuff" in something. Say you make a ball of lead that you weigh as 6 pounds on your bathroom scales. There's a certain number of Pb atoms in that ball. If you take that ball - and your bathroom scales - to the Moon: with its 1/6 surface gravity compared to Earth you'll now measure it to be 1 pound. But all the Pb atoms are still in the ball. None of them vanished. The mass of the ball is what stays the same, it's the weight that varies, based on the strength of gravity where the measurement takes place. To take it to the extreme, consider dropping the ball and scales off in space. The scales might measure zero ... the ball is "weightless" - but again, all the lead atoms are still in the ball. It doesn't have zero mass. e.g. It would still take force to push the ball, to accelerate it to some speed.

Melatonin is a hormone produced in the brain by the pineal gland. Its effects are expressed in the brain rather than the muscles. You can access further details via the Wikipedia link I've provided herein. I hope this helps.

IMO, it’s just wrong. Science deals in process, methods that help us forever journey closer to reality by helping minimaize the everpresent influence of our personal biases. Sometimes we’re fortunate to learn new facts and arrive at certain truths as a result of this method, but the method itself is what matters. The process is a way to describe the truest essence of science, and it does so far better than any collection of data or facts ever possibly could. Apologies if you feel this is off-topic. I’m sincerely not trying to distract from your topic and will once more watch from the sidelines. I just think people too often misrepresent what science really is and it needs to be corrected at every turn. Perhaps that’s my inner philosopher talking, though <chuckle>.

Calcium ions are one member of the class of chemical species called "second messengers," which respond to hormones, the first messengers. Calcium ions activate protein kinase C, among many other effects. My answer is intended to be very general.

I don't think it is as simple as that. What about something that can never be known? Or that can never be proven to be true or false? What if I think hip-hop is the greatest form of music ever invented and you think it is opera? Is one of these statements true and one false? Is one of us right and one of us wrong? (I tried to google for some good examples, but all I found were religious websites saying, "truth is not relative because God".) Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

The bravest daredevil on the planet Earth!

Though I am not conceding that mass is anything other than a relativistic phenomenon, which is why I am studying particle physics and the why I got to the book..... . Sorry, I did not see the immediately preceding post by Janus. Energy has no "properties". It cannot be defined. I am looking at the evolution of time being the primary universal energy, which has me in particle physics and on to the book, yadda, yadda, yadda... You seem to want to disassociate mass and energy......that the energy increases or decreases asymptotically makes no difference to me as I am looking at causative "events" (within what I am considering) that do the same thing. I cannot talk about that here, as it is speculation at this point and just something I am playing with (do I get to go to a -8 for that? ). So, I will not debate the properties of mass and energy here, I merely posited a question. To me the term "invariant mass" has no real meaning, it is n accommodation to avoid confusion. I read somewhere once that Einstein said he was sorry he put his equation into the E = Mc^2 form because the mass aspect was so often misunderstood.... "Invariant" mass changes with relativistic speeds, meaning it is not truly invariant...... Ooops......