pzkpfw

Elves.

The chance of someone who has no idea about current theories of abiogenesis correctly calculating the "probability of life" is approximately zero.

Makes me think of Dire Straits, Industrial Disease:

What do you mean by "averting"?

It's hard to know how to improve something when it doesn't seem to do anything. You start by claiming it's to help understand complex numbers, but "understanding" something by doing even more convoluted things with something adjacent to it, is counter-productive. How about showing how you use this system? What's it for? What's it do?

Forget "relative mass". (It's a deprecated concept. Modern physics has pretty much dropped the idea.)

Yeah, and people with longer legs should pay lower rates (city council fees, whatever) since when walking a given distance they make fewer steps than short-leg people so wear out the footpaths less.

Yikes. Right at the start of your OP you claimed: (A) Global Warming -> (B) disrupted ecosystem -> (C) slowed down the earth's core -> (D) weakening the magnetic field When asked for evidence you provided none, you waffled about how there'd be no evidence (or something like that). So you claimed something extremely wild (especially the B to C step) then provided nothing to back it up. That's what led to the "met science" comment, which was well justified.

It goes both ways. I've never read "The Expanse" but am near the end of Season 5 of 6 of the T.V. show ... The former Mars colony (now independent) has political and sometime military conflict with Earth. Martian marines get special training at 1G in case they ever need to fight on Earth. Regular Martians have more trouble if they visit Earth. "Belters" (the culture developed in the outer planets and on asteroids), basically can't function well on Earth, being human but individuals having grown up with only weak gravity, and weak pseudo gravity from spinning stations and accelerating ships.

1. You never really explain what an "atmosphere lamp" is. 2. Given you then talk about regular LED bulbs it's not clear what new effect you seem to have found. 3. You don't explain why positioning them at the poles matters. 4. Your claim that your small scale local tests has "already prevented multiple apocalyptic warming scenarios" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 5. You "haven't been able to exactly describe the phenomena just yet" - so what exactly do you expect us to discuss? 6. Your claim that the orientation of an LED bulb "instantly and definitely has a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 7. Your claim "When I did this I think it may have corrected a disgusting amount of disorganization in the atmosphere from all the atomic bomb testing in the 50's, 60's" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 8. With "firing a gun causes cavities in the atmosphere" ... what exactly do you mean by "cavities"? 9. Your claim "which otherwise would last for an indefinite amount of time until something disturbs where the cavitation occurred" is an extraordinary claim that you provide zero evidence for. 10 You never explain why "light is good for doing this." [fixing these "cavities"] 11. What's Newtons first law got to do with these "cavities"? Basically, it's all gibberish. You might as well say a hovercraft full of eels will fix climate change.

He's managed it before: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.0

In step 4, you want "goto 2". Curious, and I do believe this is relevant, do you accept 0.999... = 1 ?

Has anyone mentioned the water byproduct of hydrogen fuel cells? (not quite what the OP is after, but slightly related.) https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/fuel-cell-gemini/nasm_A19660646000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Real, schmeal, I prefer purity:

I'd bet a dollar they are in the root.

True, but moving isn't much more of an exercise for the disk than renaming (moving a file does not mean all of its content is shifted to some other area of the disk), and it achieves the immediate aim of tidying. If nothing breaks immediately, moved folders can stay where they are for a while. If only renaming, the root folder stays "messy" until the decision to delete.

I think these are "temporary" folders where updates are loaded to, before being applied. So while I'd expect them to not be needed once those updates have been applied, my inclination (especially in the lack of context) is to just leave them alone. If anything, (and if sufficient rights are held) moving them to some subfolder, so they can be moved back if stuff stops working, or deleted a year later, would be what I did. (There is no money back guarantee for this comment.)

Why should base 10 be special? I did this in binary, and the last digit repeats as 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1 What does that prove?

The clock stuff is what really marks this as numerology for me. Numbers like 360 degrees for a circle, are essentially an accident of history. (I don't mean they were randomly selected.) To later retrofit other math to those numbers, imagining they are special, is upside down. Then there's stuff like multiplying by ten "for base 10". What? The number was already in base 10; this is just fiddling. And what's special about base 10 anyway?

Please read my post again. It answers your question. (Your question does not make sense. Purposeful evolution is not a thing, and you will not get an answer that assumes it is.)

You have evolution back to front, by missing the natural selection part. It's not at all about an organism knowing what would be useful, then developing it. It's (in a nutshell) about random mutation sometimes making something that turns out to be useful, which is kept by providing an advantage. And note that eyes and ears don't spring into the current form in one go. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

From Mordred: "When one particle changes state it does not cause the other to change state. You can merely make predictions of state of the other particle by measuring the state of one of the pairs." Say you have two marbles and you know one is Blue and one is Red. You randomly get one and without looking at it - chuck it in that black hole, or send it far away in a rocket. Later you look at the marble you still have. If it's Red you instantly know the one in the black hole, or far away, is Blue. You didn't instantly make the other marble Blue.

I'm astounded cpu68 still thinks there's anything to this. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86231.0

F=ma The force is felt while accelerating the item. If they move at a constant speed they can be touching but feel no reaction force. (Imagine two cars moving in line at 100 kph. They could be 10 metres apart. They feel no reaction force. The second car could be "touching" the first, and they'd still feel no reaction force. But if the second car is being used to speed up the first car, or the first is being used to slow down the second, then they feel reaction force. * ignoring lots of friction and drag and stuff.)

What's the deal with "let it be known"? It sounds like some kind of (magic) incantation like the free men of the land use in "legal" contexts.