swansont

You get photons, or you get matter/antimatter pairs. We’ve seen reactions that yield more matter than antimatter in some lepton reactions (CP violation), but it doesn’t explain the baryon asymmetry.

If they said Polonium- or Plutonium-free, it’s definitely marketing.

That’s an issue of baryon asymmetry, which is unresolved. Neither one should have won out, but one did, or there was more of one than the other from the start.

That would require tool-making. Human precision grip aids with this, which suggests bipedalism, but it might not be required.

“In a paper published today in Nature, the ALPHA collaboration at CERN’s Antimatter Factory shows that, within the precision of their experiment, atoms of antihydrogen – a positron orbiting an antiproton – fall to Earth in the same way as their matter equivalents.” https://home.cern/news/news/physics/alpha-experiment-cern-observes-influence-gravity-antimatter

There are multiple species of intelligent life on earth. How many depends on where you place the bar. So it’s too simplistic to wonder what alien intelligence would look like, as if only one species has intelligence.

Insulated is not necessarily a good idea. Keeping our brains cool is important.

Dolphins are quite intelligent but don’t look like humans. But aliens would be any species not from earth. There are millions of animal species here, with varying degrees of intelligence, and most are not humanoid. No reason to expect things would be markedly different elsewhere.

But it does mean that the chemical composition varies, so one can’t make a blanket statement about the ink.

Whether the source of the stimulus is inside or outside your body?

The redefinition based units on defined constants rather than physical artifacts. A change of 1 degree was and is a difference in energy, it’s just that it used to be based on the temperature of water.

It’s a factor of 60 if you express k in terms of minutes. h and m don’t enter into it, since the change would cancel (time doesn’t appear in the result where these appear) The redefinition didn’t change the values of any of the units. The bottom line is that if you have units, your answer depends on what units you use. There’s no fundamental insight in such cases.

Sure it would, as long as the proper units and values were used in conversion

Then do a consistent calculation using other units. Try imperial. Or just use minutes instead of seconds.

There are things called inkjet pens. Google it; this isn’t the only result https://www.amazon.com/EVEBOT-Printpen-Portable-Handheld-Package-2FP/dp/B0C5WVX5YG/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=evebot+printer+pen&qid=1695670567&sr=8-3 EVEBOT Printpen Inkjet Pen Portable Handheld Printer Then there isn’t enough information to answer your question.

It’s not a matter of consistency and conversion. The second was originally dependent on earth rotation. The duration, division into 24 hours and the subsequent division by 60, and 60 again, is arbitrary. Similarly for Kelvins, based on water properties and 100 degrees separation between freezing and boiling.

It would depend on the specific chemicals involved.

! Moderator Note Your post had nothing to do with the question posed by the OP in the other thread, thus it was a hijack; you tacitly admit to this by saying “I can't help thinking that the OP is asking the wrong question” Your observations and commentary were political in nature, not based on climate science, so it landed here. There was no assessment of whether those comments were left- or right-leaning.

But those units are arbitrary. If you chose imperial units there would be no match. If we chose a different value for the second, or the Kelvin, there would be no match. Atoms formed when the universe was much warmer than it is today. There’s no evidence they were any different than they are today, but if there was it would be up to you to provide it. No, you’re trying to assign meaning based on accidental similarities of number combinations.

IIRC the hard drive memory is used by the OS when swapping info in and out of RAM. The phones of 20 years ago were not the same as the smartphones that came after, like the iphone.

And measured in the present day. As I said, it’s not a constant. Unrelated to any property of the electron. Furthermore, any relationship between terms that have units depend on the units chosen. Boltzmann’s constant has a different value if you choose non-SI units. There’s no significance to this. It’s numerology.

The CMB temperature is not constant. Were electrons bigger in the past?

I see where the article mentions journalism and communications, but not science, and from the perspective of people publishing, but not anyone being fooled by articles published in these journals. I’d be interested to know what scientists are being fooled by such publications. I would hope that they’d be somewhat skeptical, but I get the impression that most of the science is theory rather than experiment (though that may be from only being familiar with the physics side of this) and you can see for yourself where the deviation from mainstream is occurring. I think the danger to the public is with pop-sci journalism being pulled in, because there seems to be a lot of articles floating about that are too credulous - they cite novel results as if they are mainstream, like the recent stories about the age of the universe supposedly being tripled, because of one speculative research paper. Such reporting completely ignores the importance of confirmation and replication in the process.

Such fine-tuning is ad hoc. The colloquial term is “fudge-factor”

It’s not. Well, then share the system, in the appropriate place (speculations). Just mentioning it is inappropriate; this area is for mainstream physics. Not pet theories, and not poetry.