swansont

How does the DNA make a planet habitable?

If you’re the walrus Goo goo g’joob

Where would it stop? Almost everything is poisonous or venomous, or will eat you (or your baby)

I know that the US Naval Observatory (where I used to work) has hired mathematicians to do various kinds of analysis, and know at least one mathematician at the Naval Research Lab. There are jobs out there.

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel violates our rules on advertising. If you want to discuss something, it needs to be posted here

Can you give a reference for this?

We do get some, where a petty downvote is canceled. And occasionally where a crackpot upvotes a fellow crackpot and that gets nullified.

No, it’s observing them. Consciousness is not involved, and “reality” is not the reality of philosophy

What’s going to change if this information is made available?

Whatever works

I’ve heard that black coffee can erase stubborn marks on a whiteboard. Of course, you have to wash the coffee residue off when you’re done.

As iNow has noted, anonymity’s important to reduce vendettas. It’s the approach that causes the fewest problems. Staff can see who gives the votes, and we have removed the ability to give feedback from people who were abusing the system.

Allegedly civilized human societies engage in genocide. It is insane, but we have empirical evidence that it happens.

A situation exists No situation exists. There is a conflict between the two, but you can’t assign the contradiction to one or the other, since the conflict is between the two. If you remove either if them, there is no contradiction. So claiming that only one of them leads to a contradiction is blatantly incorrect. No, one premise is “If B is true, C is true.” Another is “B is true” The conclusion is “C is true” Basic syllogisms have two premises (though you can have more), and a conclusion. https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/syllogism All this shows is that D is unnecessary. But there is a contradiction between A and D; if you have D, then B is an unnecessary statement. (i.e. you don’t need both B and D. You don’t need C, either.) All you’ve done is add statements to make the situation more complicated. Red herrings. Sloppy argument.

Why does there need to be? Science/medicine has managed to proceed without one. vulva does not refer to the entire reproductive system; it’s just one part. The various parts have their own name.

! Moderator Note A key in discussing this is in quantifying the results. Something you continue to avoid doing, and has been pointed out as a requirement for you to discuss this topic.

! Moderator Note Then do more reading. Posting to question mainstream science is speculation (which requires one to provide evidence and engage in technical discussion), and doing it here is thread hijacking (rule 2.5), and also runs afoul of our rule on good-faith posting (2.12) ! Moderator Note This is also a violation of 2.12 (emphasis added) Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

! Moderator Note You need to give better background than a link to a biography Yes. (you asked a yes/no question. If you want more, do better with your questions)

Yes, undoubtedly, since so much of modern technology depends on QM. Beyond that, the question is incredibly vague, to the point that it’s meaningless.

No, there aren’t, but… 1. If you think there are, show evidence of it 2. What you believe doesn’t matter. It’s what you can show. IOW, evidence is necessary.

No, it doesn’t. Not according to mainstream physics. Our rules require you to have a model and evidence in order to advance this as speculation.

acouple has been banned as a sockpuppet of we2

No. A plane being grounded is a decision made by humans; it’s not a physics issue. It’s not analogous to electrical grounding. An object at rest has no net force on it. How is that analogous to electrical grounding? An object’s “internal conserved charge” is not involved in grounding. Grounding involves conduction electrons, which are not attached to any particular atom. Newtonian gravity is an attraction of masses. I’m not seeing the connection. Science uses more precise definitions for its terminology than in everyday speech.

So the answer is no, you did not understand. You might notice that Mordred mentions charge, not energy. (energy is not a substance) If you can’t explain what grounding is, and what you mean by grounding mass, nobody can answer your question. Which isn’t what the experiment did. It measured the electrostatic force present with a known electrical field, by comparing it to the gravitational force.

They understand it. The question is: do you? And given the information you’ve been given, do you want to amend the phrasing of your inquiry? How so? You can’t have a desired result when you don’t know the answer.