zapatos

I received a prescription for a drug to help with my lower back pain. The pain has since gone away but I have a lot of the drug left. The drug makes me more alert like an amphetamine, makes me feel good, is non-addicting, and costs me next to nothing. I like it. Is there any good reason I shouldn't keep taking it for recreational purposes? Is it any different than drinking coffee or scotch?

a news paper

 

I got one for you guys, "the devil is beating his wife today" does anyone know what that means?

Sun and rain simultaneously?

We already have a method to easily produce a wood supply; planting trees. Seems to me the primary advantage to developing a method to create wood in the desired forms, is that we can do away with saws. Not sure it would be worth the effort.

Hmmm...

Looks like I stepped into something here. I guess I'll just be moving on to other threads. Sorry to have offended.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake account". Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but what is it you are trying to convey?

I'm kind of new here and maybe I just don't understand the culture, but is this a joke? Sounds like some of the things I read on April 1st.

I've posted a few times and for the most part received great answers to my questions. The only thing keeping me from posting more is that I'm too busy reading what everyone else has to say. My ignorance is made obvious to me on this forum.

And I have to say that I love the level of discourse here. Such a breath of fresh air after listening to what typically masquerades itself as debate.

Stop right there. The expansion of the universe is not "outward." It's not like an explosion, and it does not involve actual motion. There is no central point that everything is expanding away from, and no outer edge. Distances are increasing. That's all.

So if everything in the universe suddenly reversed direction, it wouldn't eventually end up in the same place? What did the universe look like in the beginning (meaning roughly 13.7 billion years ago)? Are you saying that without the expansion of space, galaxies would no longer be moving away from each other?

An old man goes into the doctor and says there is something that has been troubling him and he has a question.

"When I was 20, if my thing was hard I couldn't get it to bend at all. Then when I was 40, I found that I could bend it a little bit. When I hit 50, I could move it around pretty much. And now that I'm 70, I find I can just about bend it in half."

"I see", says the doctor, "and just what is your question?"

The old man replies, "Just how strong am I going to get?"

If there is no cash, how will people in areas of the world with no networks/phones/electricity/etc. purchase things?

Ok, but if we see the galaxy as it was 10 billion years ago, that means the light we are just now seeing has been travelling toward us for 10 billion years, which means the galaxy was 10 billion light years away from us when the light we are now seeing was emitted from that galaxy. Isn't that correct?

And we know that at the time of the big bang, all matter was in the same place. And I assume it took at least 10 billion years for that galaxy to get 10 billion light years away from us. Correct?

So if it took 10 billion years for that galaxy to get that far away from us, and another 10 billion years for the light to get back to us, then doesn't that mean the universe is at least 20 billion years old? But isn't the universe believed to be only about 14 billion years old?

If the universe is 14 billion years old, how do we see a galaxy that is 10 billion years old?

From the time of the big bang, if travelling at the speed of light, it would have taken that galaxy (or its components) 10 billion years to get that far away from us. Then for the light to get from there to us would take another 10 billion years. That is a total of 20 billion years elapsed, yet the galaxy is only 14 billion years old.

Can someone explain to me the flaw in my logic? Thanks.