zapatos

Since expansion is not the movement through space, how is that connected to Relativity? How is the passage of time modified by expansion? Are you saying time is modified both by expansion and relative velocity through space?

So you acknowledge that the body is alive, but cannot accept that any of the things that compose the body (heart, lung, cells) are alive. Again, you are only leaving the possibility that "life" has nothing to do with the actual body, and if that is the case, what option do you have but to believe that life is a non-physical entity floating around somewhere waiting to inhabit a physical body? Your argument is not convincing.

The only time travel show I can remember watching was Time Tunnel. And that was so long ago I can't even remember if I liked it.

So I suppose you were lying when you indicated you didn't know about why we might not be here tomorrow. If you are not a troll you sure are doing a good imitation of one. Of course it has. Do you think we've not observed people eating? Food being digested? Proteins being made? Where have you been the last 200 years? This is Biology 101.

Are you at all familiar with how the world works? People die. Every day. Often with no warning. That is why. Geez.

But they are not on their own, right? They are part of a larger structure? And the larger structure is alive? And the structure will not be alive without those molecules? Sure we have. We eat the apple, the apple is digested, the molecules are used to build proteins, the proteins are incorporated into the body, the body is alive. In a similar way we have discovered how molecules transform into a building. The ore is mined, the iron is smelt, the girder is manufactured, the girder is installed in the building.

Every atom in your body remains 'non-living' when looked at on its own. But they are part of a larger structure; that is, the body. The body is alive, and the molecules are part of the body. If you exclude molecules as being alive when part of a body, then you are essentially saying that life exists even when the body (i.e the atoms) does not.

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but we see the transition of non-living CO2 into living trees.

No, not at all.

Mmm. Sounds tasty! Any impact on your health from consuming foam rods as they break down? Allowing a slow drip from a faucet also helps prevent pipe rupture if ice forms.

Congrats on narrowing it down! My issue turned out to be the same. And the pipes are under concrete. My pool guy told me that they cannot run a camera because the pipes are narrow and there are generally a number of connections and turns, and since they didn't do the install they don't know the layout. In addition, based on the type of pipe used 20 years ago they know from experience that those pipes break down due to years of chlorine running through them, which is therefore likely the problem. Thus finding and repairing only the leak, even if they can find it, will mean I still probably have a lot of bad pipe that will just leak somewhere else sooner or later. They suggested digging it up and putting in a new line. Someone else may say otherwise but that was their take on the situation for me.

There is not time limit on curiosity...

Oh, sure. That's a great idea. Very simple.

You seal one end of the line leading from the pump to the pool, apply pressure at the other end, and measure whether or not the pressure decreases. If the pressure decreases you have a leak in the line. If not, test the line leading from the pool to the filter. If you do not have the equipment to do the testing you can contact a company that is so equipped. I used a company that installs pools, as that type of test is normally done by them as they install the lines to make sure all their pipe joints are secure.

I thought my pool was leaking but it was instead the line sending filtered water back to pool. Years of chlorine exposure degraded the pipes. Pool guys who know what they are doing (not just pool guys who know how to open and close pools) can run pressure tests to find if that is indeed the issue.

Which applies to every health system, no? My fault. I'm clear now on what you were saying.

I don't need to see every doctor in the country, I only need to see a handful who are close to me. Every single health insurance plan in the country is not accepted by certain doctors. It is irrelevant that many docs don't accept Medicaid. Where I had Medicaid you picked a Community Plan of your choice. There were Community Plans that covered every part of the state. Each Community Plan covered your needs for doctors, hospitals, drugs, urgent care, emergency care, etc. You could choose your own doctor in the plan or one would be assigned to you. The Community Plans (unlike other insurance) were incentivized to keep you healthy. When I signed up I was interviewed to discuss my mental health, whether or not I would need transportation to my doctor's appointments, was given patient information about existing conditions and was offered a gym membership, among other things. ALL at no cost to me. Not a dime. For my circumstances, Medicaid was the best insurance of the three. Medicaid has its issues, but it is not the boogeyman as it is often portrayed. There are 50 versions of Medicaid; you cannot universally condemn them.

No, not really. They may have to pay less out of pocket or something similar, but doctors do not look at insurance as they provide health care. Based on feedback today from both a doctor and a hospital administrator, doctors do not modify the way they treat a patient based on insurance (obviously exceptions may occur). In an OR the overall outcome may be worse for those without insurance (less follow-up, prescription issues, etc) but doctors do not, say, skip an x-ray for a patient without insurance, and administrators are not looking over the shoulders of doctors. I have been on Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance here in the US. I kept the same doctors and used the same hospitals as I transitioned through all three. My care was exactly the same in all cases. The only differences were that for me Medicaid was the cheapest, followed by Medicare, then private insurance the most expensive.

I'm not that familiar with the details of who employs the healthcare providers. Is that the standard method is most western countries, where they are essentially employed by the government?

How do you define 'state run'? What would you call Medicare and Medicaid?

Agree completely. Poor people can get medical care that was unknown to Alexander. They can listen to the radio. If they can afford a television set they don't get a 12" black and white, they get a flat screen. Foods are safe, transportation is available, and they can be aware of the weather forecast. The poor are poor no matter the age, but as society and technology advance, advances are generally felt by the poor as well as the rich.

Let's hope said craphound doesn't occasionally peruse your online musings.

And while we are at it, take off your hat indoors, pull up your pants, get rid of avocado toast, stop putting menus on blackboards, enough of trying to make football 'safer', quit posting pictures of food online, I don't want to hear about your 'feelings' snowflake, and go ahead and recline your airplane seat! It's still America up there! Greatest damn country on the planet!!!!! You are a caricature of every old, white guy in the US.

"Belief", the lifeblood of a science site.