Leaderboard

Not sure what you mean by time being reactive. And I don't understand why that would mean it travels. I don't even understand what it would mean for time to "travel". 🤷‍♂️ No. Photons are massless. It has nothing to do with terminal velocity. Light always travels at the same speed. No. Photons do not have mass. And even if they did, it would not imply that space has drag. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. No. Photons always travel at the speed of light. Which is why it takes them 8 minutes to get to Earth from the Sun. No.

Just to add info. The oxygen in photosynthesis comes from the breaking up of water molecules. The possibility that it came from CO2 has been ruled out experimentally by using isotopic tracers. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Science-William-K-Purves/dp/0716798565 (chapter 8: Identifying Photosynthetic Reactants and Products) Water was very abundant in the atmosphere after the late heavy bombardment.

Jackson vs Johnson can be very confusing

thanks a lot guys. for tonight i will stick with the conversation between richard dawkins and brian greene but tomorrow i will be looking at the carta stuff. btw joigus, i also like your posts on the fermi paradox no religious upbringing actually, born in east germany and raised more or less as an atheist. im just very interested in evolution especially in that of behaviours.

In that case, about 11 years ago I explored this in the thread below. Unfortunately, the forum software has been updated multiple times since then and all my YouTube video links broke. Any time you see a random string of letters/numbers in the middle of the post, just put it after the following to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StringGoesHere Here’s that thread: First video (which inspired the thread) goes here:

Depends what you mean by god. If you mean a creator god, in the Abrahamic sense, then that only appeared ~500 BC - and only once in humans among the Semetic people. That's far too late to have any evolutionary basis. Therefore i think God far too new a concept to be subject to genetic evolution, though it may have stemmed from older concepts that are rooted in our neurobiology.

I think it is just a byproduct (a spandrel) of our capabilities for abstract thought, looking for explanations, finding patterns (even if they are not there) and making stories. Not all of which are necessarily directly selected for either. I would say they are the same things that make us interested in science or any other form of knowledge. People just express, or use, them in different ways.

Metals block light very effectively (unless they are extremely thin) So, a small metal box (with some padding) would do the job of keeping your B12 bottle in the dark. The photography stores used to sell opaque bags of various sorts for handling and string photographic film, but in these days of digital imaging, I don't know if they are still on sale. I'm sorry, but none of that makes much sense.

Any material that you can't see through is going to be light-resistant, in the sense you mean. The one exception might be plastic because that is often made so it blocks visible light but might allow ultra-violet light through, which is likely to be a problem in this application. All metals are opaque(*), so aluminium isn't special in that way. It is special in that it is easily available in thing sheets. Finding something flexible enough not to break like the aluminium foil does, but that also stays wrapped around the vials, may be a bit of a problem. How many times does each vial get wrapped and unwrapped? An alternative might be too keep them in a box made of wood or metal. (*) Because of the nature of this site, someone is going to point out that you can see through very thin sheets, such as gold leaf. But that is not relevant to this situation. ! Moderator Note I think that your description of the reason you need this is very relevant to people suggesting a possible solution. You are not asking for medical advice (which we do have a rule against). So I am going to put it back in your post. (We already have enough unhelpful replies!)

As mentioned before there is legislation in play to increase police accountability see text here. But to the broader point of funding: the fact that the US spends much more on policing rather than on social programs compared to other economically advanced nations but has worse outcomes in terms of criminality points to an issue with funding priorities. Policing is basically the reactive band-aid for a range of social issues, but does little for prevention these issues to crop up. More importantly, it also leads to mission creep, where police now also have to take on roles which are better fulfilled by health care providers or social workers. The basic idea is then, to increase funding to fight the root of the issue plaguing the US rather than further investing into a system that intrinsically is not working. I think there are different schools of thoughts at play here. One that sees that the roots of crime are social in nature and require deeper adjustments of structural issues. The other is more focused on combating symptoms. Most literature indicate that social measures as a whole are more effective to create large-scale changes and while a balance needs to be found, it at least appears that the US is performing less well than their counterparts.

It's not the sensors or the body that knows if something is hot or cold. It's the brain. The sensors are activated, and the brain simply get's the message "sensor activated", and it simply collates all the information, from all of the different sensors, and matches it to memories that have built up as we are growing and learning from childhood. I can remember years ago being at an ice-cream van, and a couple had a young baby, and they said "this is her first taste of ice-cream". They gave it to the baby to lick, and the little girl screwed up her face and said "hot !!!" Then, seconds later, she obviously decided she really liked it, and was kicking her legs and struggling to try to get another lick. It was funny at the time.

I didn't mention time but space or gravity. I can give you the answer but I rather find someone intellectual to share ideas with. I'm still waiting for someone to tell someone close to my understanding so I can trigger theological conversation.

Honestly, this truly reminds me of general theory of relativity when alot of testing needed to be made to prove the theory was right. If you could only use the logical side of your brain you won't understand what I'm talking about. I'm going to make a video to post it here by sept so I can prove I'm right about hyperdimensional theory that blends with special relativity theory. I didn't mention time but space or gravity. I can give you the answer but I rather find someone intellectual to share ideas with. I'm still waiting for someone to tell someone close to my understanding so I can trigger theological conversation.