Leaderboard

Done. Bit chily to wear atm. I see Putin is offering Ukrainians a corridor... into Russia (AP)

FFS, really? So needless

I think a reality check is in order before this goes farther ... Bangstrom ( and Caracal, in the other thred ) does not seem to realize how expansion actually works. The Cosmological Constant, responsible for expansion, is just that, a constant term appended to the Einstein equations which describe gravity, which acts 'opposite' the gravitational term, and was originally intended to balance the equations so as to keep the universe static. Since the gravitational terms are variable, but the onstant is not, its effects only become apparent when the gravitational terms are weak enough that the Cosmological Constant exceeds them in magnitude, and the Enstein equations then no longer result in attractive gravity, but rather, cosmological expansion. IOW, we would see expansion only when gravity is weak enough that the Cosmological Constant is able to exceed the threshold of gravitational attraction. And the really great part is, that is exactly what we observe. We don't see spaces between our constituent atoms increase, or the Earth getting larger, or planets and stars moving apart, or even galaxies getting bigger, simply because they are gravitationally bound, and the Cosmological Constant is very small, and below the threshold of the gravitational attraction. We start to note expansion at large intergalactic and intergalactic cluster distances, where gravitational attraction is very small, and the Cosmological Constant tops the threshold of gravitational attraction, and exceeds it. That observational evidence fits in neatly with our theoretical assumptions. A 'shrinking everything' theory, assumes that everything shrinks in scale so that all effects are preserved . ( and as Markus argues that isn't possible ) But we know , from observation, that there has to be a 'cut-off', where, below intergalactic scales this effect is no longer apparent. So either your theory is a non-starter, as it doesn't apply to the reality, or, you need to get back to the drawing board, and come up with a suitable mechanism for your theory to maintain the observed cut-off, and comply with reality.

On first view of videos coming out of Ukraine, you feel sorry for the displaced women and children, the destruction and the suffering, and the deaths of Ukrainians who, just a week ago, were living their lives and going about their business. Some of the graphic videos on Reddit also show what is happening to the Russian soldiers; young kids, scared and confused, some dying in brutal fashion. I feel sorry for them too. All this misery to satisfy the ego of a deluded man who yearns for the long since past glory of 'empire'.

Are orchid mantises plants?

You have the canonical five (A, G, C, T and U), although I'm seeing articles where it's a little more complicated because there's also a non-standard base of I, although I'm a little fuzzy on when this one appears. There also seems to be a new base, discovered in viruses, dubbed Z. (Because viruses get involved, I'm looking at both RNA and DNA together.) https://www.wired.com/story/dna-has-four-bases-some-viruses-swap-in-a-fifth/ I seem to recall reading this one does appear in certain fungi and not just viruses, but can't find the article on that. Besides which, it's not always reliable to go with one-off pieces, especially outside of the scientific journals, which is why I'm not even feeling 100% confident that Z is real. Besides which, since (according to TFA) "during gene transcription, T-Z was still treated as though it were T-A", it's not even clear if it's reasonable to call Z a new base even if it does exist. That would seem to depend on whether a base is defined chemically or functionally. Although, as TFA suggests Z exists to fool immune systems, do we define function in terms of what it does or how it is seen? I'm excluding synthetic bases, since there can be an arbitrarily large number of these. I'm therefore curious as to what geneticists consider to be the bases that arise in nature, without regard to whether they're considered canonical.

It also looks like the Russians have lost their momentum and the Ukrainians a beginning to re-take their cities. Ukraine LIVE: Putin invasion ruined as airport AND city 'retaken' – claims 11k troops dead | World | News | Express.co.uk Seems they were particularly unprepaed for the winter thaw conditions, and how it impairs their mobility re-supply and logistics. Napoleon and Hitler must be turning over in their graves at the irony of the Russian army attacking another country in the winter, and losing, along with massive casualties, due to weather and conditions.

Looks good!

No

In fact, there is a lot of redundancy, i.e. the same amino acid being coded by several mRNA codons. There are 64 codons coding for only 20 amino acids: There seems to be quite a few modified bases occurring naturally, defined chemically. Here is a recent review: Natural, modified DNA bases - ScienceDirect

What a terrible idea. Buy oil from one fascist tyrant to make up the small shortfall of oil (what, three percent of our oil?) from another fascist tyrant? Three percent - we can't sell breaking out the bikes and scooters (it's March, folks) as a patriotic act and expanding the arsenal in the war on obesity? Or bring bigger federal subsidies for purchasing hybrids, electrics, and fuel miser IC cars? If we mean to go Green, and move away from fossil fuels, this seems like the perfect two birds/one stone set-up.

Photosynthesis definitely came later, though I am not sure whether we got a good idea whether fermentation or anaerobic respiration came first. There is a good reason to believe that respiration of inorganic substrates (i.e. chemolithotrophy) such as metals, sulphates, nitrate etc. are an early strategy to obtain energy. As to OP, plants and animals split over a billion years ago (and all extant animals are basically . And no, if something resembles something else (especially if it is mimicry) they do not suddenly become related. A hairy person is not closer related to a bear than a non-hairy person, for example.

There is a "secret" airfield just outside Ukraine that is a staging point for supplies going into the country. Seems like a good place to make the exchange.

Why?

There is. Trump himself is on another level, though unfortunately far from alone. That's the excuse. You can always fall back on that when none was made, with no concern whether it is accurate or not, because reasons. I didn't claim Biden was as bad as Trump. As bad as he may be at times he's not even close. Adam Schiff is a better comparison to Trump. Both are supported by their respective parties, though one is in a far less powerful position, for now...

The speed of gravity = the speed of light. So if you go faster than gravity, you go back in time. The only thing that can travel at the speed of light is light, and if gravity can travel at the speed of light, then it's almost definitely the same thing as light. Also, there's no gravity or light in outer space. Almost certainly a sign that gravity and light are the same particle. Maybe gravity is light in a different form, like Jesus was God in human form. Gravity is caused by the earth. Light is caused by the sun. The sun energizes the earth while being the polar opposite of the earth. So in a vague way, the equation of gravity and light is gravity = the inverse of light

In a previous post, I mentioned how gravity and light having the same speed, means they probably are the same particle or wave. If that's so, to go faster than the speed of light, i.e time travel, you just need to go faster than the speed of gravity. Antimatter is one object that cannot be controlled. Antimatter like the stuff in CERN. Does that mean that antimatter can be used to time travel?