Leaderboard

I don't think that he postulated it as aggressively (in part because it is trivially false). What I believe he has argued (and it does align to some level with what my line of thinking) that a) the role of prior infections in disease development are often overlooked and the the current paradigm of looking for current active infections might be too limiting and related to that that b) especially for chronic diseases, folks assume a too elevated role of genetic factors. It is a while back where I read a little a bit about those arguments and I do think that the research field has moved a bit along based on data of the last two decades. But again, the quote above is clearly inaccurate.

ABC/IPSOS poll https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-sees-boost-favorability-after-biden-drops-race/story?id=112306763 Harris July 19-20: 35/46 (favorable/unfavorable) July 26-27: 43/42 Trump July 19-20: 40/51 July 26-27: 36/52 Vance July 19-20: 25/31 July 26-27: 24/39 (presumably voters but not couches were polled) Name a system that would not have die-hard fans I think a presidential candidate should not require such a large contingent of people continually telling you what they really meant by their remarks.

It is quite common to be confused about water terminology. When studying the literature you will find that some books define water in the purely gaseous state as vapour and others (particularly engineers) as steam. The gaseous state in common terms is also called more technically the gaseous phase. It is also common for water to exist as a mixture of a gas and a mist of fine liquid droplets called an aerosol. Engineers call this wet steam and the water as a gas on its own dry steam. Gaseous water is invisible to the eye, all the white mist you can see is due to the aerosol. When talking about properties you have to consider the components of the mixture separately, as they have different heat capacities etc.

No, no, yes, and no. Liquid water cannot exist above its critical temperature of 647 K (374 oC) at any pressure. Above that temperature, steam is a gas: below it, a vapour. (The distinction is due to whether or not it is possible for a vapour/liquid equilibrium state to exist at a particular temperature).

Let's not stoop to this level of name calling. I'm a "paid Russian troll" now? Is this how you respond to everyone who has a different viewpoints than yours? I'm interested in discussing the thread, not getting into personal bickering.

Random is not the word I would choose Often the best answer is to doubt or challenge the question. You would do well to take this feedback on board Dufuq?

You either have missed the point, are intentionally misunderstanding how human labels are arbitrary, or a combination of both. Either way, this comment is remedially false. Have you never heard of an astronaut?

Sure

"Environments" are a man made concept. None exist. Millions exist. Depends on who you ask. Make it up yourself and you'll have your answer without having to search. Nature did not create "environments." "Environments" are simply categories created by man to help us better make sense of the world.

Which is better with sound?

I’ve considered this and concluded it’s wrong

Observed by what method? Did you see it, hear it or feel it in the groin?

I encourage you not to build castles in sand nor stack new hypothesis on top of unsupported guesswork

It’s limited only by your imagination. How many foods exist? What happens when you combine ingredients in new ways, or prepare them differently?

Possibly "world" is not the term, but rather scale. In science it is common to speak of three scales: macro, micro, and nano. While there are finer levels of analysis in each of those categories, and one could certainly add "cosmic" at the top of macro, those three are the main ones as far as I can tell. Though I imagine some astronomers and astrophysicists would view cosmic as fully its own scale, given the phenomena that manifest only at that level (or can only be understood at that level).

Most of your views are straight up lies though... do you get reprimanded by your superiors in Russia when people figure out you're a paid troll?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term reference frame. A worldline connects two reference frames. A reference frame can be inertial or non inertial. ALice has one reference frame Bob has his own reference frame. The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames. The choice of coordinate systems does not change this detail due to invariance of coordinate choice. That is a fundamental principle of the Einstein field equations. Ds^2 is the separation distance between the two events Alice and Bob. Ds^2 is not a reference frame but the spacetime path. Every event (observer, emitter ) is it's own reference frame. The coordinate choice doesn't alter that detail

I understand that you think all species are placed in random places of the universe. The life of astronauts is linked to the earth (oxygen and water). Anyway I completed this order of nature worlds by my own: 1 Particles Atoms 2 Bonds Molecules 2 Chromosome Nucleus 4 Cells Organs 5 Organisms Materials 6 Energies Globes 7 Galaxy Black holes Are the first time on this forum and I had no help for this easy things for a normal scientist. I hope you are not here only to steal researches or to doubt about questions instead of give answers, maybe you only care for money.

You didn't give an answer, you said to me to do by my own. Classification defines environments of the inhabitants, which are useful in understanding their behavior. My philosophical theory is that it is the species of the universe that provide me with the necessary information, and understanding a physical structure allows you to define a structure of abilities. Otherwise you wander in nothingness. The particles are these you see below Bonds determine chemical reactions as changeable are alive not just things. I ask scientists for help but scientists do not help me with a simplistic question for the scientists of nature. I repeat you did not give corrections, you made a completely useless comment. you have no to comment to say you are not able. so now the question are, why you comment?