Bender

I would expect Einstein to have thought up his theories in German, rather than English .

A typed explanation of the problem and clearer pics are going to increase the odds of someone responding.

For spaghettification, shouldn't you look at the gradient da/dr rather than at the magnitude a?

My mistake. In that case, what is the relevance? A homogeneous interiour sounds like a pretty poor hypothesis.

So they want to grow human organs inside an animal. In that case, the animal doesn't have any human DNA, only the organ to be harvested. I guess this could become an ethical issue if you try growing a human brain inside an animal.

It doesn't have to be uniform, as long as most of the mass is closer to the singularity than you are, you are fine (well, probably not, but the calculations work, as far as we can tell).

I don't like how you formulated this one, as it can be confusing and could confirm common misconceptions about the third law.More accurately: when object A exerts a moment on object B, object B simultaneously exerts an equal but opposite moment on object A.

We were given a choice between regular glass and more expensive safety glass for all windows extending below a height of 90 cm. If we wanted the regular ones, we would have had to sign a document stating that we take responsibility and that we are aware that insurance companies won't cover accidents. Obviously, we decided on the safety glass, not for the danger of falling through, but to avoid large sharp shards.

The mug probably wasn't borosilicate glass (aka pyrex), which is the kind of glass oven ware or lab equipement is made of. "Regular" glass is definitely not heat resistent. But even heat resistent glass isn't as heat resistent as metals.

I'm no expert on organ donation, but I don't think you need all the organs to be 100% human. That would be impossible anyway, since the cells of the organs would contain all the DNA of the sheep. What we need is changing the chemistry of the organs in such a way that is not rejected by and can function in a human body. Still different from a human organ.

"A truly remarkable day would be a day where nothing remarkable happened." There are a lot of people who all have a lot of dreams and thoughts and experiences. Statistically, it is virtually impossible on any given day that not at least one person dreams about something that will happen that day. Obviously, the millions of people who didn't, also aren't going to blog about it.

No, I don't have it backwards. Thank you KipIngram for clarifying.

When someone like Erdoğan or Poetin gets in charge and starts abusing the possibilities to wipe out political opposition. We need to make sure that if that happens, they can't simply change some keywords. Of course, we can also avoid this by our voting behaviour. I guess the US screwed up.

Allow me to nitpick : the force of bullet hitting the container is significantly larger than the force of the recoil (asuming sufficiently strong and stiff container), because it happens in a shorter time. It is the impulse that is equal and opposite. Of course, the conclusion doesn't change.

Creationists probably couldn't care less. They already discard heaps of evidence regarding evolution. One more step will be as easily discarded.

You could reverse the question: if after billions of years, we still didn't have the faintest evidence of any god existing, will people stop believing in a creator? Another way to reverse the question: if in a couple of decades, we manage to replicate the origin of life under conditions prevalent on Earth at the time, will people stop believing in a creator?

There is a prophecy in the earlier books of Harry Potter, and later, in a book that wasn't even written at the time of the prophecy, it all came true! There are many fictional stories with prophecies, some even referring to historic events that actually happened, the Bible is just one of many.

How does contentment elude secularism?

And while you are at it, why not claim the millions of dollars awarded to those who can prove it? Oh wait, it doesn't work if you have something to gain... I guess it is a nicer variation of "it doesn't work when it is tested" or "it doesn't work if there are skeptics in the same room". Before even going into the details, how would "the universe" know when you have something to gain? Why would it care?

Religious beliefs don't have to be considered. As long as no one is forcing religious people to undergo such treatment or to participate in the process, they have no say in the matter (except if they happen to be an expert in a relevant field and can keep their religious beliefs out of it). With that out of the way 1) I see no reason not to use human embryonic stem cells. It's not like they are anything close to being a person: it's just a tissue sample. 2) We already share a large percentage of our DNA with other mammals. Why would we care about changing that percentage slightly?

We breed animals for the sole purpose of eating them. Why shouldn't we breed them to save our lives? The only animals that can contain human-sized organs are larger mammals, who typically don't breed very fast. There is very little danger of them escaping and spreading the mutations in the wild.

Ultrasound sensors typically aren't very reliable for detecting something "unstructured" like a human. e.g. if the surface you want to detect is at an angle, the sound wave can be deflected in another direction and is never detected. For smooth operation, you could implement a Kalman filter, but if you don't already have a decent background in these kind of things, it is not straightforward to implement.

Are you referring to an existing system, or is this something you want to design? If you are referring to an existing system, could you provide a link?

The concept of values is ingrained in our DNA, e.g. when we behave socially, substances are released in our brain to make us feel good. It is those substances that you "feel", nothing more. What the values are exactly, is highly cultural.

The proper categories are: gnostic theism: there is certainly a god agnostic theism: I think there is a god, but I don't know for sure agnostic atheism: I do not think there is a god, but I don't know for sure (this is what is usually meant by atheism) gnostic atheism: there is certainly no god First of all, since some god-hypotheses are not falsifiable, science supports the agnostic worldviews. Secondly, the absense of any evidence, combined with occam's razor, supports atheism over theism Finally, some god-hypotheses are falsifiable, and those are not supported by science at all.