Bender

A neuron receives a signal and fires. It is connected to, on average, 7000 other neurons. These other neurons can fire, but are not necessarily mutually connected. How can they fire sequentially, if they don't "know" which other neurons have received signals and might fire? Also: a sequential system of neurons has less possibilities and is less complex than a network, so what would the advantage be?

I guess we're getting of topic, but if "mutants" are born in the wrong place today, they could still end up being chopped up for alternative medicine. In North Korea, babies with disabilities allegedly get killed too. Apparently, polymelia is genetic: But I guess that throughout evolutionary history, the likelihood of a degenerate extra limb being a disadvantage is much larger than the likelihood of actually getting a fully functional extra limb.

Then again, neutrino's and antineutrino's might be the same thing.

Correct, the moon exerts tidal force on the Earth, slowing down its rotation (you can see this on a gps clock, which is, without correction, 18 seconds ahead of UTC at the moment). In return (Newton's third law), the Earth pulls the moon to a higher orbit, which indeed conserves total angular momentum.

What are the requirements? What are the characteristics of the valves you propose?

Thank you for clearing that up.

It can happen. But you are right in the way that such additional limbs are usually not useful enough to stick around.

If telepathy exists, how can you explain nobody claiming the millions of dollars awarded to those who can prove it? Given how greedy humans tend to be, it makes the existence quite unlikely.

None of this makes sense. For starters: a photon doesn't take an instant to go around the universe, which is, to our best estimates, at least 90 billion lightyears across, meaning it will take a photon 90 billion years.

The second equation he gave, and the one I commented on, was grams to moles and he wrote mass x n assuming "mol substance" is the same as "the number of moles". This still doesn't make sense to me. My confusion remains.

source source That doesn't take into account the undetected early miscarriages that are suspected to involve chromosomal abnormalities. So first, some of the bad mutations will be eliminated because the sperm is not fit to reach the egg, then, according to some estimates in the article, up to 70% of embryos get rejected before birth. Don't be fooled by current child mortality rates and the taboo that still rests miscarriages: nature does not care for our embryo's or our children. We are still around, though, so it must be worth the cost.

Cats eat grass, so it must be of some use to them.

Based on the information on this website, their IR sensors have a range up to 2.5 m. (perhaps longer range is possible, I only browsed it cursory)

It is not instant communication, because no information travels. It can be used for encryption.

I might be confused with the terminology in English (not my native language). Is what you mean by "mol substance" the same as "1/(molar mass)" and has it a unit of mol/g?

I'll need some time to process this decoherence concept. What role does it play in (updated) Copenhagen interpretation? At first glance, it seems to be mentioned mostly in the context of the multiverse interpretation. Thanks for the tip. The university library has a copy, so I think I'll have a look. Sounds reasonable. So the popularity would be practical rather than philosophical?

It controls the mutation rate by axing the lethal mutations. Nature doesn't care about embryos. I'm not a geneticist either, but I think this mechanism is enough to preserve some vital regions and another mechanism is not required to explain a difference in mutation rate.

The "act of measurement" is ill-defined, which is what bothers me, personally, about the Copenhagen interpretation. Clearly "interaction with other particles" doesn't qualify, because atoms and even molecules have been shown to be able to exist in superposition. Where is the "boundary" between the "quantum world" and the "macroscopic world"?

I guess I was hoping that it was more than just that.

I think you mean: mole substance = mass / molar mass

Some regions are highly conserved because they are vital and any mutation in them results in the individual not being able to live (or reproduce). Other regions are less critical. So, in a way, you are correct. The "proof reading mechanism" is that those embryos not developing to a reproducing adult fail the "test".

But "easy to understand" shouldn't be an issue for quantum physicists.

I wouldn't call three digits "very high precision".

A lot of parents guide their young to a food source.

It is perfectly possible to define some kinetic energy fields. What you may have found on google are kinetic energy fields in a fluid, where the kinetic energy density in each location in the fluid is given. You could also define a kinetic energy density field in a rigid body, but I don't see how that would be useful. For those wanting to know more about Green's theorem and boundaries: in words it says "what comes in minus what goes out is what changes inside". A simple example: consider the temperature gradients on the surface of an object. Now add together all the heat that flows in through the surface of the object, minus all the heat that flows out. Now you have the change in thermal energy of the object, from which you can calculate the mean temperature change. In short: all you need to know to calculate internal temperature change is how much heat passes the surface.