Genady

Yes. It applies to good electrical conductors. They will eventually discharge via air.

Hence, humans originated on a tropical island.

I live in tropics, and we have rainy season. The rainy season is wet, but certainly not cold. I often sit under a tree and enjoy the sound and the smell of rain.

I understand that the sign 去 is vague. My question is if what they say is as vague as the writing?

Alternatively, they could have two conductors attached, the charges redistributed by induction, and then the conductors detached, one positively and another negatively charged.

Spam, spam, spam, ...

1. Right. 2. Friction, induction, electrolysis, photoconductivity. 3. No. 4. Depends.

As the French language evolves, they could either stop using pronouns, or start using simpler forms of verbs. In Hebrew, for example, children and less educated adults would say, "Were you looking for me?", while a literary form is one word (achipastani?), which contains the verb, the tense, the subject, the object, and the question.

Aren't human babies hairless just as another consequence of being born too soon? Humans are born too soon: impact on pediatric otolaryngology - PubMed (nih.gov)

Russian is like Latin, Italian, and Spanish in this respect, but it needs the pronoun in past tense. While in Hebrew you need the pronoun in present tense and don't need it in past or future. Papiamentu is like English.

I have a question about the timeline. Weren't humans hairless before they first left Eastern Africa? If they were, what was the climate there when the hair was lost? Another question is, does fur give a significant benefit to a child? Does it make a difference in surviving childhood? Considering that human children are very fragile and dependent on adult protection in many respects compared to other mammals.

Interestingly, peoples who started putting on clothes thousands of years ago, East of Mediterranean, have more bodily hair today than peoples who didn't cover their bodies until recently, Australian, African, Amazonian tribes. (My personal observation.)

Honestly, I don't remember.

I see everything having a "notion" of self. For some things it is the only "notion" they have. A rock "knows" itself, and nothing outside itself. When you throw a rock, it "feels" itself being thrown, without a notion of an external agent by which it has been thrown. In animals, during evolution as well as during ontogenesis, this notion of self gets separated from notions of agents which are not itself. That's when a theory of mind starts.

I rather see an opposite process, i.e., the self is primary, and the rest appears first as parts of it, which then gradually separate into their own existence.

Sorry, I've missed the context.

I can relate to the discussion of subject matter. The discussion of a quote I don't understand.

How are they similar?

I wonder what an importance is of who said what why in the science forums. I understand it in religious discussions. Or, in Marxism-Leninism classes of my youth.

Right. And nothing in the breakdown into separate positive and negative counts implies non-anonymity. BTW, from the beginning of this thread it was misunderstood that I was talking about responses to my posts. In fact, I was often curious about the responses to other posts.

I thought that a ratio would've been more meaningful number than an absolute count. Say, do 2 positives mean that 100% of the responders liked the post, or do they mean that 55% liked it and 45% disliked it? Also, the total number of responders would've been informative, i.e., was it 2 or 20 members that reacted to the post? (All this is immaterial now.)

I see it differently. I want the place to be clean, thus, I am ready to pay for the cleaning. Certainly, it is helpful if others want it to be clean as well.

Thank you. Your last paragraph relates to the second question I've added above, i.e., regarding other evidence. I also want to point out that amounts of DM vary vastly from galaxy to galaxy and from cluster to cluster, and I don't know of a correlation between these amounts and other parameters such as angular momentum. Plus, DM is a crucial part of the standard cosmology. Is that role addressed? Surely, it's refreshing to see a "third way out."

Do I understand correctly that for this deviation from Newtonian approximation to be observed, large distances rather than strong fields or high velocities are required? Hence, the galactic scales of the phenomenon? The plateau of rotational curves is not the only evidence for DM. Does this paradigm address the others?

Parents, neighbors, teachers, peers, ... will.