StringJunky

It is good to see you have the insight to see when you are holding a conviction.

To find any forum click on Browse tab top left which will take you to the home page.

Us aquarians don't believe in that stuff.

Enthusiastic then.

SFN is a bit more formal than that, particularly in the hard science sections. I see this site as fairly relaxed and loose around the edges but with a firm scientific centre that holds it all together in the areas of the forum that are not pure science. The hard science areas are kept focussed for the benefit of those that are studying formally and those that want a purely scientific angle on things.... it avoids confusion.

The site, as a science site and place for rational discourse, would fall apart if there wasn't any rules. A difference between this site and other sites of the same kind is that we will explore why some things aren't science and explain why.

There should be a clear line between real life and fantasy. You see what you want to see and ignore the rest... that's romantic love.

What precedes us paints our future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Right.Thanks. It's bad when people spoil a good song, isn't it? I'm haunted by that guitar now. Actually sounds like The Edge from way back.

Bleak but nice. The guitar in this one strikes a chord for me. What style is this group?

Biology expert CharonY might chime in and he's nutty about photography.Did the bat freak you out? I've had two flying in my living room in the past. The first one nearly stopped my heart.

Keep popping back as someone versed in this subject may be able to give a clear, definitive answer.

You need to be close to the subject as well to get the effect I described. Strange's proposal is feasible as well. Try taking pictures in the same conditions and scene but without the bat near.

It's just a line of enquiry, like yours, which is perfectly feasible as well, from what I can see.

The camera's sensor, which is writing line-by-line, and the bulb, which I have just found out is flashing at twice the line frequency; 120Hz. Here's a video of that happening:

Does it sound a bit technical? All I'm saying with 'asynchronous modulation' is that the timings of the two sources are different. This is definitely a phenomenon specific to digital cameras

There's some sort of asynchronous modulation going on with the sensor and something somewhere. The lamp appears to be a continuous source.

Is it an incandescent lamp?

Are you using fluorescent or LED lighting? If so the the problem is Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) of the light source and the scanning nature of the camera's light sensor. Basically, The lights are flashing on and off faster than your eyes can see but the camera sensor can pick up that flashing during the course of a single exposure . For reasons I don't know, this banding problem shows up in lowlight close-up pictures. The solution is to play with the shutter timing or use a light source that has no PWM, that is continuous in its output.

All classifications are arbitrary and a set of criteria has been laid for what constitutes a living organism and viruses do not check off all the list

The ability to think in different ways is always useful. You are what you know.

The universe is everything that exists, by definition. It does not exist in another space/volume. Whatever space you are thinking about is part of the universe and it emerged and evolved with it

The space came with the evolution of the universe.

I brought up this idea earlier but I suggested a billionaire buying and destroying the gun manufacturer. This one suggests modifying its purpose.

Yes. Whatever the size of the universe it is 'everywhere'. The error some people make in visualising the universe is from the position of being outside of it when you can only ever be inside.