StringJunky

Scientists don't do proof; they do evidence. Certainty is not a word used in the scientific lexicon; proofs only exist in maths.

Repetition does not increase the authority of your argument; you need evidence.

The singularity of GR is infinitely dense not massive.

You're just jealous

No problem.

When you log in the software uses your local time and when not logged in it uses GMT or UTC. I see no change but I'm located at GMT - 0 and we are not in daylight saving time (DST) at this point in the year. In DST my times would be out by an hour.

test

Your thread is not in the Trash; that is a subforum within speculations. If it was there we wouldn't be answering.

In the case of a section of liver it should do because living donor transplants are possible where a section of liver is removed from the liver and disposed of, then a section of new liver from a donor is transplanted into the recipient and their liver will utilise it, albeit with immunotherapy as well. I think it can be extrapolated from that what you ask is possible and you wouldn't need immunotherapy because it's your own liver. I'm not sure if all the tissues are capable of this.

Rest is a result of having the same velocity; same direction and speed.

Bigger v harder... hmmm

But what if it's made from a bonsai redwood?

Might be a language problem.

Sorry, the comment was made elsewhere but pertained to certain persons involved in this thread.

In an unplanned/accidental pregnancy, I agree. You are not acknowledging the emotional risk and other investments the other person - which could be another woman - makes. If a woman makes a commitment then reneges on it... no. She could still do it, but not with honour and freedom of guilt... unless she's devoid of such qualities, of course. I could throw up at this. You looking very PC here Phi. Edit: Damn... I forgot, I'm a misogynistic bigot... I shall retire. Apologies for forgetting.

No, weren't wrong I was just taking it to a slightly more fundamental level... I think. Pass on the that previous comment.

Things are always in motion. It is acceleration that occurs with applied force. Things only appear stationary if the observer is co-moving with the subject. Based on this: why do objects move? Because that's the default state.

The discussion's about women's rights on abortion and the degree of autonomy in that decision, not the ethics of abortion per se.

Plants that mimic things have evolved that way because it increased their reproduction potential; no super-intelligent beings required. Characteristics occur by mutation and if that mutation is beneficial to enhancing reproductive success it will likely persist into ensuing generations if nothing else mutes it.

You are the at the centre of the observable unverse.

It's not what you think or I think what matters, it's the people that decide these things. Besides, lots of people have suffered harmful effects. My short term memory is pretty f**ked and I experience bouts of paranoia. I was a heavy user/abuser, but even so, it is not a benign substance, it can just take longer than other substances to show pathological effects.

Brain melts... Can you elaborate what degrees of freedom means... for a thicko.

Is it because non-physics people always associate dimensions in science as spatial ones rather than other parameters as well?

Can you elaborate? edit: As in 4 spatial + 1 temporal? Does that tesseract analog with the teapot example I mentioned, as the inside becomes the outside and vice versa?