StringJunky

Lovely strawman, you have learnt much in your discussions here. That's your opinion.`Your arrogance is disappointing to think that such a divisive question is quickly solved.

I was being playfully sarcastic.

We should eat beans, stick pipes up our bottoms and bottle it to run our cars. Ed: You are an Envangelist fisher of omnivores spreading the vegetarian gospel.

I wore that album out and Hemispheres. Lyrically, I rank Peart with Waters at clever, conceptual writing. They make a complex, sophisticated noise for a three piece rock band. The Trees is a great political tune: La Villa Strangiato is a good showcase for their composing and playing skills.

That's it! You've fixed the overpopulation problem.

I think Soylent Green Veal might be quite tasty. It will need moving. It's not a biology question really anyway.

Yes. RBC means 'red blood cells'.

Have the vegetarians considered that if every person became a vegetarian, instead of the cattle being global warming fart factories the human population will be the culprits instead? Therefore, the problem is merely transferred and not negated. Mushy peas or baked beans anyone?

By arbitrary I meant that it's a decision made by humans according to some standard that has been set by them; they say "This is the line that must not be crossed, on pain of death." You'll need to expand this for me please. As it stands it looks a bit metaphysical. I'll say, when it comes to the death penalty I usually attempt to empathise with the violated and their loved ones and see it from their perspective.

If you mean with respect to the condemned, they are such because they are, albeit arbitrarily, considered beyond redemption or forgiveness; they've gone beyond the pale. It's a simple desire not to want them alive anymore. It's not complicated and it doesn't need overthinking.

Normochromic - Haemoglobin normal concentration but not enough red blood cells Normocytic - Enough red blood cells but haemoglobin is too low in them. The end result in either case is not enough oxygen is being carried in the blood stream in both cases and leaves the afflicted prematurely exhausted and fatigued with much less exertion than if they had normal levels of either. They are both types of anaemia.

When you let them out.

I think of space as volume that has fields in it, which is everything else; they are both not made of anything tangibly material in the classical sense. They are just evolving conceptual things or models that have parameters that can be usefully measured.

Those of us who have more than the absolute basics know that touch is macro phenomenon and it's all , in fact, composed of fields and other sensorily intangible concepts but, I think, letting noobs think that nuclei are solid surrounded by little solid bits moving in a field is more easily comprehensible and illustrates what the OP wants to know. Saying to them "it's all fields" just raises more questions without getting to the point or you will lose them in the mire of technical information. Even though I know a bit more I still need it dumbing down myself when it goes beyond my own limits. The fact is, unless you are reading the latest journals you will never know the state of the current art.

Interesting. OK. So what you are saying is that there isn't sufficient deflection/scattering to completely obscure the night sky when positioned right. BUT the Earth's denser atmosphere does make it alot harder to see it.

I agree that contrast is an issue in both cases but if you stand in the shade on Earth in the daytime you won't see stars

The Moon doesn't have a significant atmosphere to cause enough photon scattering to obscure the dark sky but if you stand in the shade one will, apparently, see the brighter stars according to one of the Apollo astronauts.

Easy to explain: 1. Why is there no stars? Photographic film has a maximum contrast range that what it can record is way below the actual contrast range (contrast is the difference in reflected light intensity between the lightest areas and the darkest areas) of the sunlit moon and the star-filled dark sky. You can either capture the light and shadow detail on the moon, with a featureless black sky OR a star-filled sky with bleached-out, featureless land detail on the Moon's surface; you can't have both in the same picture. Put simply, it's the limitations of the recording media that causes the starless sky in the Apollo moonlanding images. 2. Why are there different shadow angles? if you look at the shadow of the module in the following image, which is on flat ground, its shadow angle is different to the rocks in the foreground. Note that the rocks are on top of a little hill and it's that incline, on the right-hand side of the rocks, that causes the light to fall at a different angle when compared to that of the lander. Put simply, the rock shadow is not falling on flat, horizontal ground like it is with the module Rest assured, that every conspiracy theory and doubt has been solidly and evidentially refuted; the moonlandings happened.

Touch in terms of physics, I think, is really electrostatic repulsion between the molecules of your body and the object being touched.The fields around the molecules that make up your skin repel other solid surfaces, which also have fields, so, in the real sense, there is no physical contact between the object surfaces. Imagine bringing the positive poles together of two magnets; the actual magnets don't touch before you feel resistance. This magnetic example is analogous to that phenomenon but instead there's a repelling electric charge involved from the outer electron shell of each molecule, The shell may be occupied ( -ve charge) or empty ( +ve charge). Like charges repel. In short, 'touch' is the resistance between electric fields and not the massive parts of molecules, like protons and neutrons. That field resistance is sent as an impulse to the brain.

Quantum physics works at the quantum scale; mind/consciousness is an emergent,macro phenomenon. Read about emergence.

February this year: http://www.alzheimer.ca/en/About-dementia/Alzheimer-s-disease/Risk-factors/Aluminum

Yes, that's a better way to put it

I wonder what the maximum distance would be where reaches a point where only one photon would be detectable at the other end?