Sisyphus

Would it be a stupid question to ask why you love this bacteria so much?

I think this bacteria might be affecting you more than you realize...

A recessive gene can be dormant for any number of generations, unless I'm being stupid. You can see this with Punnett squares. Why would it be limited to one?

For which part?

Mustardgate is easily my favorite political issue of the year.

Light doesn't "experience" time, but we do. Light takes time to travel from our perspective, specifically about 300000 kilometers per second. You can't mix reference frames (perspectives) like that. You experience what you experience, not what I experience.

How can you be off topic from "general discussion?"

Well certainly music is all about harmonics and ratios. That's not a matter of "belief," it's true. I don't know what you mean by "found in" light or cosmology, though. A what? It's irrational superstition. If I were you I'd focus my efforts elsewhere, like figuring out the reason for your rut, and changing it. Those are really my only thoughts worth sharing. What did you expect, posting this on a science forum? I'm moving this to pseudoscience and speculations.

Yeah, it's really not anywhere near as bad as you've probably been taught in school. They think they need to lie to you (or at least greatly exaggerate) for your own good. Obviously, I disagree. That's not to say that it's harmless, though, and I wouldn't want you to take this as an invitation to try it. Aside from being illegal, it is bad for you, just nowhere near as bad as something like heroine or other "hard drugs." In fact, it's not even as bad as alcohol, which is a good comparison: most adults are able to drink alcohol moderately and get enjoyment out of it with no real problems, but some let it ruin their lives.

They don't stop evolution, but they do change it. We'll only evolve resistances to diseases that kill us or otherwise prevent us from having children. If there's a readily available treatment that cures an otherwise deadly disease, that means that disease won't affect our evolution when it otherwise would. Of course, even curing every disease isn't going to stop evolution. As long as some people have natural traits that make them more likely to have more surviving children than other people, there will be evolution.

No, no, no! I can't believe nobody has mentioned this yet, but where moles come from is that a mole of atoms or molecules of total atomic weight N will weigh N grams. That's it. A mole of carbon 12 weighs exactly 12 grams, everything else is approximate. Note, that's where the number comes from, but others are correct in saying that it is "just a number."

No. Why would it? Being "pulled apart" implies that part of it is being pulled one way, while another part is being pulled another way. This is not the case with gravity. It just cancels out.

Furthermore, if it was big enough that the extremities were far enough away from the center to make a difference, it still wouldn't be pulled apart, it would be compressed together. If you're a mile away from the center, the gravity from all the mass except a one mile radius sphere cancels out. And that one mile radius sphere still pulls you towards the center (weakly), just as much as if you were standing on a planet that was two miles wide.

Actually, it seems entirely reasonable to me (if unfortunate) that the age of entitlement would be raised along with rising lifespans. Surely it makes sense that a system where I'm productive for 35 years of my life and leaning on the support of others for 65 years (including childhood, higher education, and retirement) is not terribly sustainable. If you human age-curing people ever get that worked out, there's no longer going to be any such thing as "retirement."

I would say that speaking in the most general terms, it's the same method: accumulation of entropy. As swansont says, using it is probably just going to cause more, not something different in kind. Maintenance can't stop entropy, but it can push it elsewhere. But really, you're speaking much too generally. You can't really say anything universal about "using" or "disusing" "something." Your initial premise (that there are two ways of damaging something, etc.) is not a law. It's "not even wrong," really, since it doesn't say something concrete enough to be challenged.

And every way would be "up," in the same way that every horizontal direction at the north pole is south.

Whoa. I started reading the thread, and then I came across a reasonable response. And it was me! Necromancy can be spooky.

Water? What's it for?

Maybe it's invisible to us because it has the power to hypnotically convince us it isn't there. Or it's very, very small. Or it's protected by an SEP field. Or "pink" was meant metaphorically, to mean it's homosexual or something. Or it's power is such that it needs to conform to mutual exclusivity of contrary properties (unicorns are, after all, magic, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume I know how everything works). I'm far from ready to throw in the towel on this one, thanks.

So it's a solar-powered air purifier that's designed to look like a plant? I dunno, I guess that's cool, but I think I'd rather have a real plant. It gives off oxygen in addition to purifying the air, repairs itself when damaged, will make copies of itself using only water, dirt, and sunshine, and there's no soldering required. Oh, and a lot of them are even edible. Now, if the robot "flower" was also a motion-activated flamethrower nozzle, I might get on board.

The total mass of air has the same mass, yes. But any given volume of that air has less mass. That's what matters. It's like replacing 100 cubic meters of "heavy air" with 200 cubic meters of "light air." The light air gets forced upwards, to make room for heavier air. Yes, it contains all the same molecules. Yes, the total mass of each total volume is the same. But a cubic meter of light air is lighter than a cubic meter of heavy air, and that's what matters. That's all that's being said. Similarly, the whole weight of the Earth's atmosphere is a whole lot more than a cannonball, and yet you drop a cannonball and it falls right through the air, because, we say, it's "heavier than air." And by that we mean heavier than a mass of air occupying the same volume, i.e denser.

Less dense air is going to have less mass (and therefore less weight) per unit volume, yeah. That's what "less dense" means. A mass of air that is less dense than the air around it is going to rise up, because the denser, heavier air around it is going to be pulled down more and force the less dense air up and out of the way. That's buoyancy. Think about a rock dropped into the ocean. Sure, obviously, the ocean is heavier than the rock. But the rock is heavier per unit volume, so it sinks.

I agree you shouldn't use Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) as a cited source, but changing versions isn't actually a problem. Every version of every article still exists and is accessible, even if it only existed for 30 seconds before somebody else changed it. Just click on the "history" tab. The only exceptions are if the article itself was deleted (although no topic you'd be researching would get deleted), or if blatant vandalism was removed, something only administrators have the power to do permanently (the vast majority of vandalism is undone but not deleted by normal editors). And this mainly applies to the more obscure articles. The main articles have been researched far more rigourously than you would find in an Encyclopedia. In fact, the 1911 edition Britannica (which is public domain) is sometimes used as a source for articles where the knowledge base wouldn't have been overturned since 1911, but most articles can't be directly copied in any length because they fail Wikipedia's standards on multiple counts. 1911 is the example because it's public domain, but I've looked at more up to date versions and the same problems persist. Also, remember that articles are rated. A "featured," "good," or "A" article is going to be a pretty reliable source of information. It still helps if you're familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, though, since it is true that you might have happened upon it in the few minutes between when somebody posts something ridiculous and when somebody else corrects it. Familiarity with talk pages and page histories can almost completely mitigate that risk, though.

What do you mean by a robotic flower, exactly?

Yeah, I'm with iNow. It took you until late the next day to find it, and only went you went out to check. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe they did, and were planning on taking care of it themselves.