Delta1212

From the perspective of a bullet, it's falling to the ground when out of nowhere someone comes hurtling at it at 1,000 miles per hour... easily knocking it aside, and harming no one. Right?

Tie a string to a rock and spin in circles. The rock will orbit you (assuming you're strong enough to get it off the ground, of course). Gravity has nothing to do with keeping it in that orbit.

Most people consider most things more primitive than humans, and since there are very few metrics by which everything can be measured to be more alike to each other than to humans, the most accurate definition for primitive in its every day use would be "nonhuman" or, if you include the usual connotations of the word "less than human." It's really not a very useful descriptor because it has a number of very distinct meanings range from "an earlier form" to "simple" to "unsophisticated" to "emotional" and despite the fact that these things are often little more than loosely connected to each other and quite often not connected at all, primitive is almost always used to mean all of those things but gets applied to anything that meets even one of the criteria. Outside of some very specific technical meanings, it's just got too much baggage to accurately describe much of anything.

The Bohr model of that atom isn't an entirely accurate representation of reality, but it's still taught because it conveys some key concepts and it's a lot easier than trying to dump someone who doesn't know what an atom is straight into quantum mechanics. pwagen is correct. I figured it would be easier to understand the core concept of expansion if it was being applied to more relatable distances and simpler numbers. Knowing the actual rate, what it means to be gravitationally bound, or even what a megaparsec is aren't strictly necessary to understanding the concept (even if you'd need to know them to make real-world measurements), and trying to explain too much at once, in any subject, can easily result in people having no idea what you're talking about.

He also called that the greatest blunder of his career.

"Primitive" is really quite a badly misused term all around.

So Mulder and Scully are actual FBI agents who lived during the 1960s and who now live in the present day as identical copies of themselves, presumably under the assumed names David Duchovny and Gillian Andersen.

Based on what?

Even if they were, doesn't the correlation still hold even if the measurements aren't made at the same time?

You seem to be equating direct conscious control over all section making and actions with free will. We're either driving or a helpless passenger, and since the brain is capable of making decisions without us being conscious of them, we must not be in control. That's not strictly true. There is some (contested, I believe) evidence of our body and brain preparing to take an action slightly before we're aware that we've decided to act, but I can also decide that in five minutes I'm going to stand up, and then stand up five minutes later, a good deal more lead time than your body takes to put an action in to motion. Your brain is certainly capable of performing some tasks without your conscious input, but it tends to do a poorer job and seems less able to handle complexity and change than when your attention is engaged. If the autopilot is driving instead of you, it shouldn't make a difference whether you're looking out the window or taking a nap at any given moment, but it clearly does. If you want to know what the point of consciousness is, try out various tasks while you're intently engaging your conscious mind in the task and when you're allowing yourself to be distracted or think about other things while doing it. Some tasks you'll do surprisingly well without thinking about it, perhaps even better than when you are (mainly repetitive and reflex based tasks, or things you do often) and some things because essentially impossible to do well unless you're intently thinking about them. Clearly consciousness is useful in such tasks.

The only thing on there that prevents "sitting on a vehicle traveling at over 200 mph when it explodes" from being a self-explanatory cause of death is the body armor. However, that means I have to ask how the armor works. First, an inch of what? Second, how do the joints work? Because the thickness is going to cause some mobility issues that are mostly easily rectified by design choices that would probably leave the joints vulnerable. Basically, there is a different between a suit that renders the wearer immobile while surrounded at all points by an inch of steel, and a suit with an inch of foam padding with large gaps at the joints. Though, really, if the armor only covers his chest and legs and not his head, we're back into the realm of "how would those factors not kill him?"

The "volcano" isn't a light wave. Holding your finger up close to your eye and viewing it at such a steep angle allows for more light to be reflected. You're seeing the light that is reflecting off of your finger. Because your finger is curved, there is only a narrow strip that is at the right angle to reflect it toward your eye, hence the small band, and it's stretched a bit in that volcano shape because holding things that close to the aperture of a light gathering device (camera or eye) causes some focusing issues. Hence the fuzziness of the finger in all the pictures.

Math is logic.

A major difference between classical systems and quantum ones is that you cannot, even in principle, predict the future state of quantum ones except probabilistically, whereas with classical systems you can determine the future state with a fair degree of precision if you know enough about it.

Are you quite certain that there isn't a single animal in the entire world capable of choosing to kill itself? Because most of the times I hear people say "Only humans do x" where x is a rather broad behavior, they're mistaken.

I'm at point A. You're at point B. They are 1 mile apart. Some time later, I'm still at point A and you're still at point B. we did not move. However, universal expansion created more space between points A and B, so they are now 2 miles apart. We're both still at the exact same point in space that we originally were, but how far apart those points are has increased because the amount of space overall has increased, and increased evenly throughout the universe.

Why would it need to expand into anything? It doesn't grow "at the edges" so to speak. It's expanding at every point. The total distance between any two points increases, but space isn't filling up some kind of space container as it expands.

The short answer is that you're right, and it would depend. The long answer is that this applies to the vast majority of similar test questions and you have to assume any details not given aren't especially important. It's one of the assumptions you have to make in order to take most tests. The goal of the test question is not to teach you the information but to make sure you understand it. In this case, most people who understand the relationship between genetic drift and population size will realize what the question is asking and will get the right answer. This means the question works as a test of knowledge, even if it doesn't cover every possible outlier scenario.

What?

What is your own space fabric?

It's true that everyone has the right to be wrong. It's somewhat less true that length contraction can't be measured.

Measuring the force of gravity isn't particularly difficult. Nor is measuring out multiples since the scale uses 1G for Earth's gravity. Producing gravity's effects isn't difficult either, strictly speaking. It just requires acceleration, which is easy to produce. The problem is maintaining high acceleration for any length of time since usually that involves traveling a fair distance. The easiest way around that is with a rotating wheel, but you're going to need to place that in orbit or Earth's gravity is going to be felt in addition to the wheel's acceleration, which won't be able to be consistently applied in the same direction. Magnetism actually presents a much larger problem in terms of effect because it falls off much faster than gravity does. That means you're either going to need a very, very, very powerful magnet buried a significant distance underground, or else you're going to wind up with a major difference in the strength of the pull between someone's head and feet because the feet are going to be much nearer to the magnet.

It's less a "Twin paradox" than a "Twin counter-intuitive implication of relativity" but that's not as snappy a title.

I'm pretty sure I read the thing that he got that explanation from, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was. Needless to say, it wasn't a particularly accurate description of the scientific consensus.