npts2020

Why should this be true? What makes the visible universe spherical is that the limits on the speed of light are the same in every direction, AFAIK there is no spherical symmetry to the mass in the visible universe, what would make it symmetrical outside of it?

You can definitely graft peaches on apricot trees or vice versa but peach trees are one of the harder trees to graft onto. In general, if trees are in the same genus, they are can be grafted to each other. (disclaimer; the only trees I have ever grafted are apples, chestnuts and maples and the latter two only for experimental purposes)

Surprised nobody has mentioned scent as a possible reason. Why is it that most people like the scent of roses? I never wanted to eat one but the smell of cliff roses blooming in the high desert left a pretty strong impression on me.

Depends what is meant by "a new phase". Humanity is already dealing with significant consequences, the only real question is how much more catastrophic will they have to become before a serious effort to address the problem is made.

Which leads to the question of "exactly what is time and how does it apply to the universe?". It seems pretty obvious time applies to humans because, so far, all of them have a pretty definably observed beginning and end but we only have a single universe of which we have seen neither the beginning nor end, or even much of the in between (if there is such a thing). If I have "invoked a creator or the supernatural", please post the quote. My bet is that once we figure out a reliable way of measuring gravitational effects from bodies outside our visible universe on bodies inside our visible universe, its size and age will increase greatly.

AFAICT the universe is eternal. As to switching expansion on and off (if it even switches on and off), figuring that out would advance our understanding of cosmology as much as learning the heavens don't revolve around the Earth. When I try to visualize your proposition, all I come up with is something similar to tides. Our biggest problem is the entirety of human existence is such a small fraction of even the known age of the universe and our ability to effectively measure and study its change a tiny fraction of that existence (assuming we can do it at all). It seems to me Hubble, Webb and most other space missions have helped us take a giant step in understanding how things work but also have raised as many questions as they have answered.

I'm pretty sure I never said expansion was eternal, only possibly the universe. If you can't distinguish between the two propositions, I will be happy to elucidate. And that assumes we can see and measure the limits of our universe, a demonstrably untrue notion as shown by your use of the word "observable". In order to have an "origin" point, one needs to explain how all of the laws of physics had been broken by making something from nothing at 13.8 billion years ago or any other time. When the choice is something from nothing or a timeless universe, I tend towards the latter. If there is a third choice, I would like to know about it but all of the origin explanations (besides supernatural ones) I have seen lead back to one or the other.

Not sure what "Green Deal" you are talking about but the original platform for a Green New Deal as proposed by the Green Party in 2006 says nothing about CO2 certificate emissions or anything of the ilk. I would be interested in knowing what part(s) of it you feel are "a fraud", other than the fact that any action on it will have been put off for nearly 2 decades already. Here is a text of the document. https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

This could be an interesting discussion on its own but if you believe modern cosmologists, there is a point where the universe (possibly the majority of it) is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. It seems to me, that would explain why the entire sky isn't bright and does little to show whether the universe is infinite or not.

What makes you think the universe was "made up" and hasn't always existed? Just because you have a linear existence with a fairly definable beginning and end because of time, doesn't mean the universe must behave in a similar manner. Personally, I have a lot more faith in the laws of conservation of matter and energy than I do in the relevance of time in relation to the universe as a whole.

I think this is a great idea. IMO the US ought to require that all products and services bought or sold in this country follow US law from exploration to discovery, extraction, refinement, fabrication, assembly, transport, storage and sale. However, it seems the longer it takes to do this, the less effective it will be as the US loses its former stranglehold on world trade. How different would the world be today if this had been done 60 or 70 years ago?

Welcome to the forum willferral. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about chemistry to help you but there are several people here quite knowledgeable on the topic who might. You did post in the appropriate place.

I don't know what the numbers are for just Republicans, since they will be the ones (except in a few states with open primaries)to decide who is the Republican nominee. When Trump beats his closest competitor in her home state by 20 points, including all of the Republicans who don't like him, I don't see things getting closer throughout the rest of the country even if he is convicted of multiple crimes. You have to remember, a large plurality (if not in fact a majority) of Republicans still like to claim the election in 2000 was stolen and that all of the charges against Trump are politically motivated (never mind the fact that The Donald and his companies have been in court literally thousands of times and with numerous convictions previous to any of the current suits). Democrats should hope Trump wins because I don't think Biden can beat anyone else (totally my 2⍧).

Maybe but I am not that optimistic. Besides, it seems any likely VP will be as bad or worse policy wise. If he actually ended up both in jail and President, think of the taxpayer money that could be saved on paying for secret service protection and golfing junkets.

It won't matter. There is nothing to keep "The Donald" (as he used to be known) from running for or serving as President while in jail. In 1920 Eugene Debs got over 3% of the vote while serving a jail term for sedition (because of his vocal opposition to WW1).

Since 1873 there has been a government (federal) publication called "The Congressional Record" that prints everything said on the floor of Congress and the Senate and who voted for what. It is printed monthly and, when Congress is in session, it is published online daily. When I was a bicycle messenger, at least one of us would wait on the doorstep for the GPO (government printing office) to open every month when the Records were due out to pick one (or more often several) up for clients. Apparently, being one of the first to see what is printed is a big deal, especially for multinational corporations and investment types.

I'd say god is pretty ugly if it looks like any blastocyst....

What happens if scientists bring an individual to life using only an egg or sperm? Will females then be required to attempt pregnancy every time they ovulate? Will it be a serious crime for a male to ejaculate anywhere other than a fertile womb? Seems to me, the whole notion of when life "begins" (I look at as more of a continuum) or when you become a person leaves plenty of room for interpretation or debate and therefore should be up to individuals to decide for themselves. It is interesting that the supposedly "small government" types seem to be the ones most eager to have the government settle the question so they can enforce their (often hypocritical) views on everyone.

Except I know a fair number of 80 year olds who would make far better Presidents than most much younger possibilities. Sessions like the Prime Minister's questioning at Parliament in Britain would go a long way toward showing whether a leader is mentally competent but with bought and paid for incumbency where it benefits more than a few to keep mental decline under wraps, this kind of thing is highly unlikely.

Since the majority of SCOTUS seems to supposedly be "originalists"/"literalists" when interpreting the law, maybe the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted to allow only weaponry available at the time of its writing.

IMO the engineering difficulties would not be as great as the political and financial ones. Near as I can tell, the main engineering difficulties are related to scale and the fact that it has not been done before.

Seems to me conscience comes from ones personal philosophical leanings. Consciousness, on the other hand, is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things where it means exactly whatever the person using the term wants it to mean unless there is some other agreed upon definition

It's interesting Butyric Acid is a fairly common ingredient in fragrance making. I have heard it said that every good fragrance has at least one awful ingredient, tho...

Stop F-ing misrepresenting what I have said Mr. Knowitall and post the quote where I have ever stated that being removed from the ballot doesn't matter or isn't a big deal. What I actually said was that it SHOULDN'T be big deal because of previous instances of people being kicked off the ballot. I don't have to assume anything about your knowledge of ballot access laws and their history...it's pretty obvious.