Strange

! Moderator Note These answers are completely inadequate. Please show, exactly how (i.e. in mathematical detail) you predict that "that photons see positive events of spacetime while anti-photons see negative events." You might also want to explain what you mean by positive and negative "events". Please show exactly how (i.e. in mathematical detail) "the direction will depend on the experiment." If you are not able to provide proper answers to questions then the thread will be closed.

What is says. That the effect of a given quantity of beta-endorphin is 18-33 times greater than the same molar quantity of morphine. Based on the results of a number of (rather unpleasant sounding) tests on mice. How much beta-endorphin is created by running? How much do heroin users take? To what extent do tests of physical reactions in mice correspond to "getting high" in humans?

! Moderator Note Which bit of "present your discussion here" did you not understand?

We are going to need a new word to distinguish between "tabloid format" newspapers and "tabloid so-called 'newspapers'" that will print any old populist trash, regardless of the truth, as long as it sells.

Yes. But that isn't the point. The radius is 2.1 km. This article says it is 4km across (in other words the diameter is 4 km = twice the radius). Sorry. I'm wrong. They are all referring to the diameter. So I have no idea why they have the wrong number. Maybe you are right and they confused miles and km. Or maybe Ghideon is right and they copied the wrong number. Or maybe they got the number from an old version of the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=(52768)_1998_OR2&oldid=943951338 The size in that paragraph has bounced around all over the place, for no obvious reason.

Well, they don't really get near the Earth. But gravity can only pull. So does that answer your question?

Yep, exactly what I suggested: "is estimated measure up 2.5 miles (4.1km) across" so exactly the same size as the other sources,

Both of the sources provided in this thread, so far, say (about) 2.1 km. http://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?sum=1&des=52768 1998OR2 http://www.minorplanet.info/PHP/generateOneAsteroidInfo.php?AstInfo=52768| I don't know who "some" are, but presumably they are wrong. Or perhaps have confused radius and diameter.

! Moderator Note Note that the rules of the forum require you to present the subject you want to discuss here on the forum, not just post a link. You could start by stating your four axioms.

That is different though, in that it directly measures the signal sent to the missing or paralysed limb rather than the brain activity that leads to those signals.

That is a good point. At least part of the brain activity will be related to muscle activation. Form the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-0608-8.epdf But as most of the same areas of the brain are activated even when people talk to themselves (without vocalising) it still has interesting possibilities. But this does mean that it is definitely going to be language specific, rather than "conceptual". Although perhaps other techniques (fMRI perhaps) could be used for that. Probably nanika/nanka = something/thingummy/whatever

I thought they had more important things to worry about.

As blood has evolved over millions of years of incremental improvement, it is obviously not true. I have no idea what this video is. But it doesn't sound reliable. (And it is a video: officially the second worst medium for communicating detailed technical or scientific information.)

So worrying about who might die next of one thing means they won't worry about who might die next of covid-19? And when no one is well enough to go and work the fields and tend the animals, you think they won't care about the disease that is causing that? You are not making much sense. And not many people, even in the developing world, live in circumstances as dire as you seem to picturing.

That won't stop them getting seriously ill and dying, unfortunately.

If, or more likely when, it spreads to developing countries I think you are going to realise that is not true. There are also other areas where is is going to be absolutely devastating: various war-torn countries and the associated refugee camps, which are already overcrowded and under-resourced. I suspect we are also going to see a massively increased problem of poverty in first world countries, as well. (As if it wasn't bad enough already.)

Without seeing the details of the study (and knowing a lot more about what sort of things can cause pupils to dilate) I couldn't possibly comment. You might be better off spending some time tracking down some proper information; if not the original research then articles in science magazines/websites, which might have better information.

Don't hold your breath.

The first article appears to be about this paper: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-48448-001 (which doesn't say anything like the headline of the artcile) The second is about this guy: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ritch+Savin-Williams but I can't see anything obviously relevant. He may be quoting figures from someone else's research (I don't get the impression he is an experimental psychologist). I guess you could read some of his many books if you want to know more. So I don't think there is enough information to reach any sort of conclusion about the credibility of those articles. But, as with most tabloid reporting of science, I would not take them too seriously. In fact, I would probably ignore them until some proper information is available. We don't know they are. You are reading too much into inaccurate tabloid articles.

I would look at what the actual study says, rather than tabloid stories, before reaching any such conclusions. I would be fairly confident that those stories are not an accurate reflection of the research. One thing I would like to see is what control images were used: animals, animals having sex, trains, trains colliding, red trains, blue trains, houses, kittens, spiders, snakes, snakes eating kittens, kittens eating spiders, abstract patterns, food, raw food, cooked food, rotting food, and so on. And then which of these elicited what response from the observers. I don't want to say the research is not credible, but without some more reliable information I would not just accept that "all people are bisexual."

I think that's the sort of experiment I was thinking of. One way of (objectively) measuring how similar people think two colours are is to time how long it takes them to hit the "same" or "different" button.

I might have used Google Translate. (I didn't)

I don't think we know what magnetism "is" any more than we know what gravity "is". In both cases we have theories that describe how they work. Those might also describe "reality" but we have no way of knowing. But kudos for saying "gravitational wave" and not "gravity wave"!

Why not read the thread before asking

I was going to ask what you were talking about. It wasn't at all obvious. Even though I am aware of the use of the colours in that context. But my comment was purely addressing the "do we think the same in all languages" question.