Strange

And the Chinese made the genome available as soon as they had sequenced it.

Completely unambiguous. Copyright and patents are different things. You can't patent a book and you can't copyright an invention. (Although, in some jurisdictions, software can be protected by both copyright and patents.)

You can't copyright data, a strategy or a virus genome. And you can't copyright a vaccine.

Go on then. Show us the diagram.

It looks like you are confusing the index of the minimum value and the actual value when you do the swap. I think you need something more like: temp = SSSort.arr[min] SSSort.arr[min] = SSSort.arr[i] SSSort.arr[i] = temp (There may be other problems!)

This model of time is one of many. It is used in simple, Newtonian physics. It may correspond to some people's conception of time, but not all. Are you aware of other models of time? Why have you just described this one which is, as you say, limited and incomplete? This is an example of the fallacy of begging the question: A: Time travel must be impossible B: Why is it impossible? A: Because we cannot go forward or backward in time B: Why can't we go backward and forward in time A: Because because time is a linear concept (in other words, because time travel is impossible) But then you say: "The linear space-time concept is visibly presented in almost everywhere apart from the Nature. Unfortunately, it is limited and paints a partial worldview of the world or universe." So time is not, according to you, just a linear concept. Does this mean that time travel might be possible after all? And, of course, in the "linear time model" we continuously go forward in time. An interesting idea. But there are all sorts of problems with this. Energy (like length and time) is an observer dependent value. Also the rate of energy use of a cat will depend on many factors such its level of activity or the environment. But maybe you should think about the related concept of entropy. That is considered by some to be the reason why we percieve time to be linear and to only go in one direction. A lot of modern physics does not use this simplistic model though. Time can be treated as another coordinate, like the spacial ones, to locate events. For example, of you want to meet somebody you need to specify four co-ordinates (xy,z,t) such as latitude, longitude, altitude and date & time. Time can be observer dependent. It can vary depending on gravitational potential. In some areas of physics, time reversal symmetry is important.

! Moderator Note You have a thread open for this already.

It depends on the substance. Some will be broken down by the digestive system and then absorbed, they may then be further broken down in the liver and excreted. Some might pass straight through and have some effect (ingesting a lot of soap will likely cause diarrhoea ) or no effect. I assume that lipstick is designed to be safe in the quantities that might be swallowed. But how (and why) are you ingesting face powder?

There are no definite answers to this. It is a huge area of research with many plausible hypotheses for many of the components and steps involved. It would take an article, or even a book, to start answering this. I think you should to google "abiogenesis" and then come back with more specific questions. That would only be a sensible question if there was evidence that the Earth was formed by someone other than natural forces. (And, although there are some unknowns, we know a lot more about the big bang, the creation of stars and galaxies and, ultimately, the Earth than we do about the origin of life on Earth.)

Do you mean that because, in this case, it has no free will, in normal circumstance it does? @ others: I can’t moderate in this thread but there is no reason to suddenly get irrational and offensive just because someone mentions the “R word”. Grow up

Interesting. But I wonder about people (like me) who have no inner voice or narration; do we still subvocalise but are completely unaware of it? (This is fascinating, but ever so slightly off topic. Maybe we should ask for this to be split off.)

Finally realised that the key word was "proton source" and found this explanation: https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex More detail here: https://www.lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.proton_source And even more here: https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/IPAC2011/papers/thps025.pdf

That is an interesting question: do people who hear voices (whether schizophrenic or for other reasons) lose their internal voice (if they ever had one) or can they still have their internal dialog ("don't listen to those voices out there", "but I can't help it"). There are people who hear voices but they are just an annoyance. The problem with disorders like schizophrenia (as I understand it) is that they are also often associated with delusional beliefs which can lead to them acting irrationally. And there are people with schizophrenia who learn to live fairly normally with the voices. I heard a fantastic (and very sad) interview with a woman who had learned to live with schizophrenia; the voices were always there talking and shouting at her. She just had to try and carry on with her life.

That may well be true (and the sorts of things these voices say, are not things you would normally say to yourself). But I think it is important to realise that people hear them as external: ie. as if they were coming from a loudspeaker or an invisible person. Not the same as when you talk to yourself in your head.

Both these quotations are from Wikipedia. I think the one you are quting is ambiguous. The "it" in the final clause refers to the hydrogen atom, not the proton. As Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, how about: https://www.britannica.com/science/protium-isotope https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/isotopes-of-hydrogen/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protium Good question. I don't know. Strong electric field, possibly.

Hydrogen without an electron is a proton. That is what is used in LHC (normally, they sometimes also use heavier ions). Free protons do not exist on Earth (in any significant number nor for very long). So they are produced from hydrogen for the LHC.

Protium IS hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom#Isotopes

There are some tips about online teaching in this Twitter thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1238576343840968710.html (There might be a certain amount of "hate mail" about this because it is from a theological college; but teaching is teaching.)

Protium is another name for the simplest hydrogen isotope (one proton + one electron) as opposed to deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron) or tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, 1 electron). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-1_(protium)

Just for the avoidance of doubt, steel and iron are basically the same thing when it comes to an application like this. Steel is iron with specific impurities added (mainly carbon). Mild steel is closer to pure iron.

Photoshop is really expensive (I no longer use it because I can't justify the cost). So I find it impossible to believe that almost everyone has it. They used to have quite a good academic discount but I thought that had gone away. Also, it is not a good drawing tool. Their drawing tool is Illustrator (which is great, but also really expensive). And (also with the caveat that I have never used it) I understand a lot of people use Google Docs for this sort of thing.

Accelerators use charged particles (usually protons, ions, electrons) because they are charged. This means that they can be accelerated and steered (and the size of bunches controlled )by using electric and magnetic fields. This is no possible with neutral atoms.

From what I have read (and conversations I have had) it is no clear that *most* people have this inner monologue. (Obviously those who have it are stunned to find that others don't; and those who don't are baffled by the concept.) I have no idea if there is any connection between this and belief, or otherwise, in free will. I don't know if there is any correlation with aphantasia, either. But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says. There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no. But surely, people make decisions by debating with their inner voice, not just doing what it says. There is no evidence of that. So, almost certainly, no. And, note that this has nothing to do with the voices heard by people suffering from schizophrenia and other disorders: those voices are (or appear to be) external, not an inner voice.

There is no choice. There is a single description which is popularised as "wave vs particle". Other particles have mass, for example, electrons which are not made of quarks. The particles get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. The mass of the quarks is only a small proportion of the mass of a proton. The majority of the mass comes from the binding energy holding the quarks together. There is no direct connection between wave-particle duality and mass. Protons. If you strip an electron from a hydrogen atom, you release a free proton. It is the easiest way of generating large numbers of protons.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complex". Obviously not the mathematical sense, as there are no imaginary numbers involved. And not "complicated" because it is just a simple ratio. I assume that is because they are wrong. You still have not explained what "arc of definition" means. It is an apparently meaningless phrase, even when translated into your language. Pi is well defined. The trigonometric functions are well defined. The only thing that seems to be undefined is the purpose of this thread.