Strange

You would need to wait a decade or two (or more) for it to go through clinical trials and be approved for use (if either of those things ever happen).

Th answer depends on how you define 'scalar', which in turn depends on the programming language. And, sometimes, the context. I don't think there is an official definition in Python for what constitutes a scalar. There are some languages where the difference is explicit in the language. For example, C has scalars and a few structured types (e.g. arrays and structs) but no in-built support for strings. So it is easy to say what is a scalar and what isn't. Similarly, Perl explicitly names scalar and non-scalar variables differently ($var vs @var). Languages like Pythin, that have strings as a fundamental type, may teat them as either scalars or non-scalars or, as int he case of Python. A string, in Python, is basically just a List of chars, so in that sense is a non-scalar type. But strings can be manipulated as single, atomic objects, so in that sense they are scalars. So you need to add two more options to your list: Neither and Both.

When you say "electricity is different at both ends" what device should I use to measure the "electricity" and what units is "electricity" measured in? Please provide authoritative references to support your answer.

Yes. And that happens whether the child is their own or not. People don’t have their babies swapped often enough that they have needed to evolve the ability to tell if the child really is theirs or not. It is enough, from the point of view of reproducing the genes, that they bring up the child believing it is theirs. In species where this is a problem (cuckoos are an obvious example) then strategies have evolved to combat this. Some bird species are not “parasitised” by cuckoos because they have made their eggs impossible to fake.

There are plenty of examples that you could look at to see how. As far as I know, the swampland would have zero impact on the volcano, but the volcanic activity could warm the swamp and, perhaps, create hot springs.

I think you are wrong in every post.

I can't quote your original post but you say two contradictory this there: You say that [math]\frac a c = \frac c b[/math] But then [math]\frac a c = \frac {\sqrt 2}{2}[/math] and [math]\frac c b = \sqrt 2[/math] So, therefore, your first statement is not true.

Monism? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monism This doesn’t seem to have any connection to your pretty pictures. And how is cybernetics connected to this? What does this mean? And what evidence do you have to support this claim? As this is a mathematical claim, you should be able to provide a mathematical proof. Can you do that? (Unexplained and apparently meaningless geometric constructions do not count. At least, not without some explanation.)

4. Seeing significance and meaning where there is none: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Not if it is still in the research stage. It can take decades to go from lab research to a drug being available for treatment

But you didn't say "voltage" is different at each end of a wire, you said "electricity" is different at each end of the wire. Which is meaningless. "Electronic parameters"? You cannot measure or quantify electricity. You can measure voltage, which is what will be different at each end. The current should be the same. DC means always flowing in the same direction (pulsed or not). Let me support my case with (yet another) reference: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/DC-direct-current But feel free to provide a reference to support your definition of DC. You have singularly failed to support any of your arguments with anything other than your imagination and attitude.

And it is up to you to show that this effect produces the observed galactic rotation curves. Can you do that?

The nearest thing to this is where we can see the light reflected from a supernova as it travels through clouds of gas and dust. For example: https://www.space.com/38731-exploding-star-echo-of-light-hubble-telescope.html

That is because he didn't know about how genes work. Not knowing all the mechanisms does not invalidate the theory. We still don't know all the mechanisms but the theory is still correct.

Apart from the practical detail that you couldn’t see it, yes it would advance across the distance in 1 second

But they didn’t know it was an explosion, then.

! Moderator Note The Speculations forum is for people to present new scientific theories, not chat about SF movies. Moved to The Lounge

Merry Christmas and/or Festivus. May 2020 be less "interesting" than the last few years

There seem to be a lot of misunderstandings in your post. Not sure how you define "recent" but the idea that stars explode dates back to about 1860, and was based on observational evidence (e.g. spectroscopy). It is a cycle in the sense that black holes are (mainly) created by supernova explosions. But that's t. It is pretty much a one way street. During their lifetime, stars are neither implosion nor explosion. They steadily "burn" hydrogen by fusion to create helium and, eventually, some heavier elements. That is a fairly stable process, until the star starts to run out of hydrogen. Then the energy from fusion is no longer enough to stop gravitational collapse. At that point, the star can implode and form a neutron star or a black hole, depending on the mass of the star. This is also an explosion, as a large part of the mass is blown away by the energy released. Black holes do not release energy or explode, unless they are really, really tiny. And, as far as we know, no such small black holes exist. That is not what a black hole is. Most appear to be formed from the death of stars. The really supermassive ones may have been created by direct collapse of large clouds of gas, but we don't really know yet. While it is is true that light will fall into a black hole and not escape, that is not from "every star they can see". Black holes are relatively small so the amount of light that falls into them will be minute, as a proportion of the light emitted by stars. Most of the growth of black holes comes from matter that falls in. Typically from stars or clouds of gas that get too close. A black hole can grow much larger than the star that formed it. Especially if it merges with another black hole, for example. There is, as far as we know, no limit to how large a black hole can get. So the answer to "what will happen" is ... nothing. It will just carry on absorbing any matter or light that gets too close. I am not aware that Einstein ever said anything about a wormhole to Narnia. Can you provide a reference? No. It does not come up against any sort of critical mass. Nor does it explode to create a solar system (if that is what you are suggesting). And to you. ! Moderator Note As you are not asking questions but making assertions (with no real evidence) I have to move this to Speculations. Please read the special rules associated with this part of the forum.

! Moderator Note It is ideas that are not based on any science or evidence that are the problem ! Moderator Note Moved to Trash (which is being generous, given the quality of your “ideas”)

And if the pebbles are medium sized, they know they are somewhere in between

! Moderator Note We apologise for the oversight. But you must realise by now that sock puppetry is against the rules?

It did cross my mind that (depending on the thickness of the clouds) that it could have been the Sun. But I imagine the OP knows the relative positions of the Sun and Moon at that time of day! I suppose it might catch someone out if they weren't sure where they were/which way they were facing.

No pumpernickel

It is the same (very long) beach. It may not be what Dawkins was talking about - it sounds as if he is just talking about the heterogeneous distributions in strips or zones along the beach. But it is another example of how the environment can create an impression of order. I'm not quite sure what the question is here. It is pretty obvious by visiting any beach that the pebbles are not uniformly mixed. So are you looking for more detail on the mechanisms that cause pebbles to get separated by size? Or what? A quick search found these, I have only skimmed them so don't know how relevant they are: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2011.0562 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223721922_Concepts_in_gravel_beach_dynamics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311093229_Grain-size_distributions_on_high_energy_sandy_beaches_and_their_relation_to_wave_dissipation (so it applies to sand as well as pebbles) It looks like the different height and slope of the beach (also created, partly, by wave action) plays a role in the distribution of sizes.