I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 32
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I'll ask a couple of other intriguing questions.
1. According to Darwin and all modern scientific beliefs, man evolved from apes, etc. It seems that any animal (not just apes) can evolve and become intelligent. However, of 5500 species of mammals (including various monkeys) on Earth, only we are the only ones who possess intelligence. Why?
2. Can the consciousness exist without matter? This is related to the question if the consciousness existed before the matter.
Some red monkeys were shown on the BBC, they were cracking nuts, and the main thing is how they did it! I think that even an uninitiated person would not have been able to do it for several hours, and it is likely that they would not have been able to do it at all without the tools at hand! And the monkeys in their eight years of training do it with success.
There's not just action, but a whole strategy for 2 weeks! A raw nut (the size of an ostrich egg) can't be cracked, so they put them away for 2 weeks to dry. Come to think of it! After that, they drag it to such a huge stone in the shape of a crock, so that it won't shatter after hitting it. And for the strike, they use special stones large enough (in their own weight) and strong enough to be dragged from somewhere. One or two blows and it's done! And then he shows a baby monkey sitting on a tree with the same nut, looking at the adults and imitating. He just does not understand yet, that he mustn't sit on the tree and take any stones. I hit a nut - the stone crumbles and the whole nut falls from the tree))).
And in school textbooks wrote that animals do not use tools! Not all of them)))
And school textbooks wrote that animals don't use tools! Not all of them)))
And school textbooks wrote that animals don't use tools! Not all of them)))
>
Marinochka, people will never come out of their animal state...
don't get too carried away... Marusya is a former speculator... a man... even illiterate :-)))
don't get too carried away... marusya is a former speculator... a man... and even illiterate :-)))
What are you talking about?! I'm going to hit the wall...
;)
We (humans) are very scary animals if only because we have all living things eating all living things on our planet and we don't have any meaningful bodily implements, manage to short circuit this food chain.
By the way, what makes you think that humans are at the back of the food chain? Bedbugs, mosquitoes, mosquitoes and your other cousins would probably disagree with that....
;)
// All night long I've been wondering what you're doing with humans. Make up your mind... :-)
alsu:
For example, already each galaxy individually is not expanding anywhere. Not to mention atoms. In other words, the ruler is not expanding anywhere, and the "scientist" from the "documentary" is seen to be a common clown.
How interesting. Let's imagine such an experiment (kind of realistic). We choose a "standard" galaxy so that it was oriented with respect to us "obliquely", i.e. to some extent with an edge (of a disk). And we look for a colour shift of the far half relative to the near one. And so many times (and so many galaxies and so much time).
I see 3 options.
1. The sensitivity of our instruments will not be enough to see the expected (by Hubble) value on the real statistics. In which case we cannot say that galaxies are not expanding.
2. We will see that there is an expansion.
3. we will reliably see that there is no expansion. But that's sort of the O.H. Derevensky funnel already being viewed :)
What is the basis for the claim that galaxies do not expand?
Oh, really? Oleg, a grown man, and you believe in holes...
...In the first half of the twentieth century, physics was faced with a severe problem - trying to identify free carriers of positive electricity in semiconductors (ions, of course, were not suitable for this role). The very fact of the problem, it would seem, indicated that the carriers sought do not exist - and there was a good reason to reconsider the basic premise and assume that in semiconductors played an important role moving related charges. But the ideas about mechanisms of charge unbalance generation and migration [5,6] in solids have not been developed yet. The theory was based on the concept of free positive charge carriers in semiconductors, which were called holes - and to which absurd properties were attributed. Moreover, there is no consensus about what is a hole, theorists - there are two main approaches to the question, and each of them is absurd in its own way.
Read. :)
I do not understand, why the name "hole" is bad for "migrating charge unbalance" equivalent to a positive charge? You know, these physicists are cynics, for example they can call the vector on the left "sko" and the vector on the right "bca" in all seriousness.
By the way, what makes you think that humans are at the back of the food chain? Bedbugs, mosquitoes, mosquitoes and your other cousins would probably disagree with that....
;)
// I've been wondering all night why you're sticking it to humans. Make up your mind... :-)
ha ha, that's funny... you left out the bacteria.
So only the female mosquito "bites" and that's to lay eggs in a breeding ground.
// didn't think enough, still need to :R
I don't get it, why is the name "hole" bad for a "migrating charge unbalance" equivalent to a positive charge? You know, these physicists are cynics, for example they can call the vector on the left "sko" and the vector on the right "bca" in all seriousness.
"Those physicists" meant the complete absence of an electron at the valence level. And Mr. Derevensky assumes that the electron is in place, but not clearly in antiphase with its proton.