[deleted]

The inflation of the early universe is what put the material that will eventually become the stars far apart from each other. Imagine if you have an empty balloon and you put little dots on it close together. Then you inflate it, those dots will now be much further apart. Now anything that happens to those dots has to travel the distance in between.

I think the problem you may have is incomplete understanding of the time scale. Right after the Big Bang up to about 10^-36 seconds all the fundamental forces were one, after that they began to separate from each other. We think this is what caused cosmic inflation. From that time to about 10^-32 seconds cosmic inflation occurred. Nuclei would have began forming a bit later around 10^-6 seconds to 1 second after the Big Bang. By then everything was already spread out. Starts won’t form for somewhere between 100k to 100 million years later.

This would seem to make some assumptions about relative proximity between the two.

Acceleration is still not the big picture. Only within the framework of special relativity it is true that an acceleration will always result in a shorter length of space time path. When you're talking about acceleration, you are restricted to special relativity only. But the twin paradox can be formulated in general relativity framework as well. In general relativity, you can have situations in which the accelerating twin is older, because in general relativity, even accelerating objects can have longer spacetime lengths...

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Exactly. I think people forget that the way the other interpret what you say is very important. Even if you are 100% correct, your wording can lead others to think something that is completely wrong. People aren't robots absorbing all information as it is, they interpret and change that information to align with preconceived notions and to make it easy to digest, and this can lead to misunderstanding.

The explanation is also problematic because this "absorption and emission" happens instantaneously, it doesn't absorb some energy, wait for a while, and release the energy. The release isn't isotropic either.

At the end of the day, it might be technically correct to say it is an absorption and re-emission, but it does more harm than good and doesn't really help clarify what is happening.

What about before Parkinson's is diagnosed, earlier in the progression? Could it delay the onset of symptoms, or reduce the amount impact?

Heating it up?

I understand allele dominance clearer now, it makes more sense this way, Thanks a lot

Your first point reminds me of the Ediacaran biota, which appears to contain the earliest forms of multi-cellular life - before even the Cambrian Explosion. What's fascinating is that probably 99.9% of these species died out 600 million years ago, with that small fraction surviving into the Cambrian to establish the forms we know today.

[removed]

Thanks for the reply. It's not my video but I might try seeing if I can replicate it later using a RTL-SDR or AM radio.

As other comment said most substantia nigra dopamine neurons are already dead in Parkinson’s, so there isn’t enough dopamine floating around for DRIs to do much, which is why direct dopamine receptor agonists and dopamine precursors are used instead. However DRIs can help prevent PD because they reduce the concentration of dopamine inside cell bodies, so it causes less oxidative stress

Gravitationally bound objects are elleptical if they have low friction (due to extremely low gas density between compact objects) like elliptic galaxies, oort clouds, and many other things, or are supported by pressure like stars, planets, and big satellites. They get more spherical if the angular momenta of each of their constituents are more equally distributed (only for low friction objects. High friction objects supported by pressure have an angular momentum in a specific direction) and if they are less disturbed by the gravitation of nearby objects.

They are flat disk if they have high friction (due to high gas density between compact objects) and are supported by angular momentum., like spiral galaxy, planet disks and accretion disks. They remain flat until perturbed by a collision even if the gas density went down enough that the friction is now low. That's the case of many planet disk and spiral galaxies. After a collision, they will get first irregular and then elliptical.

The accretion disk around the sun used to be a high density region while the gas was falling into the sun so it became a disk. Most of the gas and dust fell into the sun, but the remains are the planets and asteroids. The oort cloud is the part of the cloud that formed the sun that never got enough density to become a disk.

[removed]

[removed]

The problem is that according to General Relativity, a massless particle must always travel at c. So when dealing with the photon nature of light, a photon cannot slow down. But of course, we know light propagates slower through a medium, so somehow you have to reconcile these things.

I've been following and trying to wrap my head around these concepts as well. Did not realize something we see every day (light passing through glass) would be such a deep topic.

Based on your description, my understanding is that if you had a laser, a piece of glass (transparent material with index of refraction) and a detector placed in a dark box in a vacuum, and

1. you emitted a single photon, there is a high probability that photon would be detected by the detector.

2. you emitted many photons, the photon detector on the other side of the transparent material would not detect the same quantity of photons emitted, because there is a probability that some of them would be reflected back at the emitter. However, because they are all part of a wavefront, none of them would be emitted out the sides of the transparent material?

It's interesting that the two top comments are "it works" and "it doesn't work," but both are scientifically supported and don't really contradict each other.

I read a few reliable places that methylphenidate may protect neurons in cases of Parkinson's disease, along with some speculation that it might augment levodopa and help lower the dose. You can Google pretty much any hypothesis and find a study to support it.

Previously I'd assumed it was just unpopular because of issues like blood pressure problems and addiction. Then I learned about actual Parkinson's drugs and...holy crap. lol

[removed]

Worth pointing out that electromagnetic waves do lose energy when traveling through naturally occurring materials.

[removed]

[removed]