I just learned, while in a Wikipedia rabbit hole, about the Ashley Treatment, part of which involves pre-emptive closing of growth plates.

He was killed by, if memory serves, a foot infection, being unable to properly fight it as a direct result of his height. So, you can see where I'm going with this.

And yes, I know it wasn't invented until like 40 years after he was born.

Has it already happened?

If this is not true then what is the supposed light caused by? Or does the brain just say, "fuck it one more blast and i'm outtta here"?

I feel like a crazy person saying this but: one particular door handle in an office building I go to once peer week always feels warmer than ambient.

It's the handle inside the stairwell on the main floor. It feels warmer than ambient, with either hand, if I was just using the handrail or not. There's no sunlight shining on it. I use the handle on my way out of the building a few minutes after I pass by it on the way in, so I know there's nobody standing there holding it for several minutes just before I use it. It feels warm if I check it on my way into the building as well.

The handle on the lobby side of the door seems normal. The handle upstairs seems normal. The door feels normal. The strike plate in the doorframe feels normal.

It's super weird. Could the motion detector mounted above the door be bathing it in IR light or something?

I'm going to see if I can find my IR thermometer to quantify my subjective observation. Are there any other potential sources of energy I haven't thought of? Anything that could be messing with my perceptions? anything in particular I should remember when going to collect some data?

Impedance is composed of resistance and reactance. But what actually causes reactance? Is it the V & I phase shift? And is it lower with higher V?

If you need a time frame, let's say 25 years.

EDIT: my question is plural, but of course it's fine to give a single species if you know of one

The technology for it exists, but even if you managed to extract someone's DNA injecting it onto a new set of stem cells: once the baby is born, the only thing that genetic code is inheriting is the appearance. They would resemble that person by looks only, however what remains a total mystery is: whether he or she'll have the same personality or behavior as that individual. (You won't know until they gotten older).

For example: this dog passed away, then extracting the genes from that carcass now injecting that onto a pregnant dog of the same breed who'll soon give birth to a familiar looking pup but despite it looking similar to the one you knew: why won't it inherit the same behavior or mannerisms as the source gene? Will that dog recognize the dead dog's owner or would it behave like it's someone else's animal?

Genetic duplication sounds "fun" at first but, it comes at a cost:

• Slated memory (this person looks like someone you knew but they have zero recollection of their life)
• Varying behavior and traits (they look like someone you knew, although they display different personalities)
• The consensus is that the first gene holder is dead, a clone won't be considered the same as "original"
• The family of the deceased considers them dead even if you have a genetic clone of their relative

I get what the man did was bad. But just don't know how they caught him by using a new made up at the time science technique.

The biggest hurdle is that cancer cells move around within your body, alongside multiplying (even if you opt for chemotherapy: there's a probability that'll resist to the medicine or cause more harm than good). Also, Cancer cells aren't foreign invaders like the viruses, bacteria, etc that make humans sick, rather they are the person's own native cells that have "gone rogue" through mutation, making the process on finding a cure complicated.

If you really want to create a permanent universal cure: you will need to study and experiment literally every variation of cancer (it differs by individual too, as the treatment may work on one person but kill another: so the results are R&G to speak). This adds difficulity on creating a 100% antidote, as cancer is linked to a person's own cells (the genetic code varies based on person, it remains a complete mystery if the treatment will work).

The goal of cancer treatments is killing the cancer cells but (ideally) leave many healthy cells as unharmed (if possible), that's easier said than done. Most treatments affecting cancer cells are also going to readily affect a person's healthy cells too (that in itself causes more pain than comfort they would rather die than suffer). Current treatments only provide a working solution, but there's always a chance of resurgence post treatment.

Can Nanobots, mRNA or CRISPR guarantee a 100% cure with absolute zero resurgence on cancer: since how would you know if the patient's body will reject it immediately (even if you knew the person's blood type?). The true instigator of cancer is difficult to answer concretely apart from listing risk factors, since every human being in the world is different (from varying genetic code, health status, pre-existing conditions and etc).

My brother had a big well HUGE Oxycotin addiction 20 years ago, he was a snorter, is there like an equation to calculate what percentage is he at risk to reuse? He has gone so far as telling his doctor, dentist, psychologist, He has to make an appointment for the hospital to put down his past opioid addiction so he will never get treated with it. He has gotten in his head that if he ever gets knocked out or in a car crash or whatever that he is going to wake up and find morphine being put into him and doesn't want that. And his doctor has no relationship with the local hospital. He would rather deal with the pain and everything instead of going back to being an addict and doing it cold turkey again. That is the reason I am asking to put his mind at ease. Cause his appointment is not until 2 months down the road for Medical Records. So he is taking everything overboard at times. Or is there a better community to ask this?

The Cosmic Microwave Background is 13.7 billion years old, yet is currently located at a distance of 46.5 billion light-years. It was emitted when the Universe was around 380,000 years old, the cosmological redshift of this Cosmic Microwave Background is approximately z = 1100, meaning the Universe has expanded 1100 times in size since what we can detect, was emitted. We see these figures all the time.

But what about the Gravity Wave Background emitted at the very instant of the Big Bang, or the Neutrino Background one second later? If we can ever detect the very first gravitational wave of the Big Bang, how much further is the radius of our Detectable Universe pushed outward?

Hilbert imagines a hypothetical hotel with rooms numbered 1, 2, 3, and so on. The hotel is full and new guest arrives wanting a room. I can not move any guest. So i say to new guest wait 1 sec a new room must become available as Infinite guests one must leaving at any time.

is this good answer?

I follow this scientist on YouTube, he's made a very interesting series of videos and is looking for a research grant, here is a lot more context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvxNmStSC3M

tl;dw

1. We've been pumping a shitload of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 100+ years

2. It seems extremely unlikely that the global CO2 emissions will go down in the next ~50+ years

3. Even if the whole world became Net-Zero tomorrow, The planet will keep warming because the extra CO2 already in the atmosphere will stay there for the next 100+ years

4. Carbon capture is basically impossible due to economics

Now here comes the scary part that that you maybe need a open mind to consider a good idea.

By adding 3% "Baking Soda" to jet fuel, it would reflect heat away to counter global warming, and would drop out of the air in ~1 year, so we can stop at any time.

Before forming a strong opinion and just down-voting let's have a constructive conversation in the comments. Even better, please watch the video

This seems like an actual viable option to buy us time to fix global warming, because what we've been trying hasn't been working nearly fast enough.

Does this effect have a name? I'm specifically referencing the iridescent shapes to the lower left of the apple

This memory randomly came back to me when I woke up in the middle of the night and it's been bothering me since. When I was a kid in the early 90s, I remember telling my dad about a rocket concept where the rocket would scoop up dust and gas from the space environment around it and use that as a propellant. His response was to make a face and go "cool" and that was the last time I thought about it. I think I might have seen it talked about in a library book and have a vague memory of a cartoonish illustration of a rocket with a funnel on the front.

At the time, the concept exited me, but it felt like a really long stretch to make something like that work. I haven't really thought about it since. Is this concept still bouncing around? It doesn't really sound that viable, but I don't know crazy ideas sometimes work.

It's like a cross between a bumble bee and a hummingbird, with dragonfly wings. SE WI, USA. I've lived here most my life and never saw it until now

It makes sense from a why standpoint. I can't help but wonder about the how.

How did we evolve reproductive organs that are not only sensitive, but also release reproductive cells at climax?

I'm ok with a "we have no idea" answer, but if there is an answer I also want to know.