Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?
Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?
Are you under the impression that they don’t?
Which wouldn’t have the potential if the larger sun didn’t form first to create the gravity to allow the rest to form.
This is simply incorrect. The gravitational potential of the body would be there regardless of what else is going on around it. And either way, the OP’s question was not about some hypothetical where the sun doesn’t exist, it’s about where energy came from in the real world.
Star != Sun is just pointlessly pedantic. You’re not trying to learn anything, just be a smartass.
? The OP’s question was literally “is there energy on earth that didn’t come from the sun.” I am not the one being pedantic here.
Nuclear materials were formed in supernovas. They wouldn’t exist in the first place without a star.
Well, yeah, sure. But that star is not the Sun.
Earth wouldn’t have coalesced without the sun in the middle. Otherwise we’d still be a gas blob.
I mean, sure? It wouldn’t be a gas blob, but it would be a very different system. But that still has nothing to do with it – even if the gravity of the sun influences how the earth coalesces, it’s still not where the thermal energy of the core came from. That came from the potential of the dust itself.
The heat in the Earth’s mantle and core comes from the gravitational potential energy of the original stellar dust clouds the Earth originally accreted from. So, geothermal energy mostly isn’t. And there’s also evidence that a few natural uranium deposits have undergone natural nuclear fission chain reactions. That one’s a pretty negligible amount, though. Other than that, no, it all traces back to the sun.
Like others have mentioned, there are various options (donations/sponsorships/grants) that larger projects will generally have some of, but for smaller projects (99% of what’s out there, by project count if not usage), the answer is simply “it isn’t.” It’s done as a hobby, as a resume booster, or with the hope of eventually becoming big enough to hit one of those revenue streams.
Yes, of course. That’s what keeps them bound together.
I don’t think of either of them as having any specific regional accent at all. I think they just have somewhat similar voices and mannerisms
You are so gullible
It’s fun to pretend.
I almost hesitate to bring up the other problems with your plan since, obviously the total monstrosity of it. But that’s anyway pretty well covered so I’ll just throw in that blowing enough nukes to kill that many people would create considerably worse environmental disaster
Well, for the most part, it’s just flowing into the ocean, like it always does. Evaporation over land is a very minor part of freshwater loss.
Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.
The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.
“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.
Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle
In some sense, the asymmetry of information (entropy) is a defining feature of the universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
Why would anyone stop using those standards? You seem very confused about the incentives for adopting standards. Sure, maybe US-driven standards were chosen over other possibilities partly because of political environment, but once you have a perfectly good standard adopted you’re not just going to throw it out because the original author isn’t cool anymore. You don’t need a dominant power to adopt standards.
And for being “slightly political” and “focused on the standards,” your post sure does spend the majority of its time talking about only politics and not about standards at all
Sure, but now you’re talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren’t just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they’re powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body’s other systems, and so on. These aren’t just minor factors, they’re central parts of how your brain works.
Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the “neural networks” we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.
It’s simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.
“uncommon” is an overstatement, you can get them pretty much anywhere that has pots and pans. It’s uncommon in that most people don’t bother owning one, not that they’re hard to get
In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it’s closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it’s less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.
I’m sure some parents use it as a substitute to avoid saying “son of a bitch” in front of their kids, if that helps