Yes, sommeliers are legitimate.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Why do artificial satellites of the Earth rotate by inertia longer than artificial satellites of the Moon?Maybe it's just me, but I don't know what you mean. Could you rephrase the question?
Particles in rapid motion turn into waves, and in relative stillness they turn into particles. This is how the phenomenon of wave-particle duality can be explained.First of all there is no puzzle to be solved. Quantum objects can modeled quite well. The problem you seem to have is trying to describe a quantum objects using a classical description. That cannot be done. Quantum objects don't 'turn into' waves or 'turn into' particles. Quantum objects have a wave like property, this wave like property is not really like a classical wave. In quantum objects the 'wave' is localized and a classical wave is not and quantum 'waves' collapse to a point, classical waves do not.
This is what is called; Earth-centrism.Nope. This what is called a fact, the only planet proven to have life is earth. You were the one that said empirical evidence is needed.
Even this (Earth currently being the only viable habitat for life) doesn't alter the very high probability that the UMI principle describes reality in this universe.I of course never said "earth is the only viable habitat for life" because I have no way of knowing that. What is the UMI principle?
Surely cracking fusion energy is not easier than creating a portable machine that is as good as a police drug dog . . .Well we currently have neither. I would wager there is a lot more money being spent on fusion than on an artificial dog nose, especially since a dog works perfectly well.
Protecting life on earth from asteroids is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal,But there is no universal terminal goal that you have identified, so how can you say protecting life on earth can help this unknown goal? You are just making stuff up as you go along. Why would the universe have a goal anyway? The whole 53 pages of this thread is just rambling silliness IMO.
That is not evidence. That is groupthink consensus. Just like the sun goes around the earth.That sounds just like something an anti -science troll would say.
It seems like the confusion is more common than what we think.Just in the popsci world. As I said before if you want to learn the physics relativity go to a university site that has open courseware and do the course.
According to A, twin B and C only change their frame of reference once.I don't understand your confusion, especially since it is your scenario.