A legitimate question, that i have asked myself many times as well.

there should be no reason to assume it has any effect on the body, since its only being digested into peptides/amino acids.

its not completely unthinkable that it may still have an effect, through some sort of mechanism that we are just not aware of yet (maybe a bit like BCAA's boost Protein Synthesis, despite being "just some amino acids"), however that remains yet to be proven. And until then i will not recommend taking them, since they are quite expensive.

Doesn't there have to be some reference frame whereby a body is not moving through space at all? Not under influence of any force, just the expansion of the universe all around it making it seem as if it's accelerating from any observer.

Under the laws of special relativity an observer in a space ship travelling at 0.1c will see Earth speed up, while an observer on Earth will see the ship slow down. But if all speed is relative, both should see the other speed up, which feels paradoxical.

[removed]

>Yes of course. Most metals are not found in their pure elemental forms and need to be smelted in order to isolate them. The same applies to brass. Melting is would destroy the brass crystal structure and allow the copper and tin to be separated based on their different melting points and densities.

If you melt a sample of bronze completely, you end up with a solution (not a mixture) of tin in copper that won't stratify by density for the same reason that a solution of ethanol in water (like vodka) doesn't stratify by density.

It's possible to separate tin from copper through repeated partial melt cycles, but yield would be absolutely terrible.

>Edit: Based on this paper it seems the most common method of separating copper and tin in brass is by chemical extraction. There are some acids which dissolve tin but not copper. Soaking brass in one of these acids will eventually lead to the tin being leached out of the brass, leaving behind solid copper and a liquid zinc solution. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319610312001706

Note that this process is performed on slag that's particulate matter with a diameter less than 100 um (effectively sand) because otherwise the surface area to volume ratio is impractical.

[removed]

[removed]

We know that oral collagen supplementation likely does have objectively measured *effects on skin and wound healing, as is true with supplementation of other proteins, and there is a lot of clinical data that presumes that this is a result of the amino acid makeup of various proteins. I haven't seen a link in this thread that offers a lot of supporting evidence to the theory that that collagen in = collagen created, necessarily, aside from that Japanese study, which appears to have been conducted by scientists at FANCL Corporation, whose entire business is cosmetic and dietary supplements (that's not to say that the science is bad, but the conclusion is, shall we say, "less than unbiased").

Newton did you not prove gravity made apples fall. That's only half of the story... What he DID show is that the same force that makes apples fall is (partly) the same force that keeps the moon up in the sky. He ended up explaining that the mass of things and the distances between them determine how gravity affects them....

And we're not concerned that, with L-dopa treatment, some dopamine-releasing neurons that aren't affected by Parkinson's will now release too much dopamine? I would be afraid of schizophrenia for example.

[removed]

[removed]

Admittedly I wouldn't be the best person to ask as I haven't studied science in nearly a decade, but my uneducated educated guess would be a change in the value of c is balanced out by other factors, probably something to do with dark energy.

In a sense the changing rate of expansion of the universe due to dark energy is what is causing the change in c. But that's just 100% made up of the top of the bonce. Hopefully someone with a more advanced and recent education can give you a good answer.

Key point is things don't change just because. There's always a reason fundamentally

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So technically, all of us could be the Flash when speaking in relativity.

If it did change for E=mc^2 to hold AND conservation of energy to hold would there not need to be a large change in the amount of mass in the universe?

It would, but that's no indicator that it would be rebuilt into the same proteins, especially not targeting a specific area.

[removed]

[removed]

Firstly, 8±3 doesn't mean "it's definitely between 5 and 11". It just means "it's 68% likely that it's in that range", and then it's 95% likely that it's in the range [2:14] and 99.7% likely that it's in the range [-1:17] (really [0:17] in this case, since it can't be negative).

Secondly, why do I say that it's likely to be lower than 8% rather than higher, given that the error bars go both up and down? That's because we're looking at extreme value statistics. Put simply, we're not looking at a random data point, we're looking at the data point with the highest value. That means we're much more likely to see a positive noise fluctuation than a negative one, because a positive noise fluctuation makes a data point more likely to be the highest one while a negative noise fluctuation does the opposite.

Here's a concrete example. Let's say we have two sets of numbers, set A and set B, each with 1000 numbers in them. In set A, each number has a true value of 5 but ±1 in errors. In set B, each number has a true value of 0, but ±10 in errors. So in reality the numbers in set A are much bigger than in set B. But now look at what happens when we take errors into account. In set A, it's unlikely that we will see any numbers higher than around 8, since a +3 error has a likelihood of only 0.15%. Meanwhile, in set B we're almost guaranteed to see numbers higher than 20. So if we're not careful we will incorrectly conclude that B is really bigger than A.

Sorry, that didn't come out as clearly as I had hoped. If you know some simple programming, then I recommend just writing a 5-line program to test it out yourself.

Depends on your perspective, naturally, with spacetime being relative and all.

From an observers pov, say comrades who couldn't catch you in time, you would freeze for forever, until you the light bouncing off you slowly redshifted out of our visual range. Which sounds awful to experience, even just watching.

On the plus side, you would allow accurate mapping of where the horizon actually is, since it's invisible, the moment you 'froze' would be the moment when you crossed over.

From you're pov its speculated that at that distance you'd essentially be outside time. And past the horizon light only goes one way, and that's in towards the black hole, which you wouldn't be facing, so you'd see all of the light from all time descending towards you. Whether that's linear, and just like a VCR on fast forward, that I can't say, and I don't know if that will or would ever be verified.

So you'd get the answers of how it all ends (heat death, big crunch, cyclical, neuvo-physics bubble, great unraveling, grey goo, thetons, who knows) but you'd never be able to share the answers... Unless each black hole IS an Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

I like to think hidden behind each horizon is a great cosmic/galactic space-truck stop full of alien yokels. That's the flavor of multiverse I want to be in :)

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]