Thanks for the answer, I’ll definitely be looking in to finding an alternative.

[removed]

The sponge is definitely carrying bacteria from dish one to dish two. But the soap + scrubbing is making the mechanical removal of food and bacteria much easier. Basically freeing it from adhesion to the surface of the dishes so that the final rinsing with water carries the bulk of it away and down the drain. I personally think sponges are gross and not good for cleaning things involved with eating. They harbor bacteria like it’s nobody’s business and you’re right to be questioning this. I’d recommend switching to a plastic bristled brush that you can fully rinse with before each dish or item that you wash.

It varies considerably for a number of reasons.

Transcript lifetime is generally regulated directly by degradation in a time dependent manner. There are regulated in many others ways as well including miRNAs, and probably at least half a dozen other things.

According to the below example the median half-life of a transcript was 7 hours, with a few mRNAs under an hour. This may be very different than for bacteria, or various cell types etc.

How many proteins are made per transcript before degradation is also liable to be very different for reasons like, for example, codon usage (rarer codons tend to have smaller tRNA pools) so it will take longer to translate and thus there will be fewer proteins, and any number of other things.

Database for mRNA half-life of 19 977 genes obtained by DNA microarray analysis of pluripotent and differentiating mouse embryonic stem cells

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19001483/

[removed]

[removed]

Soap contains emulsifiers which break down the membrane of bacterial cells. Emulsifiers are chemicals which allow oils (hydrophobic) and water (hydrophilic) to dissolve or mix in one another. They’re in everyday items such as ice cream paints etc.

They're specific points in space, but the stable orbits around them are very large areas thousands of miles wide. Spacecraft can park in that orbit and maintain their position in space with very little fuel.

[removed]

The Trappist-1 system is the most likely candidate. We still don't know for sure though, we only have limited data on exoplanets.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HTHj_pvEYYE&t=585

[removed]

The groove is a V shape with 90 degree angle. Each side of the V encodes for a different channel. The result (depending on how they are configured) is that the up and down movement of the stylus give you the sum of both channels while the left to right movement give you the difference between them.

Have there been any planets discovered that are as livable or more livable than earth for humans?

[removed]

Wow okay, thanks! I was totally confounding force and energy. The book example is really helpful.

I think I only really need a lift on a shuttle. No need to waste earths resources/money on a probe or anything. Just open the doors and chuck me out. Or shoot me out like a torpedo.

An expendable Falcon Heavy can do that on a direct route (no course corrections needed) for $150 million or so.

A partially reusable Falcon Heavy or even smaller rockets can do it with fly-by maneuvers, but then you need course corrections on the way to aim more precisely, which means you need some sort of active spacecraft. The launch gets cheaper but the spacecraft will cost something.

Read the article, you will see that coywolf is an inaccurate name as virtually all coyotes are hybrids of coyote, wolf and dog.

How big are the Lagrange points? Like, are the solutions to the equations a small point in space, or are they a large area? How big is the space at the Lagrange points that are usable for satellites, etc?

It doesn't take energy to apply a force. Think of a book sitting on a table. Gravity is pulling the book down (aka, a force pulling down) and the table is pushing up on the book (aka, a force pushing up). And it can just sit there forever. Obviously the table doesn't need energy to do that.

No different than the Sun keeping the Earth in orbit. The energy of the Earth/Sun system stays constant (assuming nothing else in the universe). The force the Sun is providing on the Earth isn't changing its kinetic energy (since kinetic energy only depends on the speed of the object, not its velocity), so conservation of energy doesn't get violated here.

The Moon is about as reflective as asphalt, but various missions have left retroreflectors at their landing sites which are routinely targeted with lasers. They can measure the distance with a precision of a centimeter or so, depending on the experiment and targeted retroreflector.

Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Saturn and sometimes even larger asteroids need to be considered in these experiments, see e.g. this publication for a discussion. It's an extremely precise test of our understanding of gravity and the Solar System. Unfortunately it doesn't test MOND directly because a small acceleration from one specific object isn't enough (otherwise you could just say Earth is a billion objects providing a small acceleration each), you need a small acceleration overall. The Moon is not in such a place.

My understanding of orbits is that if every particle in the universe vanished except the Earth and the Sun, the Earth would continue in its orbit, because it is in free-fall around the Sun.

My understanding of conservation of energy makes me think that this is impossible. I was told in HS physics that the Earth is constantly accelerating--not because it gets faster and faster, but because it's changing directions by going in a circle ellipse instead of a straight line. F=ma, so it takes force to change the direction. That force is provided by gravity... but here I get confused. Can gravity just provide this force forever? Does that not mean that it's generating energy (from nowhere)?

I'm ten years out of high school so I can't just raise my hand and ask the teacher :( I suspect that I knew the answer to my question at some point and have since forgotten it.

My Google searches somehow turn up all sorts of sources debunking flat earth theory, which is not what I'm trying to do here lol.

They are also used in cancer therapy. Often, but I believe not necessarily, in combination with other immunotherapy, such as cancer vaccines. Useful links: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/immunotherapy/immune-system-modulators https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fchem.2020.00601/full

>low amplitude is only gonna excite the rods? High amplitude will allow the excitation of cones and at that point frequency will determine which cones are excited?

Yes, and yes, if that helps. Of course, the rods' response is not independent of frequency, but since there's only one type, you have no way to distinguish colors using them.

According to NASA (https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/frequently-asked-questions/fact-sheet/), the cost to sent Voyager 1 and 2 out of our Solar System was about $865M--an amount I could not afford, but still comfortably within the reach of certain individuals.