Interesting thank you

[removed]

It depends on what kind of ship. If you mean ocean vessel then yah there are limits. If you mean an airplane driven by fossil fuel then yah. If you mean a space vessel that uses gravity manipulation to create lift and gravity for thrust then there is no limit so long as it isn't within our atmosphere. The only limit then would be if we were talking something like...the moon size where it's own gravity would cause compression

Yes, there are upper limits, and things get difficult as you approach them. There are "softer" limits imposed by infrastructure capacities, "firmer" limits imposed by seaworthiness considerations, and finally hard limits due to material properties and the forces involved.

Others have covered infrastructure limits, so I'll begin with seaworthiness. Bigger ships are more fuel efficient due to the square cube law, and industry has pursued that advantage by increasing size dramatically. But bigger ships require more steerage way, and are less controllable at low speeds. They also need more power to overcome wind and current. They are hard to control in tight harbors and locations without sea room.

The final limit is materials. Humans approached the upper limits of wood ship size, and the biggest wood ships had considerable hull volume devoted to reinforcing frames, stringers, laterals etc. All necessary to deal with the unequal forces imposed on a ship's hull. Not only by wind and waves, propulsion, but by the inequal buoyancy inherent in making something pointy that will go through the water efficiently. There is less buoyancy at the thin ends than amidships, and over time and constant movement that causes wood (and metal) ships to "hogback", where the bow and sterm droop and the middle rises.

We never solved the issue with wood construction, we simply found stronger materials. First iron, then steel, and now higher strength steels.

But the bigger the ship, the bigger the forces, while the tensile strength of steel remains about the same. To prevent buckling under dynamic loads, more and more payload consuming reinforcement has to be added inside the hull, until like their wood forebears, it becomes impractical.

At that point, maybe we'll find a new material again, and start over with a brand new limit.

[removed]

[removed]

To extrapolate very very far....

If you scaled up an ordinary shaped ship, to truly enormous bigger than would fit in any earth sea, you'd run into this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point#High-pressure_phases

...where it's sort of no longer "floating".. it's bottom is resting on a somewhat weird solid.

[removed]

That is totally correct, but the vineyard's business model will determine whether they are going for high quality or quantity. Some will have multiple labels so that they can cater to different price points.

[removed]

> Grape vines do also have a production lifespan (production does start to drop off after a few decades)

Notably, old vines have fewer grapes, but the quality is higher. Young grapes actually need to have a lot of the fruit removed so that the plant puts more energy (sugar and flavour) into the remaining fruit. As it gets older, you do less of that and the plant keeps putting all that energy into a few grapes.

There are centuries-old vines still being used to produce grapes, but the quantity is tiny relative to even a 50 year old plant, which would be considered quite old.

Rats absolutely do organize amongst themselves in groups called packs. Larger rats dominate the group and prevent other males from mating with the female rats.

[removed]

[removed]

There are several methods used to induce cancer in animals for medical experimentation. One common method is to use chemicals or substances that are known to be carcinogenic, or cancer-causing. These chemicals can be administered to the animals through their food or water, or applied topically to the skin.

Another method is to use radiation to induce cancer, this can be done by exposing the animals to ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays.

Another method is to use genetic engineering to create animals that are predisposed to developing certain types of cancer. This can be done by introducing specific genetic mutations into the animal's DNA that are known to be associated with the development of cancer.

Very cool. I honestly believe this is just a person mentally visiting other parts of their brain and not being able to understand that they’re experiencing so their brain fills things in with something they know to be diminutive. Then they talk to their different selves before moving on.

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Similarly, the experience of getting "domed" on DMT often involves going to a cavernous place and meeting diminutive creatures (gnomes, elves, sprites, etc.) that eagerly ask you to entertain them. Eventually they tire of you and demand more, before sending you back out of the "dome".

Check the work of Carl Gustav Jung. He studied and contributed to "found" modern approach to psychology after Freud. Especially what he called"archetipes", suggesting they could've represented various parts of the "mind" even tho they would be seen through different cultural lenses. These ideas stem from what Jung called Collective Unconscious. But as far as I believe there's really no way to tell if these spontaneous "visions" or "dreams" are indipendently emerged, by Popper's standards these statements are not falsifiable and thus unscientific (e.g. the statement "the tooth fairy is a common myth that indipendently emerged in different cultures across the X century"). Also, maybe we should investigate the past because now with internet and globalization our minds can subconsciously learn things from very different and far cultures.

For the longest time we didn't know what the purpose of the DNA between genes served. More recently, we have been discovering rhat these non-ncoding sections play important regulatory roles by providing binding sites for promoters, repressers, histones, and other proteins that interact with DNA. For a particular gene to function properly, it not only needs the nucleotide sequence to remain intact, but also for its regulatory functionality to remain the same. Altering the non-coding DNA surrounding a gene will almost certainly change its level of transcription.

Come on you know exactly what I meant when I said flight was thought of as impossible. You know I didn't mean any flight, I meant human flight using machines.

I used flight as an example that many good ideas that improve our understanding of the world do not come from scientists who spend their lives studying the subjects. While there was a part of the scientific community helping flight, it was their (Orvilles) ideas that truly broke the ground on flight, and they weren't researchers who spent their entire lives only working on aeronautics. It's also well known that many people simply didn't believe it could be done.

And that's for a field of physics which has been researched for hundreds of years if not more.

Everything astrophysics touches is so new. Add to it that historically, people who research a certain subject are very averse to new ideas within the subject (because it threatens their standing in the field), and yet many advancements are made by people from outside the field who thought outside the little box those researchers drew.

I only used flight as an example of someone not following traditional or well-accepted knowledge to make a breakthrough.

It is very VERY likely that dark matter is just part of our equations being incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with better theories and equations that challenge our current understanding and result in doing away of dark matter altogether.

Many astrophysics researchers will call blasphemy if you doubt dark matter or go against what's currently accepted to be true. But I think that's only because they are territorial about their work and don't want to be proven wrong.

As a whole, the entire field and all concepts, including dark matter, are in it's infancy. It's very likely that we are wrong about a lot of it and need to keep an open mind.

[removed]