[removed]

[removed]

Yes, they both store energy:

The capacitor stores the energy as an electric field.

The battery provides energy from a chemical reaction.

With today's technology a battery can generate more energy than the capacitor can store.

You could divide it by batteries store power as chemical energy, and capacitors store electric charge on plates, with no change in chemistry.
Both (have types that) can be charged and discharged, both can be built and need charging first.

[removed]

The brain changes all your life. That you call it development or degradation depends on your interpretation.

Impulse control improves until 20 years old and is pretty much the thing that improves the latest.

The ability to learn many things including languages peak much younger and is already significantly degraded at 20. So it's not a continuous improvement.

[removed]

I know about orbitals and now I wonder why wiki is showing only 2 bounds then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_carbon

I googled this some days ago because of the comet and thought more of an radical, besides the two bonds, even though this doesn't make much sense. Or maybe they're delocalized?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Isn't that a function of distance from the planet (the Roche limit) rather than the total mass of the rings?

C2 exists. It still has only a double bond though, so it has unpaired electrons which makes it very reactive. It will try to link with any other molecules it can.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_carbon

Carbon rarely do triple bonds because they are not energically favorable for carbon. It will typically prefer single or double bond.

Carbon cannot do quadruple bonds because only atoms with d electrons can do a quadruple bond, and in practice only the ones in the middle of the d block do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruple_bond

If enough of it found its way into the same place to agglomerate gravitationally.

[removed]

What would be the type of circumstance where they could collapse into moon(s)?

[removed]

Alternatively, if they were to get dense enough to even approach being solid, they’d collapse into one or more moons.

Either one requires a rigid ring or hollow sphere that can be evenly 'balanced' around the central star or planet in (usually) a rotation equal to a circular orbit at the sphere's equator. Closer to that ideal spin rate, the less the ring/sphere tries to implode or throw itself apart. Unfortunately, it still needs fantastical materials to be rigid enough even if it's perfectly spun for the ring, and the sphere's poles present a massive problem...

[removed]

Yes and no, but mostly no. Some chemicals are more fat soluble and distribute into our fat stores. Medications with this property include amiodarone and azithromycin -- we typically administer a large loading dose up front to saturate the fat compartment, otherwise we wouldn't be able to attain appropriate levels in the blood. These medications are expected to wash out over time after you stop taking them. This has nothing to do with losing weight, it's just concentration gradients.

Fyi this is why it can take weeks to clear cannabis on a urine test.

Rings form because something big and heavy got too close to whatever it was orbiting and the near side and far side wanted to orbit at different speeds. These forces rip the moon apart and a ring forms.

If you tried to place a solid disk in orbit around a planet, the same thing would happen.