Do you think you could get the "effect" that OP wants by properly cutting two different types of stones to appear to fit together like they're one?

So, the actual answer is that rings are collisional, and the parts of the ring at different distances from the planet will precess¹ at different rates if there any asymmetries between the planet and the ring, so the parts of the ring will keep moving slightly differently and bumping into each other until they settle into circular² orbit around the equater, where the symmetry means there's no differential precession.

¹err, wobble

²excelt moins can make non-circular, 'cause they break the symmetry

Short answer, no.
Long answer, we don't know.
We know all mass will eventually decay into a form, where it stops releasing parts of it mass, and when all mass in the universe stops producing heat, along with all energy in the universe being spent, you got the third form of heat which is the expansion of space itself, so eventually when this all stops, and all mass and energy would eventually spend all its energy and reach zero, roughly 1.7×10^106 years, in comparison, the age of the universe is 1.3787*10^10 years, however this is only true if the end of the universe is in the form of heat death, and that is also assuming that protons decay into a state of non-energy.
The other models of the end of the universe assumes that the universe will probably end in another way, earlier then the heatdeath, which basically means no.

Would dogs count too since they evolved from wolves due to human taming?

[removed]

Peonies and azaleas and many other flowers use temperature change to in a way "judge" ideal blooming time. Probably often aligns with timing for pollinators to be active, which they often cant be very active in very cold weather

Sapphire melts in 2053°C, amethyst melts in 1650°C. That's problem number one.

Problem number two is: gems are only gems if they form large and relatively uniform crystalline structure while cooling down.^(*some exceptions apply but are not relevant) Otherwise they will look like obsidian, or rock depending on what happens to that structure. Melting destroys that structure so any area that was melted will undergo changes into a glass at best, and it's unlikely to keep the colour of the original.

Problem number three is: different gems have different crystal lattice that forms different shapes. You can't really make a smooth connection between those.

Problem number four is: different gems are made out of different things, they generally can't be mixed to make a hybrid gem but will make regular "rock" instead.

That means that from the start you would be limited to minerals that are made out of the same things, have similar melting points. Then you can't really cause them to recrystallize appropriately without very specific conditions which are going to be different for two different ones. Gems that can do what you're asking are just a single multicolored gem with different impurities in different locations. Two different ones can't do that because of the reason they are gems in the first place - if you mix them they lose what made them gems.

https://www.geologyin.com/2021/07/watermelon-tourmaline-what-is.html

[removed]

Your professor is wrong; it is nothing to do with expelling the spores.

The botulinum bacteria is a poor competitor. In an environment where there are already lots of other established bacteria, it struggles to form toxin-producing colonies; babies have less developed gut flora, not just because they haven't picked them up from the environment but also because their diet is much more limited.

Adults do occasionally get intestinal botulism. This usually happens in cases where they have been on antibiotics for some time and the gut flora has been killed off.

I really recommend the This Podcast Will Kill You episode on botulism!

[removed]

I don't know where you're going with this, but you have my hexwrench in this battle, friend

Eh, it'sdirectly related to the main post. Also I have been thinking in a crafts headspace for a few days while working on my most recent post.

We kinda went from "how minerals work under heat" to debating jewelry, huh.

[removed]

I mean, it was going to be expensive anyway. It's also not hard to find just gem powder now that I'm thinking about it, because people want big, contiguous gems. So finding a whole or many to make up or encrust a full wedding band? Incredibly expensive. Loading gem powder instead of a dye into resin? Not cheap, but moreso, and less of an artistic statement imho. If you want plain colored crushed crystal, glass/cubic zirconium is an ideal stand in. Like, you can make that idea for relatively cheap, set it in a band of a nice gold/silver, and it would look just as good, because you obviously lose some of the qualities that makes gems desireable in the first place, if the fact they're your birthstones don't really matter. But if you have multiple whole gems to really fill out the band, and the money to really splash out in the jeweler, it could be gorgeous.

So basically, as always, it comes down to what exactly you want, your budget, and how much appearance matters next to what the materials actually are.

What if you took two large gemstones, let's say a sapphire and an Amethyst. Shaved a flat side onto each, then instead of melting the whole thing, you very quickly applied a massive amount of heat only to the flat side. Then as soon as the edge begins to melt, you stick the two flat sides together and let them glue together. The seam probably wouldn't be a pretty gradient like OP wanted, but it might still work? Idk.

The short answer to all your questions is, yes. Adipocytes (fat cells) store energy in large lipid droplets that are encased in their own single-layer phospholipid membrane. People tend to describe lypolysis (the breakdown of of fat) as though it doesn't happen until your body has completely exhausted all blood sugar and stored carbohydrates. That's probably (I'm saying probably because I didn't look this part up, but I'm pretty confident) not true, it's more like you are using all forms of energy all the time, but you may increase or decrease the retrieval of different energy stores depending on your metabolic needs.

Lipids tend to be stored as triglycerides (larger, more complex lipids) and then are broken down into free fatty acids (smaller, simpler lipids) and transported out of adipocytes in a few different ways. Some are carried by proteins, some are carried by small vesicles. It probably depends on the pathway that is being used/what process has led to lypolysis.

Different signals that induce lipolysis are going to come from fasting, growth, stress, and disfunction of things like the thyroid. All the pathways lead to some amount of stored lipids leaving adipocytes in one way or another. For different people these processes may be more or less efficient. There are a lot of steps in signaling lypolysis and if any of them are impaired, it will be harder to release stored lipids.

I imagine that you have a balance of storing and releasing lipids that is constantly happening. If you expend more energy than you consume, the balance will shift towards fat loss. When this happens, your fat cells essentially shrink as their droplets become depleted. Since you are (again, educated assumption) constantly breaking down and replacing lipids, the effects of the shift won't be noticeable immediately after initiation. But if you keep the balance of fat loss and production on the loss end, you will eventually lose enough lipid mass that you see a difference.

So, even though the signaling that leads to "burning fat" may be somewhat different during exercise or fasting, the end result for your fat cells is more or less the same. Following exercise, depending on how efficiently you can signal for lypolysis, you may have a minute net loss of lipids in your fat cells. But they have to be further broken down and the byproducts have to leave your body at a higher rate than you generate new lipids for you to notice a loss of body fat.

I hope this helps!

Simplest answer to the first question (from a non-expert): mammals that regularly live in the open cold tend to have specialized fur coats. These are really good insulators. That and their metabolism probably works in favour of keeping them warm.

As to the second question, hunter gatherer societies can use the pelts of the animals they hunt, as well as build structures that minimize the amount of wind you have to deal with. Often involving animal hides again, or other kinds of shelter. If you've ever been inside a hollowed out structure of snow (i.e. a quinzee), it is relatively warm compared to having no shelter at all.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

No. What you can do is get a "half moon cut" of an amethyst and a sapphire from a stone cutter on etsy, and put them together into something like this https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0611/8345/products/Half-Moon-Sapphire-Engagement-Ring-with-Baguette-Cut-Diamond-closeup_2400x.jpg

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]