[removed]

The root canal won’t affect the tooth/jaw relationship.

A root canal takes out the nerve via the hole that it sits in in the center of the tooth and running down the center of the roots. It is then replaced with an anti-bacterial rubber substance and closed up with a filling and most of the time a crown/cap as well.

Outside of the root there are those little periodontal ligaments that attach the tooth to the bone, and those are still alive after a root canal. Think of them as strings and when we get braces/chew/put force on the strings it tightens them on one side of the tooth and loosens them on the other. Where the right strings are, the body knows to lay down more bone because the current bone needs to be stronger to stand up to all the force, but where the loose strings are the body knows to get rid of some bones because it’s being essentially useless in this area where it’s not taking much of any forces. The body is doing its best to adapt to the pushes and pulls that is put on it. This is true of all bones- if you work out a certain muscle the corresponding bone will get stronger/denser in the places it interacts with that muscle.

[removed]

[removed]

But when you do have 'thunder snow' the lightning effect is truly awesome. I've experienced thunder snow twice in the past 50 years in NW Vermont. It does happen, apparently in very rare meteorological circumstances.

It's a prion disease like mad cow. Protiens are big molecules that fold into a specific shape. The shape matters for how they do their job. Prions are misfolded protiens (same molecule, wrong shape) that cause correctly folded protiens to misfold.

Tldr prions make the protiens in their body stop working.

[removed]

So the good news is that it’s not what I said, eh?

Whilst I can be sure that I can’t say with absolute certainty that the amygdala is the only thing involved, those other parts being affected would definitely not help with the picking of what to encode or store at the least

The key is that heritability is statistical, especially with a big population.

Imagine a trait like height, which is continuous and polygenic. Very tall people and very short people (absent any endocrine or developmental pathology) will mostly have alleles for tall and short, respectively, while average height people will have a mix. If your parents are very tall and very short, you'll get alleles from both sides and likely wind up average. Conversely, if your parents are both average, there's a slim chance you could inherit mostly tall or short alleles, but chances are you'll be average. If both parents are at a height extreme, though, variability is lower.

So to estimate heritability, you regress your height against the average of your parents' heights. With enough people, you get a cloud of points that looks like a football at an angle - sloped, mostly points in the middle, and the middle points are further away from the regression axis than either end.

The instances you're interested in are those in the middle of the graph, far off the axis. And they do exist, but, statistically are balanced out by the ones on the other side of the axis. I'm sure there's more math to be done, but that's where my expertise ends.

>The way I read that 100% heritable corresponds phenotype dependent 100% on genes

This is not correct. It means 100% of the phenotypic variation depends on genes, which is quite different. As a classic example, the heritability of "leggedness" in humans is very low, close to 0. This is because when people don't have two legs, it is usually for environmental reasons (accidents, amputation etc.). However, I'm sure you would agree that having two legs is specified in the human genome.

Heritability is not a conditional probability as you describe it (I know of no such statistic, although I suppose you could empirically calculate one). It is more like a r^2 value in statistics if you are familiar with that.

Another note - h^2 is not necessarily fixed, and only applies in a particular environmental context. Change the environment, and you could in theory change h^2.

The growth of trees record the level of rainfall they received. There wouldn't be a reason for the tree to continue growing without showing evidence. when the tree dies is when it stops growing, not before.

We can date wood from lumber, even when it's from an archaeological site hundreds of years old. This is because we actually have a databank or library of tree rings. We can compare the exact measurements of each ring to the local weather data and just count backwards or forwards. So basically, you don't need to count every single ring, you just need to find a reference point in your local rainfall and then count from there.

The biggest idea to give up is that there is an absolute state of rest. There is no universal stationary or rest state. You can only measure velocity relative to something else. By convention, we measure velocity for many things relative to the surface of the earth because that’s where we exist. We require constant energy to walk forward because we have to push against gravity each step. Cars and trains require constant energy to move forward because of things like friction/drag. In a vacuum (ie space), there is nothing to stop an object from moving. So once it’s set in motion, it will continue in that state until something changes it. But remember again that there is no standard motionless point in the universe. Everything is technically in motion and at rest at the same time depending on how you measure it. We measure a car’s speed relative to the surface of the earth but the surface of the earth is spinning very quickly. The earth itself is moving very quickly around the sun. And the sun is moving very quickly around the center of the galaxy.

Look at it from a different perspective. Why should you assume an object will slow down? The main concept we use to describe an object’s motion is position. We call the rate of change(slope) of position velocity, and we call the rate of change of velocity acceleration. Suppose an object starts at v=0, and we apply a constant force on it to accelerate the object to v=10. So on a graph this looks like a line linearly increasing to 10 and then going straight. Now, if you assume you need a force to increase the velocity up to 10, why wouldn’t you need a force to decrease it? Starting at zero vs starting at v=10 will both be straight lines on a graph. The only way to change velocity is to accelerate it, which requires a force.

Just in case you are confusing velocity with acceleration (very common mistake). Net force = 0 simply means that the object is not changing in velocity. Force is defined as ma, so if f=a=0, there is 0 change in velocity. The problem isn’t that there’s something causing it to keep moving, it’s that nothing is stopping it from moving. You must have a force to change the velocity of an object. Also, all velocity is relative. You could say you’re going 10 m/s. But you could also say everything around you is going at -10 m/s, and you’re going at 0. So how do you stop? You slow down by applying a force so that you move at -10 m/s like everyone else. My point is, velocity being zero is just a convenient starting point, it holds no actual significance because we only care about its change. Whether something is moving or not moving is actually the exact same state. Your velocity is zero on a plane, even though you’re moving. Your velocity is zero on the earth, even though you’re on a rotating object.

Edit: To answer your question: assume the box is moving with some constant velocity v. There must be a net force to change it. That’s it. Force can only affect acceleration, or rate of change of velocity.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Consider energy. When you throw the ball in space, you give it kinetic energy (m*v^2/2) now unless an other force is applied on the ball at some point, this energy has no reason to disappear. It will not fade nor change. So it will keep moving forever.

On earth though, you throw the ball applying kinetic energy, but it also has potential energy (made by gravity as mgh) and air will apply friction energy opposite to the movement vector(proportional to f*v). As energy is conserved, it does not disappear, it will switch from kinetic to potential and inversely. Friction and hits will turn to thermal energy.

Your problem is that you are too much tied to your experience that tells you that you need force to keep something moving. But that was the ingenious approach by Newton to figure out what would happen if there is a single object in vacuum that does not interact with anything.

Your question with pushing an object is related to Newton 3. You, in fact, apply a force on the object that results in a force from the object to you. Since you are much heavier and you also can use additional force to keep you at rest, you will more or less stay in position. The object will then act with a force on the table. If not compensated by other forces such as friction on the ground, this results in the table to move. The same force acts back on the object, but with opposite direction. If the net forces acting on your object (your initial force and the force from the table on the object) do not balance, this results in an acceleration following Newton 2 (F=ma).

Note that at rest, the friction is much stronger. You have to apply a larger force to commence with moving the box, while you need much less force to keep it moving at constant velocity. The reason is the smaller friction of gliding objects.

By the way, box on a table is already quite complex. Consider instead a car at rest. In order to accelerate, the car acts via the wheels with a force on the earth in the opposite direction of where you want to go. To move forward, the force is backward, and vice versa. The earth acts with the same force on your car, but in the opposite direction. This pushes your car in the desired direction. In principle, earth gets accelerated, too, but this is negligible due to the ratio of masses.

Finally, I would like to add that Newton 1 yields a definition of a distinct class of reference frames. They do not rotate or accelerate with respect to each other, and all yield that an object is either at rest or moving with constant velocity in the absence of forces. Our earth is not such a frame, even in the absence of gravity, because it is rotating.

[removed]

I remember reading about nitrogen, urine and Lovelock's Gia Theory. There was something about the way mammals process nitrogen which is inefficient, but provides plant - available nitrogen in their urine. What would this inefficient process be?

Usually in academia these things work on a collaborative basis, so if you are part of an institution that cooperates and contributes then the data is available.

Skipping ''normal'' all together? Yeah. It probably would be seen as an insult.

[removed]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically gravity is the external force which can (and does) change the motion of an object; recall ‘gravitational constant’.

Force changes acceleration. So you need a force to accelerate an object from rest to a constant velocity. But at a constant velocity acceleration is zero and so is the force. There in energy in the object, energy from the initial force used to accelerate it, but it doesn't cost energy to keep moving.