[removed]

Focusing more on your second sentence and taking it down ro the simplest level: imagine after a haircut someone was tasked with reattaching each cut strand of hair to the strand on your head that it *originally" came from. That would be an easier task.

shouldn't it be dense, not necessarily due to materials, but just because it is so high pressure down there? Just wondering

Is the reason they are rare is that they are Siderophilic ?

[removed]

The striate cortex is the part of the brain that processes visual inputs from the right and left optic nerve via the lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus. Essentially the brain can handle and blend both of these inputs and actually relies on it for holding visual spatial memory and depth perception.

I found this article which sounds quite interesting: https://www.universetoday.com/153356/theres-so-much-pressure-at-the-earths-core-it-makes-iron-behave-in-a-strange-way/
Sounds like it does have special properties after all.

Loads aside, I’d heard of pore fluid pressure from heavy precipitation as a possible mechanism for making earthquakes more likely.

I might have expected increased loading to increase earthquakes in areas of normal faulting. All the locations you mentioned on that subject are at convergent boundaries.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Actually because of the fact that you have to eat the insect whole you have to feed them human safe food. On a whole they end up being no more efficient than chicken.

If fed on food waste however they end up being considerably more efficient than other protein sources but unfit for human consumption.

A single atom most definitely cannot have kinetic energy all by itself. SR/GR makes it abundantly clear that you must have something to reference against to make a measurement, and the answer changes depending on which reference point you're using. This should be obvious to anyone who has driven a car. Let's say you have three cars, yourself going 50mph north, a second car ahead of you and to your left going 45mph north, and a third car going 50mph ahead of you headed south. You have to swerve left or right due to an obstacle ahead, which do you choose? Obviously you're going to swerve left, ignoring the velocity of your swerve itself, you're going to overtake the car on your left a a relative 5mph and if you go right you'd be moving 100mph relative. Or you could split the difference and drive directly into the obstacle which is going 50mph relative to you.

[removed]

[removed]

> You might find you can consciously choose which eye is acting as the master; ambidextrous people (me) find this easier than most, or so I understand; we use both sides of our brain more readily.

Well, it's different with vision. Both eyes use both sides of the brain. More specifically, each side of the brain is responsible for one side of the visual field in each eye.

[removed]

No, it's just a little less common than having same side dominance for eye and hand.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15513026/

>in a population with 9.25% left-handedness and 36.53% left-eyedness, 34.43% of right-handers and 57.14% of left-handers are left-eyed.

So 5.29% are left eye + left hand dominant and 59.50% are right eye + right eye dominant, meaning there's concordance in 64.79% of people. The remaining 35.21% have different dominant sides for eye and hand (31.25% left eye + right hand, 3.96% right eye + left hand).

The two retinas are tied/linked together in the brain. Are they tied 1:1, so that each retinal point corresponds to the same retinal point in the other eye? I.e., each retinal point from one eye shares the same binocular neuron with its counterpoint in the other eye?

Hmmmm, never heard of or tried this before.

Didn’t work for me.

If I put my thumb up in front of the object and try to focus both eyes on the object, I see two thumbs, if I focus on my thumb there are two objects about equidistant on each side of my thumb. My thumb moves when I close either eye, although slightly less with the right eye.

I am partially ambidextrose - slight right hand dominance but use both hands for similar tasks and can easily "train" the left hand to be about as effective as the right on anything, like writing, where I’ve developed a more pronounced right-handed preference.

Maybe it’s because I’m moderately near sighted? 😋

[removed]

[removed]

That's not cheap nor easy. You need a whole room per execution, time to fill it with nitrogen and defill it to get the next person in and you have to have compressed nitrogen.

[removed]

However, the solid inner core does have a lower percentage of light elements than the molten outer core surrounding it. The light elements preferentially, although not entirely, stay in the molten core. As the inner core grows from the molten core freezing out, the concentration of light elements in the remaining melt gradually increases. The rising of light elements through the remaining liquid core is the main source of energy (and crucially, entropy) and driver of convection that have sustained Earth's dynamo since the inner core first formed some time in the past ~0.5-1.5 billion years (latent heat of freezing is a minor contribution). Operating a dynamo through this mechanism requires that the molten core have cooled enough to start freezing, and overall be compositionally well-mixed, without significant layering (stratification) by density, i.e. light element concentration.

The need to explain the dynamo also relates to the question of how much radiogenic (and thus heat producing) elements, particularly potassium, are actually in the core. The traditional idea, generally suppoeted by geochemistry and minerla physics, is that this amount is negligible. However, with evidence from the rock record of a dynamo for the past 3.5-4.2+ billion years, this leaves a long gap where it is more difficult to explain what drove the geodynamo.

Prior to the formation of the inner core, the compositional convection due to freezing would not have existed to power the dynamo. Therefore, a different mechanism must have powered the early geodynamo. The primordial heat left over from Earth's formation should not, by itself, be enough to sustain thermal convection for billions of years until inner core nucleation. For geophysicists, the long-lived geodynamo is much easier to explain with a thermally driven dynamo supported by the heated generated by radioactive isotopes such as potassium-40. There are, of course, other proposed explanations, such as the the precipitation of light elements near the core-mantle boundar, that is the top of the then-entirely molten core (Mittal et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2022).

Returning to a more direct possible answer to part of u/VillageNo4 's question, the inner core might be in a 'superionic' state such that the iron metal behave like a solid, while the light elements that did get incorporated into it behave like a liquid (Wang et al., 2021 and He et al., 2022). (See also https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-inner-core-superionic-matter-weird-solid-liquid.) The high temperatures and pressures deep in planetary interiors can produce materials that are very exotic compared to what we see in everyday life. (c.f. Jupiter's liquid metallic hydrogen mantle and possible 'solid' core, which if it exists would not have a well-defined surface.).