You don’t get a period when you’re pregnant. Are you asking if women with thicker lining have easier pregnancies in terms of symptoms?

It's not really like that, since tau and pi only differ by a factor of 2.

A useful equation is, for example d = 1/p, where distance is measured in parsecs and p is measured in arcseconds. If you used meters, it's not just a factor of 2, it's something like 3.086×10^(16) d = 1/p. With distances as big as parsecs, there's no intuition you can use to understand the size, so it really doesn't matter what unit you use. It just makes the most sense to use the natural unit instead of the arbitrary one

Spinning it keeps it wide open and keeps a steady momentum so you can be ready to throw at any moment. Because you're typically working with a moving target, you don't always know, in advance, exactly when you're going to throw it, and you need to be ready as you're "closing in" on whatever you're trying to lasso.

This feels like a Pi vs Tau argument. Constants can be moved around in equations and units can be changed if enough people wanted.

I get why they don't change now, but I wish they would have. /shrug

I'm not sure how random the placement of the embryo is, but I do know it can attach in the fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy) and it can attach to either the front or back of the uterus, which affects how much you can feel kicks from the baby (fewer if it attached to the front)

Yes, because we can change the direction of gravity on pregnant women. It's called having them lay down for extended periods of time

Given there have been no zero G pregnancies, do we actually know this?

This is interesting and I could see how the weak gravity could cause biological problems like fetal orientation. Experimentally, I’m sure it’s (obviously) never been measured.

I think we’re also assuming the entire pregnancy was experienced in zero g. If the mother experienced a change g-force… that baby is gone. There are too many added biological variables to assume things would go right.

I also know nothing about the details of embryonic cell development. Hopefully someone with more insight can help us out. Is the place where a fertilized cell attaches to the uterine wall random?

I believe that would also result in the extinction of the human race.... Seems like a lot of ppl are already on board for that. Also, some people catch these viruses from family - ie not all STDs are spread via sex alone.

See how well rounding up groups of undesirable people goes.

Hint it never goes well and is a terrible idea

my eye doctor told me a story about an older dude in england. lived alone. his children came round now and then to make sure he was looking after hisself and his cupboards had food in them. for a decade or so this was the routine. one night he had a bad fall and during the course of his recovery and assessment if he could still live alone he went the doctors, they sent him to the eye doctors, the eye doctors concluded he was fully blind and had been for a long time

​

There was a bit of investigation into neglect from the children had they just let him bumble around this house fully blind for a few years but ultimately they concluded his brain had built an image of his house, the furniture, everything within the property from when he could still see stuff, so though he could not see, he could still see how it all was in his brain so he never seemed like he was blind to his children

​

I'd love to know if there's a link to that. It's a story that always stuck with me and made me wonder.

Let's limit the answer to food/drink taste, which is actually more smell than taste. The brain is always trying to figure out if something in the mouth is good nutritious food or bad poison. In general, bitter and decomposed or moldy things=bad, sweet/salty/fatty/proteiny things=good, and sour is variable. The first time you eat something, you have limited information beyond basic patterns. Young babies need lots of nutrition and have parents to help, so they like all kinds of things, but toddlers are capable of finding something toxic, so they get pickier.

So, the first time you try coffee, your brain's reaction is likely "this is very strongly flavored and bitter, probably poison." Try it a few more times, and your brain gets used to it, confirms nothing bad was associated with it last time, and may start to associate it with positives like mild stimulation. Conversely, if you throw up after eating a food you used to like, it may be a while before you regain your desire for it--now your brain has evidence it was poison and should be avoided.

your stomach can destroy most, but not all. furthermore, it doesn't always destroy the toxins that these germs produce, either in life or as they die. food poisoning caused by salmonella, botulism, and E Coli are often results of the toxins they leave behind rather than the bacteria themselves.

[removed]

I'm not sure I can explain it very well, but it's simply the "acquired" but you mentioned already. Through repeated exposure, you can make yourself come to like or accept a particular taste you didn't like before.

Traditionally "bad" tasting things like coffee and beer are a good example I think. At first, hoppy or bitter, we don't like it, but the more it is tried, and the different types we try, the more flavours we learn to detect and appreciate, going back to the original, you may find you taste something completely different, or you just started on something bad in the first place.

There are two forms of food-poisoning: too many pathogens that then grow in your body and make you sick out both ends while your immune system fights the growth, and toxins from spoilage that will have a more immediate rejection from the body.

The ones that grow in you have pretty good resistance to acids. (All are slightly different) And toxins just are, so acid won't necessarily break them down.

[removed]

it's defined as the average distance

[deleted]

You will gain fat if you eat a calorie

If you work out quite a bit but still eat an excess- consider as an example the novice sumo wrestler, eating 5000 kcals a day and expending 4000- you will gain mostly subcutaneous fat, or fat under your skin. This isn't completely harmless, but generally the effects detrimental to you are limited to a little bit of inflammation and a strain on your joints like knees and hips, which are only "engineered" to take a certain amount of weight.

If you are not working off a lot of those calories constantly, you will start to accrue fat around your organs, which is much worse for you. Your organs will have to work much harder to do their jobs in the middle of all that fat, and you will start to edge towards lipotoxicity as your body struggles to deal with free fatty acids, which seems to play at least partially a causative role in all sorts of nasty diseases, including the insulin resistance that leads to diabetes.

In addition increases in body fat increase your blood pressure, in turn increasing your risk of strokes and TIAs if you add in drinking and smoking the risks dramatically increase.

I guess so.. but AU doesn't even make sense. Considering the Earth does not have a constant distance from the Sun. So don't you still need a conversion factor somewhere?

It's also important to note that the baby (well before birth) will flip upside down as a result of gravity. Without gravity the likelihood of a breach birth (feet first) is very high, and a breach birth is very dangerous.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions based on a false premise are not allowed on ELI5. A question based on a false premise is one based on information that may not be true, or may not be the whole truth, and needs that information to stand as a question.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

I used to get nauseas too even just after 1 cig sometimes. I miss it some times especially when i'm at work.