[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The shaved ice would cool down the soup faster, because it would melt faster. But after both were completely melted, it would have cooled down the same.

With humans specifically, a lot of it has to do with dispersal and competitive niche exclusion.

Competitive niche exclusion means that you can't (usually, there are some exceptions) have two species occupying the same biological niche. A niche is a way of making a living...the foods you eat, the places you nest, the times you are active, etc. Other hominids were similar to humans, and modern humans have a very broad niche (we eat a lot of different things, live in a lot of different places, etc).

So it's not surprising that there's no other surviving hominids where humans are...you'd expect us to push them out of their niches. Earlier hominids seem to have narrower niches and so could survive alongside each other in some cases. And often, animal species occupy narrow niches that allow them to avoid competing, for example similar species of fish may specialize in living in different parts of a lake. So you get a lake full of several species of sunfish, for example, where one eats snails on the bottom, another eats bugs in the shoreline plants, and another eats plankton in the middle of the lake.

The other relevant factor is dispersal. Humans are very good at dispersing. Of course, you can fly around the world in a jet today, but even 10000 years ago we had walked or boated almost across the whole planet. And people didn't stop moving once they got to new places, people kept moving around between most of these populations. Most species aren't this good at dispersing, so you get one species here and another similar species there, and you wind up with a bunch of similar species in different parts of the world, originating from isolated populations. People just move around too much for this to happen.

Humans aren't unique, there are other species where there are no other similar animals for various reasons, but this why humans wound up this way.

chemical force: think about it in a terms of "chemical species" force. as for partial pressure in a mix of gazes, you can see the global pressure (like surrounding air) and the specific distribution of different species in the same volume.

yes osmotic pressure is a very important force in the circulation of ions AND water through membrane. maybe life itself (survey of one cell like for unicellular) rely on this mechanism. disturb the membrane integrity (with detegents like soap, reagents like alcohol, and specific drugs binding ions transporters like botulin toxin) and you kill the cell. so the cell life requests a very fine tuning of inside ions concentrations to maintain proper osmotic pressure inside (and so the water concentration itself) and this mechanism requires itself some energy (to be used by active ion membrane carrier). not only for nerve cells, but any cell in the organism.

hope it helps !

edit : life is a complex system. our actual knowledge must be take with humility and scientific explanations TENDS to describe it with a lot of accuracy. dont mind on your teacher for such simplification. it is a way to teach, not a way to lie. I have learnt in very different ways what could be a "protein" all along school classes but only in university I ultimately learn what was behind. and all past lessons looks "fantasy" to me now. dont be afraid to learn new things with baby steps !

Your teacher/professor is correct in that both the concentration gradient and the electric field contribute. The Gibbs free energy change of moving an ion across the membrane follows this equation:

ΔG = RTln(c_inside/c_outside) + zFV_membrane

So the first part would be the energy involved in moving with/against the concentration gradient, the second the energy involved in moving with/against the electric field.

[removed]

[removed]

The same, I guess? When it comes down to it, binocular correspondence is as precise as the location of photoreceptors in the retina, at least this is true for central (foveal) vision, it might be less precise than that in the periphery.

But.. when it comes to binocular correspondence, the correspondence isn't really between receptors or pixels ("points") in the retina - starting with the optic nerve, visual neurons have "receptive fields" that cover a fuzzy region (but still clearly localized) of the retina. So correspondence isn't technically between points but between areas.

But those areas are at many scales, and I tell you it gets really complicated really fast when you look at it closely: pick a point in the binocular visual field (like, look at a single pixel on your screen). This point, if small enough, might fall on a single photoreceptor in each eye - photoreceptors at "corresponding positions". But the correspondence is being encoded, in the brain, by many many many neurons with receptive fields of different sizes, all of which overlap that point.

I guess this can suggest to you how to think about binocular correspondence. There is a tiny point of light shining out in space, and you look at it. Certain monocular neurons (in each eye, and downstream from there all the way to primary visual cortex) are excited by this point of light. Starting in primary visual cortex (and especially after that) there will be binocular neurons that are excited by that point, and that would be excited by it even if one eye were closed (meaning, they "want" a specific point in space, regardless of which eye it came from). That is, those binocular neurons are encoding the same point in space, and this is the basis of binocular correspondence.

If you move the point of light over so that it excites a different set of receptors, then the downstream activity will also shift, and some different neurons will be excited. But there will be overlap: some binocular neurons will be excited by both positions (they have "large receptive fields") but some will be more selective, excited only by one position or another. So not only is there binocular correspondence encoded, but it is multiscale - there is correspondence between points of many sizes.

[removed]

The spirit of your point is correct. We can only see fairly close stars with our naked eyes, but we can see great big stars that are further than 50 ly. Rigel is like 800 ly away and even I can see it.

The arm bones are in there as well across the top part of the wing coming out of the shoulder.

[removed]

[removed]

JWST is a narrow-field instrument, so it’s ill suited for survey type tasks; it would take an extremely long time to map some appreciable fraction of the sky, and anyway parts of the sky are out of its reach because of the need to remain behind the sunshade. But the NGRST, due to launch in 2026 or 2027, is designed specifically for surveys in visible light/near infrared. Its field of view is approximately the angular size of the full moon, which is an area about 100x larger than that of Hubble or JWST. Mapping the whole sky at that level of detail would still require a couple hundred thousand separate exposures!

[removed]

What might the energy partitioning be, when the equipartition theorem is not applicable?

Question background. There is an equipartition theorem, and it is without doubt correct. But it has its conditions of applicability, which are not always satisfied. There are well-known examples of a chain of connected oscillators, the spectral density of a black body, the new example of an ideal gas in a round vessel. How may or may not the energy be partitioned in such cases, when the equipartition theorem is not applicable? Can anyone provide more systems with known uneven laws of energy partitioning?

What evidence

Okay thank you

> and evolution was rather rapid fire by comparison to today

Important to note that we are in the middle of a mass extinction period.