What is the difference between theoretically speaking and hypothetically speaking?
The exact same difference that’s there is between a Theory & a Hypothesis…Lets proceed to understand:Theory(definition):: A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc.Hence:: A group of linked ideas intended to explain something and confirmed by observation, experiments or tests. A theory provides a framework for explaining observations. The explanations are based on assumptions. From the assumptions follows a number of possible hypotheses. They can be tested to provide support for, or challenge, the theory….Hypothesis(definition):: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved OR or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation.Hence::An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation...simply the antecedent of a condition/statement or study…a proposition made as a basis for reasoning,….So a person can choose to describe and present using either approaches…and in doing so..When using Theory…it’s Theoretically Speaking…almost a confirmationWhen following a Hypothesis it’s Hypothetically speaking…still largely an assumptionHope this helps…!!
Hypothetically speaking, where should one hide a body? Don’t worry, it’s all hypothetical
What a completely non-suspicious question!Ok, what you want to do first, hide the body in your attic for the moment, make sure you wear gloves and cover any skin showing to alleviate risk of DNA evidence getting you caight in the future, invest in air fresheners to mask the smell of decay. If you have any plans for friends to come over, do not call the events off, it will only make people suspicious.Then, buy a boat, it will be expensive but if you don’t want to get caught, you’ll have to bite the bullet and pay up. Also but some weights and handcuffs, buy more than you think you’ll need.Stash the body and the weights in the boat, it should come with a tarp, if not you can purchase one. Attach it to your car with a trailer and without telling anyone drive to a beach or dock or anywhere you can launch the boat into the ocean without attracting suspicion, I must stress, make sure that absolutely no one knows. Not a single person. Perhaps bring fishing or diving equipment, in case people find out about your trip, more money but you want to remain free right?Ok, you drive the boat out into the ocean until you find somewhere suitably isolated and deep. Attach the weights to the body using the handcuffs and drop the body off the side of the boat. Make sure that the corpse sinks before driving off, if it doesn’t sink with four (one to each limb) attach more. Keep adding weight until the body sinks. Then maybe do some actual fishing or diving to make your story more believable pictures would be useful.If you’ve followed the steps correctly you have disposed of the body forever and will remain free. If they somehow find the body within your lifetime DNA evidence will not be present to convict you, no one will be able to tie the body to you. Most likely they won’t find it, maybe in a few centuries someone will find rusted and degraded handcuffs and weights all in a small area for some unfathomable reason, maybe even severely degraded clothing. By that time you’ll be long gone.
Variation is essential for natural selection. The advantages associated with generation of variation has allow?
> Explain three mechanisms that produce genetic variability. 1. Mutations 2. Crossover 3. Fertilization (sexual reproduction) > List FOUR lines of evidence used to support the theory of evolution by natural selection http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100417095917AAdePxy > Explain Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Allele frequencies in a population remain constant unless something is occurring to make them change (I call Hardy and Weinberg the Captains Obvious). > list at least five conditions that must be fulfilled to maintain Hardy-weinberg equilibrium This never happens in nature, but hypothetically speaking, 1. No mutations 2. No migration 3. No genetic drift (implying the population is infinitely large) 4. No selection 5. Random mating (which is covered under "no selection" but people like to list it separately) Practically speaking you are never going to get random mating in an infinitely large population. You're more likely to marry a girl from your home town than you are to marry a girl from New Delhi. > What is the biological significance of the Hardy-Weinberg Equation Life seems to have gotten along just fine for more than three and a half billion years before Hardy and Weinberg came up with their two equations. p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 p + q = 1 The equations can be used to determine whether or not your population is evolving with respect to the gene that you're interested in. If the allele frequencies you actually observe in the population don't match what you'd predict from the equations, then your population is evolving with respect to that gene.
If the universe is expanding, does that mean we will never be able to reach other galaxies?
Space is indeed moving but the motion is circular not inflationary. Expansionism derives from projecting our default Euclidean way of regarding local space onto large scale space, which follows kinetic Riemannian geometry, not static Euclidean. All those charts, graphs, illustrations of how space behaves are totally misleading. Big bang is a modern day creation myth that violates the 1st law of T.D. that energy cannot be created. Energy is timeless. The universe is not a creation and has no age, it exists forever. Please view this short animated video which depicts the kinetic Riemannian geometry of space as I understand it. It also addresses (successfully, IMO) the wave / particle dichotomy:
Didn't Daenerys allow the Iron Islands to be independent if she won the Iron Throne? Why is she making such a big deal out of Jon being the King in the North?
The Iron Islands weren't really given independence. Dany made very clear she would still be queen of the seven kingdoms, it would be six without them. Basically she gave them the same deal Dorne got, they get to keep their traditional title for their ruler and traditional laws. Presumably as a queen Yara would have technically ranked higher than other lords and be addressed as ‘your grace’ rather than ‘my lady,’ but this would only really matter for seating arrangements at formal banquets. Practically speaking she had no greater independence than any other paramount lord. Dany would probably grant Jon the same arrangement, she never asks him to renounce his title, she only asked that he bend the knee.
What would we do if two alien species arrived at Earth at the same time and waged war for decades against each other to claim Earth?
If they can (and do) wage war in the space off-Earth and the collateral damage doesn’t fall to Earth, we might be ok for a while.If Earth is actually the battleground, then we will all be caught in the crossfire - the only chance we have, unless we are strong enough to fight both of them off at the same time, is to keep them pitted against each other and then take on the victor.An alternative would be to ally with the weaker of the two to help them prevail. That would at least level the field of combat when we have to turn on the side we helped to “win”.
Idealism refutes Ayn Rand's Objectivism?
@JD Location implies a position in space really. You can still talk about the location of a dot, as in a cartesian graph, without other dots being there. However it ultimately is irrelevent. The concept of location is still around regardless if there were no objects in existence. The knowledge of its meaning is already known, no further entities are required. As for consciousness, it does not need an "object" to exist. Again that is presupposing your very conclusion. Consciousness just requires nothing more than thought or the observer. How it defines it's self is irrelevant, only that its existence is shown without the need of other objects. The perceptions one sees can "educate" the mind, but they themselves have no independent existence. Funny how you say I don't understand Rand, I guess nobody does. My arguments here are a response of the arguments made by several other Objectivists, I guess they didn't understand Rand according to you. But misre