Thanks Kasic, that was very tactful of you and I hope you heard the tinge of sarcasm I used with my "Black Hole" question, I'm easily amused today.
My serious question was the last one about the naming of royal blue blue since it's really purple. Why isn't it just named royal purple?
I was torn between asking what the speed of taste or the speed of thought was and opted for thought.
Just a light-hearted question so, for us humans, how long does it take for us to smell and then taste something before our brain can recognize and send to our conscious mind the correct answer? I'm just curious.
There is not set speed, you're brain speeds and slows down neurons based on the act it's doing.
how deep is a black hole?
Black holes don't all have the same mass, so it varies.
If a black hole really exists in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle then is time travel a real possibility?
1) The center of the Bermuda Triangle is not a black hole because A) We've been there B) If it was, we wouldn't be alive.
2) I don't see the correlation between having a black hole somewhere, and time travel, but still A) You can't survive a trip through a black hole B) There's no logic behind a black hole being a method of time travel C) The only time travel that could be caused with a black hole would relate to Einstein's theory of general relativity, but you don't need a black hole for that.
My serious question was the last one about the naming of royal blue blue since it's really purple. Why isn't it just named royal purple?
The color name "royal blue" is used very loosely, and it tends to be different depending on the object in question. Most of the time, it's used to describe the rich blue color seen in blue pens. Sometimes you will see it describing the deep bluish-indigo color it originally described, but in this day and age most people accept it just as a fancy way to describe a rich, hearty blue.
Since when is royal blue not blue? Last time I checked it was as blue as it was royal. And it's pretty royal.
@ Ernie15, I just Wiki'd the color and I'm going with the traditional color that had (more than just a tinge of purple)more purple added to a base of deep dark blue not the cobalt blue that defines the WWW color. I can't provide the url for the interactive color wheel but it's the color they call Winsor.
This question is stupid because egg and chicken is one individuum at different stages. And mutations occuring in between don't affect it's progeniture, so the egg that will give birth to a chicken was laid by a non-chicken. Therefore the egg, if anything.[/quote] Well, technically, I think the chicken came first, then it laid the egg, starting the cycle again. It doesn't really matter, but I'm pretty sure it is the chicken.
Well, technically, I think the chicken came first, then it laid the egg, starting the cycle again. It doesn't really matter, but I'm pretty sure it is the chicken.
Yeah but the chicken necessarily hatched from a chicken egg (the egg IS the chicken, as much as the embryo is the human), while the chicken egg wasn't necessarily laid by a chicken (if you put a strict line between ancestor and chicken (which is stupid but anyway...)). Therefore the egg.
Ever know what happens to an egg that isn't being kept at a steady temperature? Let's just say that after a week it can float in water. I'm also going with the chicken that came first.
Ever know what happens to an egg that isn't being kept at a steady temperature? Let's just say that after a week it can float in water. I'm also going with the chicken that came first.
You're all assuming that if the egg was first, there's no brooding, which is wrong. The animal that laid the egg is brooding it, it simply isn't a chicken yet. Of course the chicken embryo couldn't survive without brooding, but this assumes that either the chicken or the egg magically appeared on it's own, which is the reason for the popular (and artificial) "loop" arguments in the chicken/egg "debate". I don't know if the origin of this lies in creationist notions, but any way it doesn't make sense.