And most importantly the reason why most craters are circular is because of the high impact velocities. The space rocks are so fast relative to eachother that angle doesn't usually matter, the rock simply detonates on impact. And like all explosions, the resulting crater is circular.

I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. It is still a significant factor.

For example, a similar concept applies when prescribing medication. Overweight people have larger volumes and thus, depending on meds, need more to reach the same effect.

yes, but that's countered by living long meaning you can take up way more, than an organism that e.g. is larger but lives shorter.

Water has less than a 120° angle.

In the case of carbon it's sp² hybridized, other hybridizations like sp³ form angles of ~109.45°, while sp forms 180°.

Something like bor that's sp³ hybridized also can form hexagons due to the same reason. It's simply triangular shaped.

Also also: That's just the average bond angle. Due to temperature it fluctuates.

Different tardigrade species evolved in different harsh environments. E.g. where there are harsh droughts, or extreme colds.

So some species can e.g. survive the cold outer space by drying themselves up as a side effect.

Another counterpoint I may have is that in order to prevent fires, inert atmospheres (mainly SF₆ afaik) are used, which itself has a very high gwp. However that only becomes an issue during leaks.

Generally they are still way better than any fossil fuel.

There is no hard limit of where atmosphere ends and outer space starts. It just gets less dense the further one is away.

Molecules can just get yeeted into space, never to be seen again. Other molecules from other planets can come to ours, ours can go to others. They can be struck by solar wind, getting stripped, or they can absorb alpha/beta particles n do funky weak-force-stuff

everthying that is inside the event horizon is automatically part of the black hole, as nothing sub-light can escape. Since the particles are created at the boundary, one can be barely on the inside while the other is barely on the outside. The one outside can escape while the one inside is doomed. Since the energy comes from the point at the exact boundary, which is part of the black hole, it looses that energy and thus mass.

There is no bias, gravity [unlike other forces] does not discriminate between particles and anti-particles [they have positive mass after all].

Simply because 2 particles are created out of the field at the event horizo, the black hole looses the energy/mass [as they are interchangeable] of 2 particles. However since it can suck one of them right in (doesn't matter which) it can gain the energy of 1 particle back, while the other is ejected. Hence it has lost the energy of 1 particle.

That's why they simulated it

Since there are fields everywhere and particles are just disturbances of the field, there can be random particle-antiparticle creation by "borrowing" some of the energy of that field. Usually they near instantly eliminate eachother, putting that energy right back.

Near black holes there is a chance that on the event horizon those pairs are created, one particle on the inside, one on the outside. The one on the outside can escape while the one on the inside won't (as it needs to travel at more than the speed of light). Hence energy is taken out of the field at the event horizon for the creation of 2 particles, but the black hole only gains one of them, hence it is a net energy loss of the black hole. That is also called Hawking radiation.

Also those thermodynamic rules are more of like a general trend and less of a rule that applies in every single instance.

Well, for the most part because they can spin different kinds of strings, depending on what the purpose of them is (sticky/non-sticky in this case)

They also have oils on their feet that they can secrete in order to un-stuck themselves

Yes, those mutations are the change? Also the DNA becomes more and more susceptible to harmful mutations, which is a part of aging, that's why I would not necessarily call it the same.

Not to be the "actually"🤓 guy, buuuuut:

> I think a more appropriate word for "a lot" is "often".

I'd say "a lot" is more appropriate, as "often" seems to kind of imply that it's the same change all over your body.

> Any time a mutation occurs, it alters what was already there, it doesn' create something new.

Well.... technically it can ||a mutation like e.g. duplication can happen, where that gene can then mutate and start doing wonky stuff||

> Between extreme causes of mutation you can find autoimmune diseases and cancer

Very true, those are then the examples that are bad for the whole organism. As you already said most mutations don't really do much, and if they do usually PCD sets in or the cell simply won't function and die off that way.

DNA does change over your whole lifetime. A lot, actually.

That being said the question was about gene expression, not manipulation.

1. Generally polar and non-polar are rather subjective terms, as like most things this is on a spectrum and thus depends on where the line (in electronegativity) is drawn.

2. The dipole of a molecule just gives the average distribution of electrons across a molecule. It does not give you information about the individual bonds.

3. That being said for simple (diatomic) molecules the rule does apply (polar bonds = polar molecule and vice versa).

4. Ozone is bent, hence it has a dipole. Just like e.g. water, which also has a dipole. Carbon dioxide on the other hand does not have a permanent dipole, but can have an induced dipole (through radiation absorption or collision with other molecules, where it also gets bent)