I think, they are relative to each other. Like, dark eye color is dominant. Other gene might have been expressing its own color too, but the dark color is what we see effectively at the end.

Different genes may have different mechanisms, but the idea is how a single gene can't be enough for making that function effective.

For example, we might have three eye colors which, one is dominant to other, and the last one is recessive to both. Like, A > B > C or something. If gene A somehow would get disappear from the genetic pool, then we might start calling B simply a dominant gene, instead of comparing it with another.

>“earth” element pulled things towards the center of the universe

Actually, in a sense, that seems correct. I don't know much about this stuff, but it sounds like, if it wasn't the mysterious expanding force, all the matter might have a tendency of pulling each other back into the origin of the universe.

Sometimes I wonder how those ancient Greek philosophers predicted so many things. I guess we owe them a lot, and also the Renaissance people, who I heard saved many writings from those ancient times. The whole science sounds like built on them.

That's a fun video. Thanks!

I've seen the fabric metaphor before, but I'm still having difficulty on not separating time and space from each other. I think now I'm very close to understanding though.

I'm starting to think that space is not really a volume, and it's more of a relative thing. Like if right now we could get rid of the half of the matter in space, like draw a line and cut it into two pieces like a pie, and simple erase one side, then the new center of the space would be the center of mass of the remaining half. Or let's say, if there was only one particle in the whole universe, then there would be no space since it couldn't move relative to anything. It couldn't have speed. So, space is not actually an empty volume, if there aren't more particles that can move relative to each other. What do you think? It's not correct, right? Is it?

I see, but that's weird.

In this sense, if this time-speed relation is continuous, the faster a thing will move, the less time flow it will experience. And as someone else suggested, if one could accelerate further, then it would have to see things going back, but that confuses me and it's another story, because me accelerating further would require me being observed as going backward too, but I'd be going the same direction... Then perhaps it's an automatic thing that, after this speed limit, the direction of the vector just rotates itself backwards? But that doesn't sound nice either.

I guess we will have to assume, speed of photon is the maximum, and zero is the minimum, and there can happen no bending beyond these extremes due to some dimensional restrictions or something.

Then, in a similar sense, something with zero speed, should experience the whole time being as fast as a moment, like the cosmos gets born and dies at the same time, yet it might have to stay still at the center of the universe for that, because its coordinates should never change to never have any speed, and at the beginning it was a point, I guess.

Does stretchedness of space also change depending on matter/energy/particles stuff, like time does? If so, then in which direction? If we have more particles accumulated in a point space-time, time seems to be streching up, how about space? Does it shrink? Bend? Enlarge? Do distances change? Or is it just that it takes more particles per volume unit, like its volume getting stretched up?

I guess I'm still thinking them separately, but if I can get the space perspective as I did with the time, perhaps I could try to blend them together easier.

That's weird. If I was a photon, trying to travel from a lamp on Earth to some very far away planet, you say, time would stop for me. But if time stops, there can't be motion, and I would never leave from that lamp on Earth in the first place. I would just glimpse into existence, and stop forever, or something like that.

Or I guess you mean like, everything stops, but me. In that case, my birth into existence and arrival on my final destination would be instantaneous. I'd get born, travel, and die at the same time.

Ooooor, that would be how everything else would see me as, happening instantaneous, while I'm actually having lots of fun during my travel, seeing how nothing is moving, perhaps except other photons. Is that it? But this couldn't be true either, because we don't see light's movement instantaneous, we see it with a delay depending on its distance, like we keep seeing old stars that aren't there anymore...

It doesn't make sense. Sorry. Perhaps I shouldn't have put myself in place of a photon. I don't know.

But Wikipedia says, it's 299,792,458 meters per second in vacuum. And we get to see things happening far away way later due to this delaying factor. Like, a star explodes, but we keep seeing it, because its light from past is still on its way.

Also, I still don't get how this is related to time for two colonies living on two different planets. I have a bad feeling that you're trying to mess with me, pal.

What gets me confusing is people talking about light speed.

How I understand this is, time flows slower or is more stretched at where there is more energy/matter/particles stuff, and the difference of speed or stretchedness of time between two places results as gravitational force towards the slower or more stretched time-space which has more energy/particle/matter stuff.

In short, I guess, when we are having only one generation of people living and dying on earth, on a planet with much less gravity, there might live perhaps three or four generations of people (this may or may not be possible due to people not being able to survive or reproduce in very low gravity, but let's ignore it since I don't know how to calculate that).

I still don't know what the light of speed has to do with that, since speed is related to distance, and what time is related to are energy density or gravity. I'd appreciate if someone could somehow grant me access to that part of this wisdom, that is teaching it to me somehow. Just pick my example of two planets if possible.

> When cells split, they kind of divide stuff up between them like marital assets during a divorce.

That was good.

That sounds like video of a frog inside melting ice, which then "comes back to life". I don't remember where I saw it.

Also, I've heard that Japanese researchers have succeeded cryogenic life sustaining of some fish.

And last but not least, there was a man got frozen, but somehow "came back to life". He was talking about his experience of being nearly dead, a state of not thinking anything, a blank mind.

That's the correct answer. And that's also why they have put Deadpool into that torturing machine, if you know what I mean. Hmm... In that sense, it could be said that life is a torturing machine in hope of randomly developing wisdom in individuals, which makes sense because it seems to be happening as rarely as the good mutations, right? Right? RIGHT?? :P :D

Don't know about humans, but I've recently read that some species of wasp have genes to produce specific type of virus in their ovaries, which, when they inject their offspring into host's body, the virus infect the host to suppress their immune system, so the offspring stays safe. A parasitic system using or supported by another parasitic system. Amazing.

In case you don't know, apparently, some species of wasp inject their offspring into some caterpillars, which then come out of the host's body as larva by piercing through their skin or something. I guess stuff like this is what inspired Alien movies.

>If you don't care about the job it's always a pleasure to reply that you won't work with people who believe in pseudo-science.

I may actually do that. Companies don't like my personality anyway. For some reason, they assume I have a tendency of lying or destroying stuff. Yet, I've never beaten anyone for not hiring me. In fact, I've never beaten anyone, except that once when I tried to kill someone when I was five or something. But it was an instinct in the heat of fight, I guess.

You said, "Generally". How can they change anyway? I've never heard of horizontal gene transfer or such between host and transplanted tissue. At most, expression levels might change, I guess. Hmm... Actually, could the tissue be genetically modified via gene therapy before the operation? I mean, theoretically, like if the tissue could stay alive for that much time and also not lose their cells' specifications. It might be interesting.

I see. Thank you for the explanation.

I remember people talking about personalized drugs for cancer in past, which wouldn't have the problems of infection or immune response, but I'm guessing that would be extremely expensive.

Perhaps the researchers can find a way to target all sorts of cancer cells, and somehow develop a vaccine, so the immune system itself can cleanse any possible cancer. They can't even find a general vaccine for flu though. So, I don't have much hope. May be if they could target cells with something other than their outer surface... But they must have already been thinking about it. Hard stuff.

I think cancer cells are making themselves more cancer already, I mean, mutating more, getting broken more, getting out of control more, spreading more... What you need to do is to either fix them, or kill them. Killing sounds easier.

But thinking about it now, perhaps if you could specifically find and broke them to the point which they can't function at all anymore, that might work too. But still, if you could find them, why not just kill them?

The Newcastle virus stuff which /u/Med_vs_Pretty_Huge has mentioned above sounds like something you may be interested in. In wikipedia it says that it prefers infecting and killing cancer cells more than they do ordinary cells, somehow.

This shouldn't be the one, cuz wikipedia says that this one doesn't cause cancer but on the contrary, it prefers infecting and killing cancer cells. So, it's the vice versa situation. It's also interesting though. I mean, does it really work? And if so, then why don't they use it more often instead of chemotherapy? Guess even they don't know if it works or not. Hope they make it useful somehow.

You say blood transfusion. This doesn't necessarily mean a cancer cell that is being past.

There is a programmable virus that has the ability to start cancer on target tissue (that is you can program it to target a specific type of tissue, like lung for example). I don't remember the name, but I think it was first discovered on chicks. Now, I'm thinking that if one person somehow had that or similar type of virus capable of starting cancer, and they had a blood transfusion...

I find this answer the most explaining, yet it's missing one thing.

People speak like, predators can learn what to eat and what not to eat, like with taste. But it has nothing to do with this. Because, the learned experience cannot pass to new generation. It would require the poison to be non-fatal, and the species of predator would have to be intelligent enough, so they could teach it. And still, some variants of predators might just try and like the experience, due to having mutations on their tasting receptors. So, how did they co-evolved?

Probably, once upon a time, predators who hunted those creatures varied by their instinct or senses of hunting creatures with specific shapes or colors, and those who liked eating colorful things died more and more often due to colorful preys containing more and more fatal poisons. This led to survival and production of those more who don't prefer eating colorful preys, and those who are more colorful "preys" (they are actually not preys anymore at this point).

Yet, time to time some mutations can give arise to the old variants of predators who liked to hunt colorful creatures, but they would keep dying, so their population in the pool would be neglected. On the other hand, if some mutations would create a "prey" that are colorful yet not poisonous now, it might increase its number in the genetic pool easily for at least some time due to predators not eating them anyway. But such mutations must be rare, and variants on the predators' side might eventually balance things back to this current state.

So, it may have a secret wave function in the background, which, things tend to converge towards this current state every time they deviate a little, rather than going the opposite direction, due to the path on the opposite direction being way longer compared to the current state of things (that is colorful being fatal). So, things must have been kinda locked down into this state.

Last but not least, it's amazing how it's not even about only one species of prey and one species of predator, but among many species of preys and predators. It must be due to many species hunting the same prey, and many species being hunted by the same predator.

By the way, everything above is kind of my prediction of how things happened and keep happening.