>I'm not commenting on what the article was stating

Then why did you say:

>No, they're saying the rate at which the population will grow will peak at 8.6 billion people LMAO.

​

> just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

Which is what the first person in this thread said when you got snarky with them. The headline says rate, but the article clearly talks about the overall population, despite the word rate being incorrectly used.

The rate peaked already. It's in decline now. The article is about the population peaking in 2050 and then declining for the second half of the century to 7 billion by 2100. Total, not the rate.

The rate is already declining...

I'm amazed you keep commenting without reading past the headline.

Bad headline. If the growth rate peaks at 8.6 billion what does that even mean? It'll keep growing but slightly slower after that? No, the article says the population will peak there, not the rate.

Most of it is not, the milky way isn't millions of light years across.

This isn't free energy, that's still impossible as far as we know.

If they were really pulling it out of nothing they wouldn't have to also inject it elsewhere. The quantum foam isn't nothing.

From the perspective of the photon, there is no journey at all. It begins and ends at the same moment with zero time or distance in between. This is why a photon's "point of view" is just not a valid reference frame for any measurement.

The answer is simple, how would the dice remember what you rolled before? Each roll is an independent event, there's no memory of the last one that affects the next one.

I think it's important to add "at least" before 160. We can only set a lower bound on the size.

>So the big bang did not follow the rules of physics and happened faster than the speed of light then?

The expansion of space is not limited by the speed of light. That speed applies to things in space, not to space itself.

It would be a bad decision for her to get back with you after you dumped her for someone else. Spare her the drama of having to reject you.

>People seem very irrationally angry at your question

I don't see a single reply that looks angry and there are no hidden or deleted replies, what am I missing?

Seems easily solvable with a pair of wire cutters and then a trip to the orthodontist the next day to have the wire replaced. Not a trip to the hospital.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the ball end that unscrews is what was stuck in the braces. How would you get a hold of it to unscrew it?

So every contractor ever?

*decrease

I personally read it in Austin Powers' accent.

That's not the case in the US, but the requirements about the image composition are pretty exact.

Headline makes it sound like splitting seawater was the hard part that we couldn't do before.

Of course they're scams. Their target audience is people who would take financial advice from an MMA fighter.

The Toadies - Tyler

I really want to but it seems like a huge gamble trying to schedule vacation time around such a variable thing.

You're in denial.

Right but the gesture this post is about is about showing that our hands are empty, not holding up a weapon over our heads.