?

Those questions are stupid and annoying. There is only ONE safe method to come out negative in a drug test: not to take any drugs. All others must be noted that all those cheats, walk throughs or come arounds are known to the test developers too. And they have more resources than you to cheat the cheat. In short: there is not ONE certain method to cheat a drug test. So stop asking. And stop drugging.

Everybody knows that our brain has quintillions of receptors constantly being blocked and being unblocked (like GABA or NMDA receptors). During daily activities those constantly are blocked and unblocked. Sometimes however receptors keep being blocked and must be unblocked by scavengers, if impossible to be unlocked those receptors are non functional and remain non functional. This happens Millions of times per hour 24 hours a day. Receptors producing our interaction with the environment (optical, acoustical, olfactory) or "thoughts" and "ideas" however being unblocked during our conscience is working would produce a stimulus we could not distinguish from a real one and would make existence in reality impossible. Those are unblocked during sleep, producing "dreams". If pathologically this mechanism occurs during being awake, we have "hallucinations" or "psychosis". If we don't sleep for long. we'll get those symptoms. Receptors being blocked permanently reduce our ability of intellectual work, increasing with age. Pathological scavenging systems or defect receptors not being possible to be cleared permanently produce Alzheimer disease or dementia. This however would mean that "dreams" are purely random, caused by receptor cleaning activities during sleep and our conscious mind the next day tries to find an explanation of those strange "ideas", which in reality are not related to each other at all. That makes "dream interpretation" bogus science, searching for cures of Alzheimer and dementia must identify the receptor systems producing "thoughts" and even more: the scavenging system being active during sleep. Do you agree? Alternative "thoughts"?

Any ball shaped object in its "center of gravity" has zero gravitation because the vectors of gravitational forces compensate each other in the center. If two objects attract each other the vector of one object being directed to the other add each other the one being directed to the outside substract from each other. That can make an object spin on its orbit or prevent it from halting its spin.

The moon has a strange spin which is related to its orbit. Relatively to us it does not spin at all. That makes us see only one and the same side of the Moon. We never see its back side. Theoretically the Moon should have a spin that we see all sides by his own, independent spin. Assuming that there is no rope between Moon and Earth that behavior can only be explained by another, smaller moon which is exactly on the opposite side, stabilizing the moon's spin and constantly "hiding" relatively to ourselves on the Earth on the "backside of the Moon" (relative to the Earth). Where is my mistake?

Let me first finish mainstream political correctness and then as second point: reality.

1. Women are perfect, know everything, are technical genius and born for engineering.

2. I have a cleaning woman in whose head the word "wireless" falls into a large hole which I am unable to fill since two years. "Not connected by cable" for her is "not connected" meaning " to arrange" meaning "to make disappear". I have 2 desktop PCs and 5 Laptops. All with wireless keyboards and Microsoft Arc Touch Mouses. Every week my cleaning woman makes a little high pile of 7 Arc Touch mouses (the glue together being MAGNETIC) and sometimes she opens her hand and proudly presents 7 little black USB receivers (because I said I shoot her when she throws away the next one). When I tell her that in the next future a newspaper headline will say: "Cleaning woman tortured slowly to death" and when they will get me, I will shout: "I enjoyed every second of it" she doesn't even get the joke. Before I spend again hours to find the right mouse, receiver, computer and / or keyboard, my question:

The USB receiver dongle as the mouse both on the inside of the battery holder have a lot of long numbers.

For example: on the receiver 201WW10215005 ; and: FCO ID C3K1447 and: CGA169LP1380T0 Is one of those numbers one with which the mouse can be paired with the corresponding receiver and if so: which one?

(Yes, I could buy a bluetooth mouse but I LOVE the Arc Touch).

First an apology: I wanted to avoid the "Nazi" word but the system doesn't let my question pass through not having at least 20 letters. I took the word to make people read my question. Take it as a provocation, not literally. It translates into: Is God a Bad Racist?.

The reason for the question:

1. Some people and mainly one religion feel to be God's "chosen people".

2. During the deluge the racial distribution of the crew and passengers of Noah's Ark was quite selective.

Another word for "choice" is "selection". Selecting one people out of many to be superior and chosen to receive whatever benefit out of heredity: "Racism" cannot be defined more precisely and it cannot be defined differently. Objections?

Light speed to my knowledge is quite exactly 300.000 km/sec. Our Universe since the "Big Bang" is expanding by roughly 300 km/sec. Is our value of "light speed" related to the starting point in the Universe which is not moving or is it related to our moving system?

Background of the question:

For accelerating a mass to light speed a certain amount of Energy is required (Is this the E= mc square equation?). Is the energy which the Big Bang contributed to accelerate our own mass a deductible contribution reducing my own effort accelarating a mass or do I have to take my own starting point as "zero"?

I found different values for the speed of expansion of the Universe. I took the one above (300 km/sec) because it is so comfortably one tenth of a percent of the light speed value.

By accelerating small masses in particle accelerators like CERN those protons, electrons, photons or whatever come close to light speed in an experimental circular "orbit". At one point of the circle the particle must move into the same direction like the Universe (Point A), another point must be exactly opposite to the moving direction of the expansion, Point B. The mass "0" of the particle is measured on our planet, therefore it is a mass being already in motion. Do those particles in point B loose one tenth of a percent of their mass regaining it when they are accelerated by the Universe's and CERN's efforts?

One more related question of interest: If CERN reaches velocities for particles "close to light speed", have those in reality not crossed light speed in Point A, assuming that the difference of CERN speed to light speed is smaller than the expansion velocity of the Universe?

Nature didn't write many laws into our genetic code. Two basic laws are: Preserve yourself and your species. Nature does not play around, nature is incompliantly logic. Any hereditary oedipal phase includes the incredibly small statistical possibility that some of the (male) young Oedipus-Remakes become successful, thus killing their fathers and copulate with their mothers. Given the time frames in which nature has to calculate it would also include the chance that those being stronger than their fathers early in life become the dominating subspecies by positive selection. That would lead in summary to the unnecessary loss of individuals and in the perspective over time to permanent inbreeding with all its negative consequences, which in the end after long time periods and many generations, compensating the low statistical possibility of success in the beginning, would exterminate that species. Why should nature do such a thing? The five or six laws nature gave to us she surely wouldn' t violate herself systematically.

In a perfectly ball shaped planet the only place of balance of gravitation forces (or negative and positive vectors) is in the very center. In all places unequal to the center an object is attracted by the masses between the object and the center and the masses on the other side of the center. If an object is inside the ball it becomes lighter the closer it is to the center because it is attracted outwards by the masses between the object and the surface and inwards by the masses mentioned above.In the very middle of the ball shaped planet is zero gravity then. That would mean that gas planets with time would develop hot liquid cores by the pressure from the external mass being attracted inwards and the density with time continously increases until all mass is packed as close as possible towards the middle. That would mean: we shrink and is the reason for my question above (I am not a scientist of physics so please be kind and give me an answer being understood easily).