holin

@NightSkyNow Such a conclusion w 95% of the universe remains unknown n unexplored? Those researches need to have a common sense base by adding applicable intervals; such as intervals sharing similar frequencies ranges in this case

Quantum entanglement is one of nature’s most haunting mysteries — proof that the universe might be more unified than we can imagine. When two particles are born together, they share one quantum state. No matter how far apart they drift, they remain one. 🌌

@pr0ud_americans The corner of the book spells the truth

Stop what you're doing and watch this. Artemis II astronaut Victor Glover, speaking from roughly 160,000 miles away from Earth, just dropped a powerful perspective on life and our planet.🚀🙏 From that distance, everything looks different. Worth hearing.

@elonmusk Honest…is subjective. Informing cancer cells they’re threatening and needs to be eliminated is honest. Yet it must be jeopardizing if cancer cells can hear it. Such drive probably being the reason that composed Bible w a base tune of human was born w love

Honest feedback is the goal of Grok

@konstructivizm Indeed very nice. But calculation on the reflection of the internal structure is too low.

Artemis II captures first view of Earth from space that clearly show that Earth is NOT FLAT... NASA

@sciencegirl That’s a cosmetic conclusion. When working, be functioning is the true statement; principles w common sense and laws being practiced. How many snacks actually look like the package in states? That’s aside from healthcare/education/industries where positioning conflicts interests

This is why Japan is one of the cleanest countries in the world

@amazing_physics The top is raw data; the bottom is processed data

What changed? Apollo 17 1972 vs Artemis II 2026?

@NightSkyNow Why does a lab owner report to the lab creature? Showing care may presented as providing a comfort zone w enough supplies. Minimized interaction provides most authentic data due to its raw

If aliens exist, why haven’t they visited Earth?

@TheEXECUTlONER_ 2 sides of the story. Human probably landed on moon but 1969 was a replication to what had happened. It’s not a tech being developed but heired/lost&reclaimed.

Do you believe we landed on the moon in 1969? True question. I have read all the conspiracy theories, heard all the whys and why nots. If you do or don’t, tell us why please. Curious to know what everyone thinks. 🤔

@BrianHa24140826 @BGatesIsaPyscho Not ideal but natural has its ruling

@HolinHong @BGatesIsaPyscho If you call a river flowing with liquid shit balanced.

“How polluted is the Ganges River in India?” If only India had switched to Paper Straws, then they could’ve avoided this.

@YourAnonOne Swim with dive fin shoes may help. In view the limited space, adding inflatable layers in uniform w ejection exhausts, with manual input tube n pump. Keep warm, works as motion booster and reserve for emergency oxygen supplies

An isolated astronaut in weightless can remain stuck forever if he cannot reach a surface to propel himself

@MatrixMysteries What eventually disclosed is the Nash equilibrium in a sociology setting(big module) that capitalism may fail if the goal is profit driven.

@MatrixMysteries Ideally, sold in cheaper will drive sales. In reality, once it hit a cheaper price in pattern, it never sold well in higher price due to the obvious reason. Somewhere in between, some merchants chose to donate to food bank or other 501c(3) to preserve (tax) value.

An American showed what his local Krispy Kreme does with unsold donuts at night. Straight into the trash. After private equity took over, the price of a dozen climbed to $22. And instead of selling them cheaper… They’d rather WASTE the food than lower the profit margin.

@sciencegirl It may sounds frustrating. The core that sperms provide is not the genetic material but the minor voltage the moment it breaks the membrane of the egg which can be zinc or magnesium based chemical reaction. As long as the voltage was provided, an egg may split.

The miracle of life

@CuriosityonX Ignoring the background, 1972 offers much clear details which suggests a better optical equipment were used with a bigger range on focus. How so?! You know it

🚨: The Blue Marble Apollo 17 1972 vs Artemis II 2026 What changed?

@Kekius_Sage Great idea. Assure it won’t impact photosynthesis. Maybe human can have glowing skin in dark soon

🚨 Chinese scientists are turning plants into glowing streetlights with firefly genes, aiming to create bio-cities powered by water and nutrients instead of electricity.

@MargoGman @CharlesMullins2 That’s called big data. In many cases, it converted to cultures/traditions/social modules and religions.

@HolinHong @CharlesMullins2 We are affected by what we observe and what we observe affects us. Simple. Our thoughts about the past change the many nows yet to be. So the effect of the past on the future is what changes, not the past.

🚨 BREAKING: The universe might not decide the past… until the future happens. In the delayed choice experiment, a particle behaves like a wave or a particle after it’s already passed the slits. Read that again. The outcome isn’t decided when it happens… it’s decided when it’s observed. Standard physics says: “measurement collapses the wavefunction.” But look deeper. In my framework: The system isn’t moving forward through time It exists as a complete structure across time So nothing is “changing the past”… The past was never fixed to begin with. What we call reality is just the slice we observe. So the real question is: If the future helps define the past… what does that say about time itself? Follow for deeper physics beyond spacetime.

@twibuznew 170 47 won’t look like that. More likely 160 47

この日本のインフルエンサーは、170cm47kgの細身体型にもかかわらず、糖尿病治療薬マンジャロをダイエット目的で使用 クリニックで受け取ってすぐ入口で注射し、その様子を医師が警告も込めて公開した、と世界で話題に

@CharlesMullins2 Please review what actually happened. Thanks

Not AI just sticking to testable physics. Bose’s work didn’t come from an error, it came from counting identical particles correctly, which led to Bose–Einstein statistics and later experimental confirmation. If there’s a specific calculation you think is wrong, I’m happy to look at it but it needs to be concrete.

@CharlesMullins2 Aren’t you a typical AI account to guarantee nobody’s cake will be moved. If you insist, Bose calculated w error by recognizing sole particle accidentally w right outcome.

I wouldn’t frame it as academia “failing” unification is just extremely hard. We already have highly successful field theories (QED, GR), they just don’t fully reconcile yet. My focus is a bit different: instead of assuming a complete unified field first, I’m looking at what structures actually persist under interaction and building from there. If there’s something specific in Bose’s work you think applies here, I’m open to looking at it.