Itoero

true, things I learned concerning entanglement I found amazing

I'm sorry I keep reacting but you people denied science. You people believe the properties of light can change without it's photons that interact with particles. It had nothing to do with a semantic problem. Scattering causes refraction!!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem Did you even read the theorem? An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics. Shell's law is a macroscopic law. OK, I didn't know that. OK, thx for the wisdom. Since all words have definitions, I meant "it's not exactly defined." Empirical science is exact defined, philosophy is not. Philosophy is a more general term then empirical science. Science should be described as a subfield. 1 Special relativity is better described as a philosophical theory.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05640.pdf 2 All sciences need philosophyhttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1244.pdf 3 Much has been written on the Demarcation problem, and the difficulties of cosmology are always front and center. But so are the difficulties of many other sciences, including archaeology and astronomy, where you have to take what the universe gives you rather than being able to conduct experiments at will. 4 Problem-solving is an important field of study and discipline in philosophy. Science develops/evolves via problem solving....science needs philosophy.

You are not alone. I got 3 downvotes on stuff I said 13 months ago.

OK, but it remains mathematical. Why is there no boundary?

True infinity is like true randomness, it can never be 'proven'. Infinity does not refer to size but to the absence of boundaries.

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Niels Bohr

Is your creator personal or impersonal? A personal creator is a creator who can be related to as a person. An impersonal creator is rather described as being a force. it seems like you believe in this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_All

I don't think you've told this...What do you mean with a creator? Is a creator the same as a creative force?

But what does it mean if you say' we were created'? If we find scientific evidence that our 3D reality is formed at the Big Bang. Is then the Big Bang the creator of the universe?

I've killed several animals to eat...frogs and a forest chicken. But most hunters hunt because they like it....it's their sport. I find that hard to understand. How many sharks are killed daily for their fins? They often cut of the fin to make soup and throw the shark back in the ocean so it can slowly die. "According to some estimates, 100 million sharks may be killed annually, mostly to feed China’s demand for shark fin soup."https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/07/shark-fin-soup-campaign-illegal/

racist!

Doesn't "creator" point to a personal god? I would say: "creative force".

Today I learned about the Mobius strip. It is a surface with only one side (when embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space) and only one boundary. The Möbius strip has the mathematical property of being unorientable. It can be realized as a ruled surface. A Möbius strip made with a piece of paper and tape. If an ant were to crawl along the length of this strip, it would return to its starting point having traversed the entire length of the strip (on both sides of the original paper) without ever crossing an edge.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Möbius_strip

Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? -->To get to the same side!

ok I was just wondering... I've heard there are forests (in Belgium) where they reduce the number of gray squirrels to save the red squirrels.

Are they red or gray squirrels?

According to a theory of Hawking the black hole event horizon is an apparent horizon. “If you feel you are in a black hole, don’t give up,” he told an audience at a public lecture in Stockholm, Sweden, yesterday. He was speaking in advance of a scientific talk today at the Hawking Radiation Conference being held at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. “There’s a way out.”https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28090-stephen-hawking-says-he-has-a-way-to-escape-from-a-black-hole/ Hawking's soft hair theory states that quantum excitations known as soft hairs form a halo around a black hole, holding the information for the things that were consumed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921.pdf If he's correct then a black Hole is imo not an object. No. A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The no-hair theorem is a proposed explanation concerning black holes. The fact that its based on math. doesn't change this. Oink? I stated that refraction is due to scattering. You people denied that...you people denied science. You denied the quantum world in classically described phenomena. Or like is said in the extinction theorem: "An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics." Shell's law is irrelevant. I mean there is no set definition. Most nouns have definitions. I agree with the Wikipedia-definition: Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. I stated that refraction is due to scattering of photons. You people denied that...you people denied science. Check this theorem, it shows I was correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald–Oseen_extinction_theorem. "An important part of optical physics theory is starting with microscopic physics—the behavior of atoms and electrons—and using it to derive the familiar, macroscopic, laws of optics." That's new. I thought hypotheses demand empirical evidence to be scientific. Math is the language of logic... I don't think Steady State theory was scientific....just like the big bang theory. But don't those models demand empirical evidence to be science?

That's a big problem...there are no squirrels in my garden.

We don't know if there is a creator or if matter can come from nothing. Many very smart people, including topscientists, made lectures/papers/discussions concerning this subject but those have no scientific value. We know matter is here but we don't know if God is here. Asking if something we don't know exists, can create itself from nothing is imo a meaningless question If there is a creator then I think we will (probably) one day be able to scientifically show it's existence. The laws of physics concern what we say of the universe...how we interpret our observable reality. Since the existence of God has never been proven,, it's meaningless to question if God abides in the same 'reality' as we do. Why do you ask that? If those 'rules' are changed then I suppose we no longer exist.

Only species that can feel pain? A reason why many people don't care for the suffering is imo because animals are bred in huge quanties, they don't treat them as separate animals.

I doubt that. It's possible for there to be life but we don't know it until we know it.

I'm sorry then, I fixed it.

Because you answer with a smiley and an exclamation mark. Perhaps I misinterpret you, It looks like you find my question to be silly. What does gravity being the weakest force mean when you deal with a black hole?

A gravitational field's strength is decided by the present mass. So what does it mean when people say gravity is the weakest of forces?

I have a sprained wrist by watching female tennis.