taeto

Isn't it the other way around? What we observe in nature is the weird looking stuff. And QM is the, or at least one, explanation for it? I do not see how you can take the observations that we make about the universe to not reasonably represent how the universe is.

The "Nomenclature" section alone makes it look like a bad joke.

But how to understand it? What use of the term "species" is employed here. There are many possible uses, I know one use of the term in Combinatorial Enumeration. There is a common use of the term in biology, is that the intended one? With one basic treat being the ability to produce fertile offspring? Would it be important in some context to understand the statement If a human researcher seeks to understand the behaviour of ants, they have to interact with ants in their interaction patterns?

What do you mean by an "arc" when you say "there is especial arc"? An arc can mean a piece of the unit circle, or just an angle, in the context. Like, there is an arc from \(0\) to \(\pi /2\) and an arc from \(\pi\) to \(3\pi /2,\) or do you think of them as just the same arc, of length \(\pi /2\)?

Plastered 🥴

Does she? Bet she is in the stonehouse with you, and you cannot catch her 😃.

Well, yes, well done! The OP seems to have in mind some kind of riddle, to which the solution is an angle between \(5\pi /6\) and \(17\pi /18.\): ...there is especial arc in which if to connect any two points of proportional division of this arc and its chord by straight line and to connect any two points of any another proportional division of this arc and its chord by another straight line , then the straight lines cross in one point of definition of trigonometric functions and angles(arcs). Scratching my head to figure out what it means.

A mere novice compared to the ballerina Ms Saccharina with more than 80 million years additional to practice her moves.

Fair question. Myself I take the acronym to mean InterGalactic Medium. But who am I to try to educate someone who is TEFL 🤭.

Maybe it also helps to answer the OP's question to observe that the link given by Strange refers to a basic definition of an angle as a union of two rays that meet in a point. There is nothing about real numbers or approximations. The \(\sin\) function is then defined by assigning a congruency class of line segments to each congruency class of angles. Other explanations, more popular nowadays, are derived by assigning real-valued measures to angles and line segments. But the original definition needs none of that.

It must have been of special concern to Nostradamus to deal with this, since he usually avoided suggestions of specific remedies against bad things to come. Can you point to a page number in his book where we can learn more?

How can we measure the size of the big bang expansion, and how can we measure the current acceleration? You are right to say that it is very interesting if they are not the same.

Would you mind to share? You have in mind experimental "proof"? Or theoretical proof, and in that case, based on which theory?

Which is what a "Gish gallop" is not designed for: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Here we do not have cameras at check-out in ordinary shops. If you find a lost card on the sidewalk and use it to pay for purchases, you can do so freely, dispose of the card somehow and be free to go. In any case, if you worry about cameras, just wear a hoodie and sunglasses.

Debit cards found here are valuable in any case. You take it to a shop, pick up goods, and check out paying by it. Only in rare cases do you need to know the pin, and if the teller should ask for it, the thief can just claim that he forgot it, and then leave to try the next shop.

Oh, okay, yes, they are mostly star forming, as Ghideon said already. But good that it doesn't matter, since then I do not have to feel bad if my answer is wrong.

Unfortunately, scientists have so far not detected any life, intelligent or otherwise, present in any single one of these galaxies.

Doomsday is just fun entertainment to some people. Don't judge...

Very nice, +1. Although treating Earth as an organism still seems crude. You cannot safely take what Earth has that somehow corresponds to a human leg and amputate it, or remove what corresponds to a kidney. If we treat Earth instead as an ecosystem, we would know that whatever we do to either part of it necessarily has an effect on every other part. And this is where you have to start taking in account what happens when you severe the wing of the butterfly that lives in the Amazon jungle.

Sure, we agree that if we have two collections of organisms that do not interact at all, then they live in (at least) two distinct ecosystems. It is up to a definitorial property of an ecosystem whether humans and bees live in the same or in different ones. It is when, as you suggested, the ecosystems of bees and humans interact, whether that means that the two ecosystems necessarily fuse into one. It is not necessarily a scientific point. We can analyse any system of interactions between organisms as if they comprise an ecosystem. If they live together in an ecosystem that is not actually closed, we just have to adjust our conclusion to accommodate this fact.

Maybe not. But since human activity affects the living conditions of bees, it is fair to declare that we do live in ecosystems that are interconnected. Depending on whichever loose definition (here we go again) of what you consider to be an ecosystem, you decide whether the quantity of interconnectivity is enough to deem our ecosystems completely fused or just weakly interconnected.

It is because it is the same ecosystem. EDIT: assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are a live person.

Insofar as an ecosystem, generally interpreted, means the totality of present lifeforms that interact with each other, and lifeforms are the perceived individual components of any ecosystem, this kind of thinking is not far-fetched. Still they are qualitatively different. Within an ecosystem, the different lifeforms have different roles in processing the chemical composition of the system. We can refer to the function of each different live object and abstract the totality of objects that have essentially the same function into a single species of life form. The converse is not quite true, at least not in the way that we ordinarily use language. Even a system composed of various essentially similar different ecosystems is not identified as a single life form, especially since by definition, different ecosystems do not interact. Lifeforms do interact.

It doesn't seem to argue against a volcano being alive, since the ecosystem of a volcano maintains the property of having volcanoes (even if individual volcanoes eventually die, this is no different from standard lifeforms). And hence if volcanoes are lifeforms, then their ecosystem maintains life.