Genady

Right. And nothing in the breakdown into separate positive and negative counts implies non-anonymity. BTW, from the beginning of this thread it was misunderstood that I was talking about responses to my posts. In fact, I was often curious about the responses to other posts.

I thought that a ratio would've been more meaningful number than an absolute count. Say, do 2 positives mean that 100% of the responders liked the post, or do they mean that 55% liked it and 45% disliked it? Also, the total number of responders would've been informative, i.e., was it 2 or 20 members that reacted to the post? (All this is immaterial now.)

I see it differently. I want the place to be clean, thus, I am ready to pay for the cleaning. Certainly, it is helpful if others want it to be clean as well.

Thank you. Your last paragraph relates to the second question I've added above, i.e., regarding other evidence. I also want to point out that amounts of DM vary vastly from galaxy to galaxy and from cluster to cluster, and I don't know of a correlation between these amounts and other parameters such as angular momentum. Plus, DM is a crucial part of the standard cosmology. Is that role addressed? Surely, it's refreshing to see a "third way out."

Do I understand correctly that for this deviation from Newtonian approximation to be observed, large distances rather than strong fields or high velocities are required? Hence, the galactic scales of the phenomenon? The plateau of rotational curves is not the only evidence for DM. Does this paradigm address the others?

Parents, neighbors, teachers, peers, ... will.

Thank you for checking. Right, it doesn't matter if there is not much to show anyway.

We can use math to describe aspects of reality, i.e., of what is out there. But math itself does not depend on what is out there. As somebody said, e.g., a number of prime numbers would be infinite even if Universe were never created.

The truth is that according to quantum mechanics all observed values are real. This is because these values are eigenvalues of Hermitian operators, and there is a theorem in mathematics that all eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are real.

They lied to you.

Actually, I don't know what a purpose or usage of this number is now. What does it tell and to whom? It surely would be very useful.

Regarding upvoting, only the questions "Was I witty? Insightful? Accurate? Complete? You like me? You agree with me? You caught my reference to Seinfeld?" from the list apply. These nuances aren't really important, IMO, and often are clear from the content of a marked post. They all mean, "Good point." One will elaborate in a comment if they want people to know what specifically they liked.

No, I don't see it.

This division into two classes will be only temporary.

Yes, but, (1) I'm interested in the breakdown of not only my posts, but some posts of other members, and (2) the reactions are often spread over time and don't appear as one count in the notification. Seeing who voted positively has two advantages: (1) members often post a one-line comment just to let know that they up-voted some post; this would be not needed, (2) as an extreme example, if JohnPBailey has upvoted my post, I would check what is wrong about it. So, the data are there. It is only a matter of displaying some of them.

Having two separate counts, certainly. Seeing who positively marked, depends.

I am really glad that a "soul" who thinks this way is not eternal and immortal. -1

OK. How about having two separate counts? Seeing who pos repped?

I think it would be useful, helpful, and meaningful to have separate counts for positive and negative reactions on a post, rather than their sum. Also, to see lists of users who gave these positive and negative marks.

Good waste management services. Also, regulating packaging, single-use items, etc., i.e., what makes litter. People litter less in areas which are clean and more where it is already littered. But they will litter anyway.

I'm talking about time coordinate that appears in a space-time metric.

Apology accepted. Perhaps I should've clarified that the "point" I've mentioned is a "point in time".

I said nothing about before BB, nothing about starting of space, and didn't imply "tiny" or "outside".

I said nothing about nowhere. I said nothing about the size, either.

Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.