Genady

Yes, this is right, when what they say is at least correct. Unfortunately, it is often not so.

I suspect that it is a wrong place to look for knowledge.

Is it entertaining?

And the other way around: geodesics define the parallel transport, the covariant derivative, and the connection. But not necessarily a metric.

Rather an automatic driving instructor.

I don't know what you mean here. I think that a very advanced robotics is needed for the open water training. Plus, problem solving, thinking on your feet, ability to forecast and prevent issues before they manifest themselves, balancing between training goals, risks, and responsibility. IOW, human experience well beyond training standards.

You mean, in principle. I mean, considering the current AI "boom".

That was, SCUBA diving instructor.

Geodesic is a physical phenomenon. It is a worldline of a free-falling particle and thus independent on clocks and length measurements. The latter are defined by the former. The following paragraph agrees with your I don't know about aspects of using standard time in general and TDB in particular. Hopefully, other knowledgeable members will contribute to this regard.

I prefer to look at it the other way around. A microscopic world does whatever it does, while the gravitation is a macroscopic consequence of it.

The following theoretical construction perhaps contains the answer to your question: (let me know if you want to read the rest of this Box - it does not add anything to the construction itself)

It's 'Yug' / 'Юг'. For whatever reason, Latin letters were used for North and South on maps and compasses, not Cyrillic. But the geography teacher did not know, which is which. Maybe she thought that 'N' looks like 'Ю' a bit. The story had a continuation. After she said that, I politely raised my hand and when she asked me what I want, I said that the letters should be the other way around. She was very upset and told me to bring my parents in. My father met with her the next day. Turned out they knew each other from school. So, I was not punished, but was forbidden to ever again correct her in the class. And there were many opportunities. Here is another one I remember. The day after Leonov conducted the first ever spacewalk, she came to the class very excited. She told us what a great achievement it was. In her words, "Just imagine, the spaceship is moving very fast. To let Leonov go out, Belyayev had to stop the spaceship, and it is very difficult at that speed. And when Leonov returned, Belyayev had to accelerate again..."

Several lists here:

A childhood memory came up from nowhere. Our geography teacher was introducing a world map. She drew a big circle on the blackboard. "This is Earth," she said. A horizontal line in the middle. "This is equator." A vertical line. "Earth axis." A point on the top of the axis. "This is the North Pole." (The lesson was in Russian.) "To signify that it is North (Russian: 'Sever'/'Север') it is marked with the letter 'S'. The South Pole is marked with the letter 'N'." The last part went without any justification. IIRC, this led to my first confrontation with authorities.

I wish the Science Forums dot net were more strictly Science Forums dot net.

I don't believe that it is necessary to read 5-page paper before start of a discussion. You could post a paragraph or two, attach a diagram from your paper, show the final result, etc., and then add details as needed depending on how the discussion progresses. BTW, you have only one allowed post left for the first day of membership.

It plays very well with the established scientific theories, e.g. Eric Kandel - Wikipedia

One laughs at laughable matters: laughable : amusingly ridiculous Laughable Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

I think, what they meant was pseudo-theory rather than pseudoscience: Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar (nature.com)

Yes. This was pretty much what I did. Here is my follow-up email to him:: >>>>> This brings up even more interesting puzzle. Compare the following texts: ... [from his email] ... [from the website] Except for a couple of words, the texts are identical. Can you explain it? <<<<<<

Absolutely. 100% agree.

He did not. Tells me that he thinks I am too primitive. I live on a Caribbean Island you know... Some people are surprised that we even have Internet here. It was a possibility, but he eliminated it himself. When I sent him a link to that website and asked, why the texts are identical, his answer was, "Yes, I read this website with different answers and agreed with this one."

I can think of other reasons. For example, he might be a little T****, a "stable genius" and always right.

I can think of it as a conservation of something. Regardless of how many interactions occur, for how long, and how far away they spread, this something has to be conserved, and this conservation means that all the things involved continue to stay correlated.

It does not seem to be so. He started his response with the words, "I think, that" followed by the copied text. His reply does not indicate so. Perhaps, but many of them can be refuted based on details of the exchange and other information. This or other reason, what do you think my response should be. Pretend that I "bought" it? Let him know that I've found his "trick"? Something else?