StringJunky

They haven't yet been able to work out how to quantify gravity into a discrete unit, like photons, which is necessary to define it as a particle. That's why gravitons are still theoretical.

I think you are wrong. You want him to be an atheist but he wasn't. What he said is a historical fact: Thanks. I think either side of the divide wants to own him on the matter but he was having none of it. He was content with how he thought and could live with uncertainty.

I think he preferred to preserve an air of uncertainty in his thinking, which is consistent with a good scientist regarding anything.

Plenty of Einstein quotes on this subject in this Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Not everyone follows an organized doctrine but can still be religious. If I was religious, I would be like Einstein... but without the intelligence.

It's the 'empirical method' which is part of the scientific method but not wholly. Scientific method assumes some forethought as well which should embody some sort of safety in technique..

I don't think so. He was religious but not in the "God has a white beard way". He didn''t anthropomorphize the concept, just like Spinoza didn't.

Both your parents carry the genes for those colours and, so, can be expressed in you and your sister. They are called recessive traits. Dominant traits, like brown eyes, only need one parent.

The operative word is 'personal'. He believed God was in the nature of things... somewhat like a universe-sized organism. This is the god of Spinoza.

Spinoza's god, I have read somewhere.

By and large, people listen/read until the first errors start to show up, and that's usually, pretty much, straightaway. If an idea starts out wrong, it's not going to finish right, is it?

I think that's a "How long is a piece of string?" question. The ingredients and concentration will vary wildly. I think you will have to find out experimentally by adding drops at a time.

It would seem so. Have a look at this white chocolate recipe: https://www.wholesomeyum.com/recipes/sugar-free-white-chocolate-bars-low-carb-gluten-free/

Yes, true. I hope MM has taken it on board.

In the same way, you can know if a lottery system is fixed by looking at the output over a long period against a similar one that isn't. The unadulterated model can be done mathematically.

It's interesting how ones mind automatically slots in the missing word.

'Trend' is the operative word, and that seems to be what MM is not grasping.

Then you put a hand in your pocket to get your sweets out.

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” - Heisenberg.

But they were carried by the invaders as part of their language. Anyway, Fowler's says it's fungai, funjai or funguses.

Correction: we were invaded and those languages were forced on us, one way or another.

Yes.

Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture. Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals Your source just conflates the two. We don''t have 'committees of morals', we have 'ethics committees'... do we not?

Yes but your moral compass may diverge from that. Ethics are a matter of consensus whereas morals are personal.

Ethics is what society says is right or wrong, and morals are what you think is right or wrong.