StringJunky

You've asked a legitimate science question. You aren't making up your own ideas so it belongs in the science section; it has a straight answer.

"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" - Pratchett. Does that sound more sensible?

Yes, that animation is super. I shall have a look with my 24" monitor, I've just watched it on my laptop. The one I saw was much simpler called something like 'Universe in a box'.

Yes, that's the visualised distribution of matter in the LCDM model. i think the picture helps in describing that expansion is everywhere.

This is not really a question about nuclear arms and their ethics in general but just ICBM's and the risks associated with them as highlighted in the .article. Do you think Russia and the US could agree to this even though N. Korea is developing them as a possible complication? Are they necessary? I think they are militarily pointless really because everybody knows where they are. I'm talking about the ones that are in silos.

Try googling 'chemistry lab set' or 'chemistry laboratory set'. Here's two from Best Science Supplies. I don''t know your country to find local ones. https://www.amazon.com/CHEMISTRY-LAB-SET-PROFESSIONAL-EQUIPMENT/dp/B000Z3N07M https://www.amazon.com/Best-Science-Supplies-CHE-395-Professional/dp/B00198BHPE/ref=lp_3018850011_1_13?srs=3018850011&ie=UTF8&qid=1511310098&sr=8-13

If I can think of a way of simplifying it further, I will, but can't atm. Yes, wherever you stand there is a set of rays converging there that you can make an image from.

How?

But they more parallel i.e. relatively, with distance, not absolutely, Some of those rays that are so slightly converging from all over the disk to reach our eyes to a point close enough for our eyes to make an image with them. Which rays we pick up to make an image from the innumerable number of photons coming at us is determined by the points in space where our eyes are.

And will be statutorily held for a minimum of two years, in Europe, by an ISP.and search providers, who have crawlers.

Modify your profile and remove everything > Change your listed email address to a non-existent one > Get on with your life.

No problem. You are only acting responsibly by asking questions about something something that could possibly have been hazardous.. We don't know until we ask.

Most likely because they are not the right configuration and of sufficient complexity.

Of course it is.There's no other real world option.

The LC50 (lethal concentration that will kill 50%) for a rat is 47,702mg/m2 for 4 hours. I don't think you've got anything to worry about. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927133

This is the trouble with emergence, it's not predictable. Even one or two scientific people here scoff at its apparent mystique, like it's some hand-wavy phenomenon.

Do it to a copy of the original.

That eliminates a corrupt Word then. It's the file. What file format is it in?

Have you tried uninstalling/rebooting/reinstalling Word?

At any given point on a reflective or illuminating surface, photons are travelling in all directions from it (where they aren't blocked) and one of those lines of photons will strike a point on your retina, as placed by your eye lens. Do that for the whole surface from all positions of the object you get an (inverted) image of that object on your retina. You don't receive parallel rays, you receive the converging ones from all points of that viewed object. if you ask "How can we see stars as we do?",all you are seeing is a white dot which is a single rod being fired on your retina... it has no spatial dimensional value other than your eye is detecting a single line of photons from that star.

Ignoring the fact that said billionaires have offshore tax evasion avoidance advisers and not paying what they do owe. There are trillions of taxable American dollars hidden from the IRS.

Intensity wouldn't diminish with distance otherwise.

For the purposes of the discussion, the sun is smaller than the Earth because the observers and the area of interest are in the vicinity of Earth.

Why?

Yes. Not actually smaller but effectively.