michel123456

(emphasis mine) There are problems in existing maths. Dividing by zero and other infinities are not perfectly defined.

Sorry, stupid question: we have 2 positive charges that repell each other. Playing the movie backwards do we have 2 negative charges that attract each other? Or reversing the movie changes the sign of only one of the 2 charges?

Yes that's puzzling. One can figure that some fundamental "force carrier"(1) is like a bullet that transmits a push from a massive thing to another. That would be a repulsive interaction. When it comes to attraction, the bullet analogy fails pathetically(2). That's where theorists come in. (1) to 'carry" something you need a force, so a "force carrier" is a force that carries a force, which is a dubious explanation of what a force is. (2) AFAIK the only (debunked) theory is the Le Sage Theory of gravity, based on the repulsive bullet analogy.

anorganic life?

Hi Dov. _you are certainly correct on 2 things: 1. To think, to learn, to conduct experiments, to make science, that's all good but that's not enough. What one has to do is to ponder. 2. The betrayal of the Enlightenment science heritage is a fact. The Renaissance Man is dead. Science has been chopped in so many disciplines with so many "eminencies" that there is almost no way to find a single "common sense" explanation to anything. Each discipline examines only a part of a one and single phenomena that as long as we proceed becomes more and more complicated. The Enlightenment asked for simple answers to divulgate and enlight humanity. IOW we are going into darkness, we know more and more and understand less and less. On the other hand my opinion is the following: _There is no conspiracy.There is no hidden agenda in today's science. Or if there is one, it is not on purpose. I truly believe that most scientists have a genuine interest in discovering what is going on instead of pushing their own beliefs. But maybe I am naive and completely wrong on this. ---------------- I googled Dov Henis: you have spread your ideas widely over the Net. Maybe it's time to discuss.

(emphasis mine)yes. But you can surely construct some other maths based on other axioms that do not "work" in the concrete world. I guess there are an infinity of wrong maths versus a few correct ones (if not only one).

After some googling for the translation of french "chape flottante" I found "floating screed" usually the concrete floor floating upon the styrofoam is reinforced (as you said) so that the loads are distributed over a large surface. ------------ Cracking/collapsing may happen near the expansion joints. Otherwise styrofoam works well. Moving loads are not that much.

You missed the client. There is triangle around the building. The triangle is; -the Client -the Architect -the Contractor it goes like this: _the Client has to deal with the Architect (who designs) and with the Contractor (who builds). _the Architect has to deal with the Client (who tells him what he wants) and with the Contractor (that he is supervising) _The Contractor has to deal with the Architect (who tells him what to build) and with the Client (who pays) If you break the triangle, for example when the Architect & the Contractor are the same individual, you get into trouble. The Engineer is a collaborator of the Architect for houses and regular buildings, But there are other kind of constructions where the Engineer takes a more important role than the Architect, like for roads, railways, subways, and others. In some constructions it is very difficult to say who should be in charge (bridges) Usually it is decided by the kind of degree you own. Often, the Engineer wins. And all have Majuscule. Especially the Architect.

Hammam I guess because it is home-made, they put a closing system available from the market. ------------------ (edit) Dry heat is sometimes used as a way of cleaning yourself without water: you step entirely naked into a very hot & dry place for a few minutes. That makes you sweat. Then you step out and get a peeling massage that removes all the dirt that goes out with the sweat. In use in countries where there is water shortage.

_Does the room have a different floor from the outer area? _The inside walls are plain solid wood? or painted? _the glass in the ceiling is in the centre? _the door opens outside? _is there a regular knob on the inside of the door? _What is the diameter of the supposed heating elements? _are they water pipes with an electrical heating element inside? _is there water inlet somewhere? _is there an air exhaust in the ceiling somewhere? _and maybe there is a central fuse panel in some other place that says what it is? At least how many amperes?

No, you caught me previously. "Everybody" in your statement means "everybody in the same time frame with K.O.". That is "everybody" living the same (present) time in the universe. That is not "everybody" including you and me & Zapatos and our Neanderthal friend nor our sons & daughters. It is a very restricted "everybody".

I am sorry to disappoint you but you are not the Universe. Excellent answer. ------------------ (edit) In this case, for .K.O. the Universe is smaller than the one we observe today.

It is supposed that we are a random sample. Laws of Physics are supposed to be different on a different scale (small or big) but not on a different place, not even on a different time. But even if the LoP are different elsewhere or "elsetime" it must still be coherent with what we observe here today. IOW the change must be smooth and under the influence of a change-operator (a force of some sort, a coefficient, something). And because we are currently observing objects all around that are elsewhere and "elsetime" we ought to be capable to determine the values of these coefficients if they exist and include them in our LoP. I ment that: * you wrote "Laws are our description of nature "doing its job"." .Statement at which I agreed by saying "yes". I think we 2 basically agree, the rest is maybe bad wording from me. Unless you truly believe that particles follow the laws we have created.

I never said that the laws must be simple. I simply copy-pasted from the Cosmological Principle Wiki page: (emphasis mine) "the universe looks the same whoever you are" does not apply for Krauss Objects. --------------- You see I was playing a trick

The part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

So in other words you all feel lucky that we are here and now able to observe the Universe as it really is?

Hiding information is what I call "playing tricks".

Yes.

By "fair" I mean: Mother Nature don't play tricks. Or shouldn't. But for Krauss Objects, Nature does play tricks. Imagine yourself a Krauss Observer, you have no idea of the Big Bang: how can you possibly understand nature then?

It is supposed that the Universe is knowable.

Nature does its job. We are the stupid ones who need laws to understand what nature does. A particle does not follow any law. It would be like saying that an apple follows what Newton said.

I didn't expect that from a bright mind like you.

What is a Krauss Object ? It is an object (or observer) in the far future, that will not be able to have any evidence of the Big Bang (my definition). Eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss explaing standard cosmology here answers some questions and says the following: So as it seems our common understanding of cosmology has created a model that predicts that future observers will be unable to understand the Universe the way we do today. Does that mean that Nature does not play fair?

(bolded mine) How do you get more than one curve?

I don't understand that.