Sisyphus

"Sky" doesn't have a precise definition. Generally, it's just the view away from the Earth, so it doesn't really have a shape. You could say it was the atmosphere, but that doesn't really cover it. For example, we say stars are "in the sky."

One that most people get wrong is when to use "that" vs. "which."

I'm saying that all numbers only exist in math. Some math is useful for describing physical things.

Numbers are abstractions, not physically real things. Often they are useful in describing physical things, but that doesn't mean that anything mathematically describable is something that physically exists. You can, for example, mathematically describe a hypothetical 500-dimensional object, but none physically exist. And you can count to an arbitrarily large number, to the point where you'll run out of physical things to be counting. With the universe, briefly, it's hard to imagine directly, but analogies are helpful. Imagine the surface of the Earth as a 2-dimensional universe. It has a finite area, but you can never walk to the edge of it, only get back to where you started. Now you just have to transfer that to 3 dimensions in your mind, and imagine space itself "curving" back on itself, such that travelling in a straight line would theoretically eventually get you right back where you started.

The universe can be finite and still not have a boundary. There have been lots of topics here about exactly that. Also, "numbers in the physical world" is not a meaningful phrase.

How about: lol That's funny. im prety shure As I'm pretty sure most of you no know, I have promblems problems with all of the grammer grammar in all of in my posts.

Meaning there's no such thing as "good" or "evil" except what individual people consider them to be.

And the heart is just a muscle!

You fail at the original task, and succeed at the task of failing. Next question!

The way I see it, if you don't exert the bare minimum effort to form a coherent question, how can you expect anyone to take the effort to try to decipher what you're getting at and give you a worthwhile answer?

Well, except for the helmets.

I've read it, and actually found it pretty fascinating. Obviously it's not to be read as a textbook (it's extremely out of date, obviously), but it's very interesting from a historical perspective, and it lays out the thought process really well for why evolution is not only happening, but why it's inevitable in any similar system. Also, it's a suprisingly easy and even entertaining read, so it's not like it's a major commitment.

Gah! I've been outargued!

We've moved on, iNow.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "think in those terms." It's one thing to abstractly define infinite, it's another to really understand what you're talking about, and something else again to actually imagine it. You can make self-contradictory definitions, for example, that can't correspond with any actual thought. I happen to think omnipotence is such a thing. Defined in words, but inherently absurd. What people are thinking of when they say the word does not match the definition, because the thought is impossible.

QFT Welcome.

Ok, everybody needs to chill out immediately. iNow, YT, stay on topic, and don't make me send you to opposite sides of the playground.

It's how much reputation you give by thanking someone for a post.

So basically, the question is, are stars like atoms, except for being fundamentally different? Yes, yes they are.

The curvature is steepest at the surface. It gets less and less steep the deeper you go, until at the middle it's flat. That's still the deepest part of the gravity well, however. Think of a hill with a rounded top. The ground is horizontal at the top, but it's also the highest point. For a hollow sphere, it's more like a plateau. Like the solid sphere, it's steepest at the outer surface, and gets less steep the deeper you go. Except instead of becoming flat only at the exact center, the entire volume inside the inner surface is flat.

The soul? What? Well, in any case, half your DNA is passed on whenever you have a child. I don't really know what you're asking, though.

(Moved to general discussion.) I'd say "an infinitely powerful being" is not an intelligible concept, so the question is meaningless. Others, obviously, will disagree. It could also be meaningless in the same way that "irresistible force meets immovable object" is meaningless, i.e. that the existence of one precludes the existence of the other, by definition.

Well, that was inevitable. Carry on.

Are there several individuals alive today who have won the lottery every day for a year straight?

This is incorrect. The gravitational pull is always towards the center. It does, however, get less and less the closer you get to the center. At the very center, there is no gravity. Think about how much stuff is on either side of you, at any given point. No. Inside a hollow sphere – any hollow sphere – the effect of gravity from the sphere is always zero. This can be shown mathematically, but it also makes intuitive sense, if you think about it. If you’re right next to the inside edge of this sphere, you’re obviously closer to that edge and would expect gravity to be pulling you that way, right? Wrong. While it is true that that portion of the sphere is pulling you the strongest, most of the sphere is pulling you in the opposite direction, and it cancels out.