MigL

All of this stuff is in your body also ( including the Hydrogen and Helium in the sun ), which, unless you're a chatbot, i presume is alive. So there is still no such thing as 'living matter'. ( and sand and glass are just about the same thing; one is solid, the other, a very 'slow' liquid )

Think of the 40 million lives that could have been saved in WW2, if only we had let Hitler take all of Europe. What were those people thinking ... 'Sieg Heil", Trurl

Not non-life and life. You used the terms 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' here You want to try to define this nonsense ?

Science is the process of observing an effect, and drawing predictions and relationships grom that observation, Humanity is not necessary; animals do it also. The gazelle on the savannah have deduced that where the grass is greenest, water may be found. Predatory fish know that where there is garbage, other fish, who eat garbage, may provide a meal. Birds have figured out to take advantage of thermal drafts and the Earth's magnetic field, to navigate long distances. Science is just a word we humans use; the process we call science is undertaken by almost all life. On the other hand, the word, and concept, of religion is strictly human ( as far as I know ).

Sure B Mussolini introduced pensions, and systems so that trains ran on time; but at what cost to the people of Italy and Europe? It doesn't mean anyone wants to be ruled by a fascist dictator; do you ?

Diplomacy, and especially compromise, in an unjust war is otherwise known as losing. And I'm not talking about the greater Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as some of my friends have a difference of opinion about what is just. I'm talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine where D Trump has said he would negotiate peace by letting the Russians keep the territory they've illegally taken, after the Russians have destroyed most of the country. That's great for V Putin; he gains territory and doesn't have to pay reparations for ruining the rest of it. He'll probably try for the rest of it the following year; and then the countries next to the Ukraine. I guess if D Trump was the American President during WW2, he would have negotiated with Hitler to stop the war, by letting him keep all of Europe, to about 30 km from Moscow ( after Op. Barbarossa ). That would have solved everything ???

Life is not simply matter, living or non-living ( please define these terms as they are nonsensical). Life is matter undergoing a process, that happens to be self-replicating.

Is the problem stated correctly, or am I fairly obtuse today. I see contradictory requirements, such as "the least number of smaller circles that can be fitted inside a mother circle" and "must contain the maximum number of circles of the same area" If not for the second requirement ( above ) the answer would be trivially simple. One circle with the radius approaching the limit of the mother circle. What am I missing ?

It's not the small number of cells involved, but the 50 Million connections. Our best supercomputers are currently massively paralleled simple compute engines. The difficult part is the programming that executes on these simple computers for one or many processes to take advantage of the massive parallelism efficiently. Nature and evolution have been 'working' on the brain of insects like the fly, for about 480 Million years. It won't happen anytime soon, but give our guys a little time to figure out true AI.

True. But that is a hypothetical distance, because SR involves space and time. Any light that traverses that distance will have come from from 46 GLY away; there is no 'now' or 'currently'. A lot happens during the travel time; like expansion.

I like that. I'll have to remember to use it next time someone points out that life decreases ( local ) entropy. Religion is a personal subjective belief. As such, there's the Biblical interpretation from various periods in several thousand years past, the changing with each Pope Vatican's interpretation, and various splinter groups of Christianity, and also, people's own personal interpretation. My own, as I still consider myself a Roman Catholic, is that I adhere to the principles and tenets of Christianity which allow me to live what I consider a good life. Things like treating others how you would like to be treated, care, compassion and respect for others, etc. It doesn't matter to me that the Bible or Pope push other tenets that are incompatible with me living what I consider a good life, nor do I think/believe there's an omnipotent bearded old man with a shepherd's staff, who created the heavens and Earth in 6 days, impregnated a virgin by sheer will, and she bore him a son, which he would allow to be killed and then resurrected. And this somehow absolved us of an original sin which was committed ( by entrapment ) of His original creation. ( it sound so silly that you have to wonder if the people who came up with this sh*t were high ) I suspect that you live by the same principles and tenets, but you may call them something else. I myself am flexible on what to call them, but I have called them Christian beliefs at various times; then again, I am an evidence and facts kind of person who doesn't place much significance in 'beliefs'. I would think Dimreepr does call them Christian beliefs, and no one can say he is wrong, as it is a personal subjective belief, that doesn't need to account for anyone else's beliefs. So if your quote was, or wasn't, meant to be a dig at Christians, I understand what you mean, and this time I'm not biting 🙂 . ( making a half-assed attempt to bury the hatchet ) I was all ready to remove the neg point until I read this. Science is, by definition, an evolution of thinking. As new evidence presents itself, our thinking, and science, changes or evolves. Unless you are prepared to argue that, at some point in time, no new evidence or observations will be made, there is a big hole in your argument. Oh, what the heck ... maybe you learned something from this ...

I found T Walz to be somewhat nervous in his delivery and not able to express himself clearly; odd for someone who should be used to explaining clearly to a crowd, as he used to be a teacher. J D Vance came across as a better, more forceful speaker, and better able to deliver his views/points, although some of them were obvious lies. There is no denying he's an intelligent peron, unortunately, also an opportunist who will say and do whatever it take to get elected. Neither was disrespectful, or attacked the other, although they did attack their respective bosses. They focused on policy, and it reminded me of debates of years gone by, before everyone in politics lost their minds. I would say three of them, T Walz, J D Vance and K Harris conducted themselves properly in their respective debates, and displayed reason and integrity. D Trump, on the other hand, ...

Yeah ... right ! Likewise.

180 missiles ( not unguided rockets ) is a lot of pissing, is it not ? ( I'm sorry String Junky; I will not let this conversation be one-sided )

Was that a little too close to home ? Save the capitalized drama; my panties fit just fine. '

Again. No condemnation of Iranian actions whatsoever. But already condemnation of what Israel MIGHT do. Thank goodness some of us aren't biased.

Even light, moving at c , cannot reach anything beyond a 46 Billion light years radius. There's s reason they call it the 'observable' universe.

What is a 'true' Christian ? And why does YOUR definition of one matter to anyone else ?

Clenching your fist while getting your blood pressure checked will result in false readings. You may, as a result, end up on blood pressure medication.

Probably a typo 🙂, but L Boltzmann passed away in 1906, well before the advent of QM and its particles' behavior. Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions apply to ideal gases where particles don't display quantum behavior. Bose-Einstein statistics apply to quantum particles with integer spin ( Bosons ). Bose–Einstein statistics - Wikipedia ( so many names and terms to remember ☹️ )

That is one way of rationalizing it. I'll stick with my 3rd year class in Statistical Thermodynamics, where we derived Fermi-Dirac distributions for quantum particles with half-integer spin ( Fermions ), and Bose-Einstein distributions for quantum particles with integer spin ( bosons ). These distributions dictate how such particles can and cannot act.

That gravitational potential is an energy ... ... which contributes to the stress-energy momentum tensor. Which dictates the curvature term ( as per Mordred above ) or what we call gravity. ( yeah ... sometimes it does seem like a 'dog chasing its tail' even to me )

I don't think you're saying that 'inclusivity' has been detrimental. But definitely students shouldn't be 'protected' from 'hardships', or difficult concepts, they may encounter in the 'real world'. I realize some can handle such hardships better than others, and once upon a time in Canada, we had High School to Gr12 for technical/trades education and a further Gr13 for University admission. Nowdays, it seems such 'sorting' is not allowed, and university admission standards are set to allow the maximum numbers, even if some of those numbers are not capable ( may not be politically correct, but it is true ). At least it is better than the US, where for some learning institutions, the only standard is how much money your parents have.

Gravity is self-coupling; as a result, its equations ( as GR ) are non-linear. The same issue is being described by you both, but you are failing to connect the two. Gravity has to be, or it would not work. Our model, GR, is not; hence the search for models that don't manifest infinities. I believe he's still confusing normalization and renormalization. The simplest 'layman' explanation of renormalization is as follows. Consider trying to find the charge of an electron by moving a test charge closer and closer to it. Claasical electromagnetism tells us that, as the electron has no extent, once r approaches zero, the force, and therefore the electron's charge, approaches infinity. Quantum mechanics rationalizes this by assuming the electron is surrounded by a 'fog' of virtual electrons, that becomes increasingly dense as you approach the electron. These virtual electrons contribute to the value of the charge, and are the inner loops ( not sure of terminology ) of the Feynman diagram; an infinity of them adding up to infinite charge. What renormalization does, is subtract all contributions from these inner loops, or contributions from the virtual electron cloud, leaving only the 'bare' electron charge. Somrtimes it is difficult to see what a mathematical process is physically doing. I hope I have clarified instead of further 'muddying the waters'.

I have a nephew whom I love dearly. He has his own business and is successful, but whenever he needs to do anything, he looks up a how-to on his phone and YouTube. Most of his generation ( he's out of school for several years ) are used to the quick answers the internet provides, and sometimes have no clue how to obtain those answers without their phone/internet. You see this all the time where a young person is trying to make change from a cash register. I know if I was an astronaut on Apollo 13 and had to radio Houston that 'we had a problem', I could pull out a slide rule to calculate course corrections ( just like Tom Hanks ). Not many people under 60 know what a slide rule is, or how logarithms allow it to work. Todays world, and students in particular, are so dependent on technology that one EMP would end their world.