Strange

I think that should be If IsEmpty(Range("F29")) Because "F29" is a string and never empty!

Sorry missed the vba bit not sure why plain if wouldn’t work

Numbers are just numbers; it is the format of the cell that displays them in scientific notation (or dates or whatever). I have just tried =IF(D2>D3, "y","n") with your numbers and it seems to work. Are you sure the content of the cell is not being interpreted as text for some reason? (eg. having a space before the number will prevent Excel seeing it as a number) You can find out by using the format menu (Ctrl 1) and changing the format to Number or Currency.

We don't know. They may have always been there. Locally, conservation laws. On cosmological scales, the conservation of energy is more complex so it is not obvious that energy is conserved in the same way.

It is certainly much bigger than we ca observe. The observable universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter. The whole universe is probably several orders of magnitude larger, if not infinite. I don't know if you can imagine that or not. Don't bring your speculative ideas up in someone else's thread. On large scales it is. The current large scale structures probably evolved from quantum scale variations in the early universe that expanded.

The Big Bang was a snappy name, invented by Fred Hoyle, to compare with the (equally catchy) Steady State theory. (He always denied it was intended to be derogatory.) It is a model that describes the ongoing expansion of the universe from an early hot, dense state. The universe was then, and is still, uniformly full of matter. (Hence not an explosion.) As the universe expanded it cooled (like when you release the pressure from an aerosol can) which allowed structures like stars and galaxies to form.

It is a bit late to be asking about this: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320563.php

And some have fractional charge!

Bosons have integer spin (and some have charge). Gravitons would have spin 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton " The graviton must be a spin-2 boson because the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-order tensor(compared with electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-order tensor)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

I just thought it was an amusing coincidence that the XKCD cartoon was posted the same time as your post. Maybe the aliens planned it that way.

! Moderator Note The correlation between fans of fiction and Trump voters is off topic. If you want to discuss that, start a thread.

This is a link to test

As I understand it, the mathematics of GR requires the manifold to be differentiable (smooth and continuous everywhere). A boundary, implied by a centre, could conflict with this. Zero. So a point has no physical existence. (Neither does an ideal, 1D, line.) It is just a mathematical abstraction.

Of course not, because it is science. However, the universe having a centre (or a boundary, which is probably the same thing) would be inconsistent with our current models. There is no reason evidence of a "start" and certainly no evidence that it started as 1D (a line? really?)

There is no centre of the universe. And your answer seems to be tautological: "what is the direction of time?" "forward in time" (although I don't think a better answer is possible).

1. The rules require you to present your evidence here on the forum, not in links or documents 2. The document you have provided just has sections of the text covered up. If there is an error in the mathematics of special relativity, it should be easy for you to show it here. Note that the forum supports Latex (between [math][/ math] tags) for setting equations. (I assume you are very familiar with Latex as you are a mathematician.)

Please show us what "errors" you have found in the mathematics.

Please show us what "errors" you have found in the mathematics. ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

I have, rather reluctantly, approved this post because the basic question is quite interesting. "At common compression ratios, up to about 50:1, Fractal compression provides similar results to DCT-based algorithms such as JPEG.[8]At high compression ratios fractal compression may offer superior quality. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_compression However, I don't know if it is possible to combine two completely different compression methods. I suppose you could compress using one and then the other, but it is not clear there is any benefit to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

I got the 50 megatons figure from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1018_to_1023_J Confirmed by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent But I think I missed an order of magnitude, it should be at least 20 times the size of that bomb. Do you need a factor of 2 in there for the mass of the antimatter plus the mass of the matter? (I think I made the same mistake with my calculations - so I think it should be 40 times).

Do you have any evidence for that? What do you mean by "fractal" in this sentence? A fractal is a mathematical abstraction. How does that "balled up"? You haven't cooked a fractal. You may have cooked algae (some of which are toxic, so be careful). If you have boiled the water (or even heated above about 65°) then you have already killed the bacteria so there is no point adding chlorine. What "small fractal things"? Why would pressure get rid of them? Stop posting this drivel.

What do you mean by "smooth"? Is it any "smoother" than other sources of water? Chlorine is added to kill bacteria. Do you have any evidence that it makes it "smoother"? Chlorine does not last long in water if you leave it out. Do you think that water that has been standing for a while is "less smooth"? Have you considered that this might be because it has dissolved other gases from the atmosphere? Chlorine salt is not chlorine. They have very different properties. Chlorine is toxic. Chlorine (sodium) salt is essential for life. Nonsense. Particulates are generally considered a greater health hazard than gases, because most gases are not present in enough concentration to be dangerous. Also, burning wood will realise noxious gases as well as particulates. Do you have any evidence for that? What is a "GOOD fractal"? And do you have any evidence (beyond your "belief") that his battery involves fractals? Do you have any evidence that: a) there is any such thing as an "anti fractal"? b) there is any such thing as "fractal explosiveness"? c) there can be an "overabundance of fractal"? Do you even know what a fractal is? The way you are using it is very non-standard, to say the least. This is just meaningless gibberish.

That would be more than twice 40 times the energy of the largest nuclear bomb ever tested, 50 megatons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba That is a lot of explosion Whether that destroys the asteroid depends on what it is made of and exactly where the explosion occurs.