Strange

Isn’t false equivalence just specific example of a logical (or more accurately, perhaps, rhetorical) fallacy?

And I wouldn't wait for the OP to come back and explain anything. He never does. He just seagull-posts cryptic diagrams.

We are pretty sure there are only 3 space dimensions and 1 time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime (And they are all relative) To take a simple example, if you are standing on a railway station and a train is moving past you then distances on the train (in the direction of travel) will be shorter but times will be longer. You can think of this as "swapping" a portion of the space dimension for the time dimension. (More accurately, it is a rotation from space to time.) So you can't think of the universe as having a fixed 3D spatial structure and time that ticks along unchangingly. That (perhaps surprisingly) isn't how the universe works.

Maybe. If you make a set of measurements they are not guaranteed not to change so you can think of that as a snapshot. But the way you phrase it makes it seem like you are thinking of the time dimension as completely separate from the others. This is not the case; we know they are all inextricably linked. So it is a genuinely 4 dimensional measurement system not just a 3 dimensional one with time added on

Not sure what you mean. They are just measurements. If you measure the length of your dining table, is it a “snapshot”?

Why? How much water do you think there is? What will you do with it? How much will this cost? The main caption is: "Crystal heater-cooler to melt the water ice at the Moon’s poles". Which doesn't really make it any clearer.

Why should they talk about it?

what do you want to discuss?

That's great. I have always struggled with how to make the 3 spatial dimensions explicit in an example like this. I shall pinch this!

Also, I think that broadening the definition of "living" to include all matter would render the word fairly meaningless (semantic bleaching) and so we would need to invent a new word to describe the things that we currently consider to be "alive". And why is this in Quantum Theory?

Well, we would normally call it "the time" but it gets confusing. We have more words related to space/distance/length/position/etc so it is easier to avoid ambiguity. But think of it this way, you need four dimensions to specify an event. Say you want to meet somebody for lunch, this requires you to specify a position in space AND a time. So we have to use four independent values to specify the event. That is what we call "dimensions".

You say that as if it were unusual!

Not by the usual definition of "living", no.

Because it is made up of 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and one temporal. A location in space is specified by three coordinates, for example x, y, z or latitude, longitude, altitude. A "location" in time is specified by one value. Together, these can be used to specify a location in space-time (known as an "event"). So we end up with four-dimensional space-time. Temporal means related to time. Space <-> spatial; time <-> temporal. (It is, of course, also related to temporary - for a short time. It's from Latin, you know.) It looks like the first part of this is just based on a misunderstanding of "temporal". There is more to existence than energy. (Mass, electric charge, colour "charge" of quarks, etc)

I answered it above:

If you want a space-time rap, there is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCa_ONDC0s

Huh? Space-time is a set of coordinate or dimensions that we use to measure the world around us. Existence is more than just space and time. There is matter and energy, for example.

I'm fairly sure planets don't care about morality.

Time is just a measurement, in the same way as distance (space) is. What do you mean by "something"?

Are you asking if it is possible to change the spin of a (fundamental) particle like a proton? That has already been answered (no). So what is your question?

Momentum is not a force. I'm not sure you know what anything is.

Speed is not a force. Reported for trolling.

The rotation of the Sun does not cause gravity. We know this because: we have a theory of gravity that theory is based on mass and distance, not rotation the theory works so rotation is not a factor Stop making crap up.

You just said, "They debunked the myth." http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html All properly controlled experiments that I have read about show that these effects do not exist.

There is no such “other force” It isn’t following it. It is being evaporated from the comet.