Strange

I agree that HP is a useful language to learn for web applications. But it is a horrible language in almost every other respect: it has grown and had more and more features kludged onto it in really ugly ways. Rather like the similarly valuable, but equally bad, Perl and Visual Basic. These, in my opinion, are terrible languages to learn programming. You should only be allowed to use them after you have learnt good programming practice by using a reasonably well designed language!

No. Clearly, neither of us is explaining ourselves well. What I am saying is that every part of my body is here now (12:24). This seems to contradict your assertion that particles "do not exist at the same time". Or (perhaps more likely) that I don't understand what you mean by this. As you are unable to clarify this further (other than just repeating "particles don't exist at the same time") then I guess we are not going to get anywhere. As far as I can tell, they are all here now. I assume by "spacetime model" you mean special or general relativity. There is nothing in that model that says the particles of my body are not all here at the same time. Well, there is a problem with "never age". But yes, it is true that, for example, the cells in the top of my head are ageing ever so slightly slightly faster than the cells in my feet. (Amazingly, we have clocks that can measure this difference) Is that what you mean by "not existing at the same time"? That is a very odd phrase to describe this. I think that what you really mean is something like "experiencing time passing at different rates" or more conventionally "time dilation"? As time cannot stop, the question is meaningless. (But, obviously, if there were no time there could be no movement. Similarly, if there were no space there could be no movement.) Yes (crudely speaking; don't forget that this is just a relative measurement, because movement is relative). Note that length ("space") changes as well. Yes, I am saying that time is not movement. Neither is space. Movement is a relationship between time and space, if you like. Our relative measurements of time and of space are affected by relative motion, but time, space and motion are different things. There is still time and space even with no movement. For example, you can use general relativity to study the behaviour of empty space-time (where there is nothing to move). The muon is a fundamental particle with no "moving parts" but time passes for a stationary muon and it will decay after a few microseconds. In the most accurate atomic clocks, one of the challenges is minimising movement and compensating for any remaining motion. ---- p.s. You probably need to get to grips with the concepts of "proper time" (what an observer measures with their own clock; it always passes at the same rate) and "coordinate time" (what an observer measures [or calculates] for another frame of reference). This might help clear up your confusion.

Well, I don't think I understood any of that so I'll take your word for it. Are you saying that velocities of molecules in gases and liquids are (approximately) the same (assuming they are at the same temperature)? Not sure how either magma or taps are directly relevant. Although, I suppose you would get a very different effect from dropping coloured water into a glass than you would by shooting a high speed jet of it. But then the question would be (to bring it back to the OP) would that be about the same for two liquids and two gases?

I'm surprised. I have seen a plume of gas from a volcano rising hundreds (possibly thousands) of metres in the air before forming patterns like this (up the other way, of course) on a much larger scale: I assumed the difference in scale was due to the difference in density. If not, what does enable the patterns in air to be much larger than those of ink drops in water? Is it just the scale of the phenomenon: massive amounts of fluid mixing on very large scales versus a tiny amount mixing on small scales? Kind of a fractal effect? That sounds quite plausible now I think of it; the small scale mixing within the gas plume was probably similar to what is going on in the glass...

They are both fluids, so I would say the interactions would be largely the same. There will be differences because of the different densities and speeds of the molecules in each case, but the patterns of mixing you get with, say, smoke and dyed water are similar.

It is where every operation is treated as a mathematical function rather than as a series of steps to be performed (the difference is hard to explain until you have done both!) Thanks!

It doesn't change the frequency of the light, but it changes the mix of frequencies. So if we say that white light has an equal amount of light of every frequency (this may not be true for a white LED) then a red filter, for example, will block the blue and green frequencies and let the redder frequencies through.

Do you have a reference for that (I mean the Wall Street thing)? I don't mean to sound sceptical but, well ... I'm sceptical! I think learning functional programming is a good idea, though. I haven't done any functional programming for years, but I gather that Haskell or F# are good choices for this.

There isn’t really a “best” language. I would suggest Python. It is interpreted (rather than compiled) which means it is simple to use and is interactive. It embodies most of the important features of programming languages (except strong typing) and is very well documented.

I’ll second that recommendation. It is still populated by serious anateur and professional astronomers (and astrophycists, etc)

The Big Bang is not an explosion and there is no centre. Maybe you should start a thread to ask questions about what the Big Bang model actually says, instead of making up nonsense (as usual). Why? Because you have an unrealistic view of science?

Apart from the colour, you have two identical circles. Can you describe, algorithmically or mathematically, what it means to turn a sphere or circle inside out? As far as I can see, if you swap the position of all the points on the surface with that on the opposite side, you just end up with the exact same sphere or circle that you started with. Why is the size relevant? (I assume lp and tp refer to Planck time and distance?) What are "plot 1" and "plot 2"? (The rest of your post appears to be gibberish.)

There is no centre of the universe in the Big Bang model. Nope. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for this Big Bang theory (which is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis). It will never be "proved" because science doesn't really "prove" anything. Nope. Nope. But I am not at all surprised to find out that you don't know what you are talking about.

I have read this several times and I still can't work out if this is supposed to mean that the vectors are translated through the centres of the circles or that the circles are translated through the centres of the circles. (If we can assume that "dragging" means a translation.) Neither make much sense, but the latter seems self-contradictory. So we are left with "translating the vectors through the circles' centres". But I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

No one knows. But there are lots of ideas. None of them stable at the moment, because we don't have any theories that work in the very early stages of the universe. All your current science can say is that the universe started out in a hot, dense state and then expanded and cooled. How that hot, dense state came about is unknown. It may have existed forever. It may have been trigged by a quantum fluctuation. Or the collapse of an earlier universe. Or the collapse of a black hole. Or ... There is no evidence that such a thing happened. The nearest is the "zero energy universe" but that doesn't really start from "literally NOTHING".

It could do, if you had any evidence that such a thing existed. But more relevant would be a heron that thought, "cogito ergo sum".

Well, some obvious ones That there is an “I” That there are things called “thoughts” That “I” is aware of thoughts That “I” is also the source of the thoughts And so on

Not much. They are both signatories of the Berne Convention (as are most countries).

Not a proper 3D rendering, but might give you an idea (basically, it will look like a flat disk with sharp edges). Side view and plan view: I have no idea how this is connected with the thread title

Luckily, science is not some sort of dogmatic belief system so there are a great many people looking at many different models for dark matter including many types of modified gravity and many possibilities for some type of matter (and other more esoteric ideas). It doesn’t seem to be available on arxiv or anywhere else so I can’t comment. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. No

You seem to be implying some sort of inconsistency when I am doubtful about one concept but affirm the opposite. Except this isn’t true. Are you arguing against a strawman of your own invention? That is Galilean relativity. A very old idea. Modern relativity takes it a step further and shows that measurements of time and space are also relative (and inter-related). There is no evidence for this. Now all you need to do is come up with a testable (ie mathematical) model. And test it. Obviously. I would be worried if my left leg existed in 1600 and my right hand wouldn’t exist until 2025. So I guess you mean something different by “at the same time” but I have no idea what you mean.

That is power not energy. You could, in principle, get 1600W out for half the time. But, you can’t get out more energy than you put in.

Maybe you should provide a link to the video. And say what part of the explanation you don’t understand. (There is no point someone here giving the same explanation. )

The words inductive, repulsive and reactive are not synonyms so this question is meaningless. (Apart from being a strawman.)

What an idiotic statement Scientists have a model that is consistent with the evidence. Nothing to do with “big bangers” or belief”.