Strange

Then suggest it to THEM not to us. What do you think?

What do you think? Why do you ask?

My analogy was only countably infinite because it used steps. In reality, surely the universe would be uncountably infinite (if it were infinite) because space is (in current models) smooth and differentiable, which means it is continuous. But I think the concept of countable or uncountably infinite only applies to how you measure it, not how large the universe is. So it is, to some extent, model dependent. (But I may well be wrong about all the above!)

Google: how to make a simple animated gif https://www.wikihow.com/Create-an-Animated-GIF Please stop posting questions that you could easily answer yourself with 10 seconds effort. You could have done a google search in less time than it took you to write your question here. You are testing the adage "there is no such thing as a stupid question" to the limits.

Just to add a detail to Markus's (excellent) description, no two electrons can share the same "quantum state". What this means is that all the electrons in an atom cannot be in the lowest energy level. You can have up to two electrons at each energy level (because they can have opposite spin and hence a different quantum sate) and so once each energy level is occupied the other electrons have to be at progressively higher energy levels. This, ultimately, explains all of chemistry, the mechanical properties of materials and why computers work!

That raises a question: would frame dragging affect the magnetic field of a charged rotating black hole? And, more generally, do we know how to apply Maxwells equations in curved space time?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Calculus+in+Computer+Science

The hamster isn't going anywhere. The concept of infinite size means (by analogy with the integers, for example) that however far you walk, you can always take one more step (with the caveat that, because the universe could be finite but unbounded, you never get back to your starting point).

It is already possible, just using suggestion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/false-memories/ Much more here: https://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=creating+false+memories

How much power does it need? Of course. It is possible to design and manufacture pretty much anything. (As long as it doesn't break the laws of physics.) The important question is: Is it worth designing and manufacturing it. How large is your customer base? How much are they willing to pay? What are the manufacturing costs? Until you can answer questions like this, the question is pretty pointless. (Most of your questions seem pretty pointless, though.)

Depends on the size, thickness and type of glass, how it is mounted/supported, how and where it is broken, and ...

This is the sort of thing you find as an introductory example in logic design. Basically, it is a simple reject that could be done by anyone with some basic hardware and software skills. Nowadays, with the wide range of cheap computers (Raspberry Pi, Arduino, etc) and add on displays, you probably don’t need much hardware knowledge.

3,141 ?

I think the claim is that the Hebrew text: ויאמר אלהים אל־משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃ Contains the letter he (ה) which kind of looks a little bit like the wrong Pi if you squint. But, of course, it will appear in every chapter. Even more amazingly, the English version of Exodus 27:18 contains the letter e which, as we all know, is approximately 2.718 I think believing in numerology must be some sort of disease or symptom of brain damage.

This is answered in your other, nearly identical, thread. Why would you burn camphor? Why would you want a different flame colour? The only reference to burning camphor on the Wikipedia page is for Hindu religious ceremonies. So (judging by your name) you might be better able to answer that than anyone else here.

Yes. When I was at school I would regularly undo the locks on people's bikes (not to steal them, just to show off). Is it easy to pick a lock on a petrol cap? Probably not quite as easy. But as the thief doesn't care about damage, they just have to jam a big screwdriver into the lock and twist. The lock on a petrol cap is just a mild deterrent - to make a potential thief try another one to see if it is unlocked. You need to consider the cost-benefit analysis: is it worth spending time and money on a more secure petrol cap when it is only a very minor problem for most people? If there are some people who live in an area where this is a big problem, then they can buy and fit a more secure petrol cap.

I think a cheap combination lock is easier to break into than a cheap key lock (or at least, no harder). The only advantage is that you don't need a key. But you have a key for the bike already so there is no advantage.

Why would that be more secure than a key?

It seems like it is the same thing. It wasn't obvious!

The equation is certainly "allowed". It might even be correct. It may be that a future theory of quantum gravity will give different results when the distance is comparable to the Planck length but we don't really know. Note that the masses in your equation are very big compared to objects where we need to take quantum effects into account so it is probably only the distance that might cause problems with Newtonian gravity. Also, you have labelled the force Fp but it is not the same as the Planck force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_force

It isn't necessarily. Kinetic energy depends on the frame of reference you measure it in. There isn't really a frame of reference where the kinetic energy of galaxies increases. On the other hand, the photons we receive from those distant galaxies are red-shifted and so have lower energy. Where did it go? Nowhere. Energy is not really conserved in GR.

I think they mean "a non-believer in religion" ("non religious-believer" doesn't really work in English). It doesn't really prove either of those things. But the evidence does seem to show it is an innate part of human nature but, as with pretty much all human traits, people are affected to differing degrees (some people are very willing to believe in gods and others not at all).

And so has god.

Not really. All (well, nearly all) Christians believe in God. Only a small number of them deny the reality of evolution. There are also people who deny or dispute evolution even though they don't believe in god. So there is no obvious causal relationship between a belief in god and denying evolution. Your personal beliefs are not really relevant. OF COURSE. Because people do. Why not? Does it need another box labelled E = Itoero's irrational hatred of religion. I think it might be time to ask the mods to close this thread as you have the answer to your question and now you are just using it as a platform for your bigotry.

Are you actually incapable of logical thought? Do you really not understand why this is irrelevant? Some do that because of their religious beliefs. Some do it for other reasons. But, to try and stick to the topic of the thread (the thread that you started but don't seem to understand) not everyone who believes in a god denies these things. So to summarise the logical possibilities: | Accept | Deny | Evolution | Evolution ---------------------------- | | Religious | A | B | | ---------------------------- | | Not religious | C | D | | The thread is about the people in A, while you insist on talking about B instead. The fact there are people in B doesn't stop there being people in A (in fact, guess what, it is totally irrelevant). (And of course there are people in C and D as well.) Perhaps you should ask the mods to change the thread title to "I'd like to bitch about religious people again"