Strange

This appears to be an argument from incredulity. Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible? Perhaps, to reverse the logic of The Princess Bride, you mean inconceivable? Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. A third option that you are ignoring is that a god or gods did it. Another option is that it is a simulation created by aliens. Or future humans. Or gods. Or the universe is nothing like you think it is because you are lying in hospital in a coma after a hoverboard accident on one of the moons of Garglepox IV.

You could try here, in the computer science section: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/25-computer-science/ Or you could google the error. It is almost certain someone else has encountered it. Or you could search Stack Overflow (https://stackoverflow.com/questions) and if you don't find anything, then ask there.

I can think of two possibilities: 1. The vibration caused the last of the silvering to come away from the glass so the rust spots became visible. 2. The rust spots were always there in the mirror but you only noticed them when you examined it this time because of the spots on the windows, checking for damage, etc. I don't think there is any connection between the rust spots in the mirror and the brown spots on the windows (dead bugs? tree sap? pollen?) I also think we can eliminate the tree causing instant rust as a possibility.

Also, it might seem tedious to have to write 500 words, or whatever, on some topic you have been studying but it is not just about regurgitating the information to prove you have learned it. Essay writing is a valuable skill (or set of skills) in its own right. It requires you to organise your thoughts and think about the best way to present the information, think critically about what information is necessary, about what the reader already knows and what they need to be told, etc. These are all transferable skills that should be of value in almost any job. Even if you end up on the factory floor, instead of in academia, if you are better than the next guy at explaining to newcomers how to do the job, or are able to see a more efficient way to do it, because of the skills you learned then that might open up all sorts of opportunities.

We have a whole thread about Stephen Hawking. He's quite a celebrity.

It's almost like you are not replying to what people said. No one said most or all comedy is satirical. But the example provided is satirical. It isn't funny because it includes racist statements, it is funny because it pokes fun at those who make such statements. They also have to be funny, which that one spectacularly fails at. (Unless you are 12, perhaps. Or am I being unfair to 12 year olds?) Oddly, no one claimed any of those things. Are you trying to use rhetorical fallacies as a source of humour? It isn't working.

Who’da guessed

Because there are a lot of people willing to lie and cheat to get a qualification. It won’t help in the real world when they get a job and can’t get someone else to do their work for them.

The “single point” comes from a naive extrapolation using GR. But we know our current theories can’t describe what happens before a certain point in time. It is assumed that a theory of quantum gravity will explain more about the earliest times, etc. Dark energy seems to be a property of space so, as space expands, total energy increases (if that’s what you mean).

I looked for all the significant words from both the original (incoherent) claim and this slightly more comprehensible version in the PDF. None of them seem to be in there. I skimmed the article and saw nothing relevant. If anything, it appears to be sceptical of both any connection between genetics and complex behaviours, and between genetics and race. So I fail to see how it supports the prima-facie ludicrous claims of Zambroski (if it is, indeed, him). Given that, I agree with John: anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed the same way. Especially when it doesn't even pass the "interesting idea, I wonder if its worth looking into" test.

Ah, OK. You win. (Not often someone makes me feel young!)

This has so little relevance, you might as well have told us that you can make linguine by thinly slicing courgettes

No. We have a theory that explains why light cannot escape a black hole. This is why we think black holes exist. There is absolutely reason to think that photons cannot be created inside a black hole. Unless you have evidence to support this idea it is not science (and is, therefore, pretty meaningless.

Almost certainly true.

Why this bizarre obsession with China?

I don’t think that is the reason. (You seem very fond of claiming bizarre reasons for things.) Also cats have better vision some respects (eg night vision) but not others (resolution, colour, etc)

The new electric ones don’t. The old diesel ones did.

Or a proper health care system, as I like to think of it. This also undermines the whole concept of insurance where risk is amortised over a population. In the end it becomes a savings scheme to pay for your healthcare.

It is possible that expansion is a result of a Big Crunch/Bounce. However, the rate of expansion is accelerating, hence dark energy, which suggests it won’t “crunch” again and therefore probably didn’t before. The Schwarzschild metric describes a spherically symmetrical distribution of mass (in an otherwise empty universe). This obviously isn’t relevant to a collapsing (or expanding) universe. There are no imaginary values inside the Schwarzschild radius. And I can’t see how the Lorentz transform is relevant. I gave up at this pint I’m afraid.

Each fundamental fermion has its own field. No. Because some fundamental particles are bosons. The particle associated with the em field is the photon, which is a boson. The fields are the media.

I think this is basically the logic that led Galileo to the conclusion.

You are absolutely right, here. There is a greater force on the more massive object The next step is to consider how the force affects objects of different mass. Check out Newton's Second Law of Motion.

This was nicely demonstrated in n the moon with a hammer and feather.

So can a piece of string.

Sounds like fantasy to me.