Strange

If you really think all that complexity is necessary when multiplying two numbers, I feel sorry for you ...

Fair point.

Italian. In the first one (not very good in any language): A: "E le fante?" (Sounds like "elephants" but means "and the Fantas?") In the second one: "Sono identici!" ("They are identical" sounds like "Sono i dentici" = "they are snappers") Obligatory joke, from Bob Monkhouse: "They laughed when I said I wanted to be comedian. Well ... they're not laughing now."

To be fair, natural units are a thing. But I can't see how that it is at all relevant. Captcass seems to be complaining that he used natural units when he shouldn't have. And we didn't spot it. Or something. (In natural units it would just reduce to "l * E = 1/2".) The OP claimed that "length and energy are related: l * E = ħ / 2". The units wouldn't make any difference to the truth or otherwise of this statement. And it still looks bogus to me (it is not dimensionally consistent, apart from anything else). [math]\sigma_{x}\sigma_{p} \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}[/math] For position and momentum. Length and energy are not related in this way.

Not in English. If you want jokes that don't work when translated... Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw there was only Coke in the fridge? A: "Elephants?" -- "These two forks are fish" "Why?" "They are identical !"

I think that one lost something in translation.

You could provide a link. But it doesn't, from the title and quoted extract, appear to have any relevance to energy conservation. "There are no fields only particles": https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616 "Fields and their particles": https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ "Virtual particles: what are they?": https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Maybe you should try and reduce your outgoings. Buy a more economical car, downsize your home, shop at lower cost stores. Maybe get rid of the personal jet ...

A very sensible approach. But Raider5678 seems to be representing it as areal event.

This should be in a sticky or part of the rules or something!

Ah, I may have forgotten (it is about 50 years since I read the bible) does it say they were immortal until they ate the fruit? But they would only obey that instruction if they knew it was wrong not to. If they don't know right from wrong then the scene could go like this: The Big Guy: "Don't eat that fruit" Happy Couple: "OK. We won't" [cut to them eating fruit] TBG: "Why did you eat the fruit when I told you not to?" Eve: "Because it looked nice and we didn't know we shouldn't. We do now so, like ... sorryyy" Adam: "Oh, and we didn't realise we were lying when we said we wouldn't and then did. We didn't know what a 'lie' was. Do now. Sorry again. I'll get my coat." TBG: "Coat? COAT!? WTF have I done? I should have listened when her indoors told me to put the tree somewhere else. But no, I had to be all omniscient and insist it was OK. Now, I'll have to apologise..."

They touched it and didn't die. Does that mean god lied? But you miss the point: how would they know it was wrong to disobey that instruction if the knowledge right and wrong was the result of eating the forbidden fruit?

This might be a key concept: inertia is mass. So on the International Space Station, everything appears weightless but it takes more effort to push a fellow astronaut across the room than it does an apple.

Sounds like your TV might be about as good as Italian.

Maybe not relevant but interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43429933

Ignoring the debatable point whether octopuses are more intelligent or not, many other species (horseshoe crabs, tarantulas, various snails and centipedes) all use the same molecule for oxygen transportation. There is no obvious correlation with intelligence.

The effect depends on the fact the plates are conductors. This, like many other things, is a property of the bulk material not the atoms it is made of. A single atom is not a conductor or an insulator.

I agree. But without the in-depth understanding that allows you to refine or reject those ideas, you won't make any progress.

And that is why I think it is helpful to think of it as a story. It is important to think about where you want to get to, how you want to get there, what points you want to make, what order you introduce the concepts, etc. Think about the structure - what the listener/reader needs to know as they follow the story. You need to get your own thoughts in order before trying to write it down. Some people find mind-maps helpful for this. After that, it improves with practice...

Depends how you define matter. One could say it is “stuff” made of atoms, in which case an electron would not be matter. Or one could say it’s stuff made of fermions, in which case an electrons would be. Not sure that is relevant either way.

Also largely nonsense. He did have to learn about tensors, and worked with other mathematicians to do this.

Nonsense

That question is related to SR not GR. Anyone can ask a question. The reason he could develop an answer is because he had studied physics and was a great mathematician. He had written a number of other ground breaking physics papers before publishing his papers on relativity. (Including the one that would earn him a Nobel Prize.)

It was exactly those things. He studied physics and math, and used that knowledge to develop his theories. Making up nonsense like this is not productive.

That ship has has well and truly sailed.