Strange

Well, I’m still quite embarrassed about a few things I said on usenet 30 years ago so I can sympathise!

Can I second what Area54 said. And I apologise if I was a bit mean before. If you are worried because you use the same username on other sites, you could ask the mods to change it (I don’t know if they will)

Not wishing to start an argument ( ) but I think you mean pin ...

YES! Although it is doubtful a singularity represents physical reality. No one knows. Quantum fluctuation? Big bounce? Colliding multiverse? Other? I think that if the universe is infinite then the initial hot dense state (not singularity) must have been infinite too. I hope the OP found it (and the other answers) useful too

I no longer know what is going on in this thread. And that’s the truth.

I prefer to think of myself as the one asking why Koti and TenOz perceive different things.

As I say, it is an essential part of battery management for electric cars. You can easily do that. I used to carry a spare battery for my old Nokia. Nowadays, it is probably easier to carry a power-brick and recharge the phone from that.

And the students from MSD(*) school have mounted an amazing campaign. This seems to be partly because they are at a really good school with really classes on media, debating and civics (they were in the middle of a project on the 2nd Amendment when the attack happened). They have used social media and videos really well to mobilise people to demonstrate and register to vote. It looks like this time the people's representatives may not be able to get away with muttering "thoughts and prayers" while pocketing bribes campaign funds from the NRA and hoping the news story moves on... (*) I had never heard of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas before this attack. She sounds like an amazing role model for these students.

Paddy. Saint Patricia's day is 25th August. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/st-paddys-day-vs-st-pattys-day

The problem is not with the theory but your garbled representation of it and your kludging a few keywords together as wild guesswork. No it really isn’t

Also, you might want to think about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect I would never have seen your funny outbursts if you hadn't drawn attention to them.

Why do you want them deleted? Have you realised you were making very silly pseudoscientific claims? Anyway, the impotent rage is quite amusing and the website they link to doesn't exist any more.

There is nothing in that thread that says everything is electromagnetism. And nothing about singularities.

This is just wrong. It is so wrong it is not even worthy of an explanation. It is “not even wrong”. It is “you need to learn some basic physics” wrong. Nothing.

So everything is subjective. There are no objective measurements. And yet you think there is objective truth. Odd...

It is essential. The cells get hot (especially the ones in the middle). If you don't monitor this and use it to manage the current (and, if necessary, shut down the array) then you will have a fire or explosion on your hands.

Connecting large numbers of cells in parallel requires complex and precise control to charge and discharge them safely. You need to ensure the current draw from each call is carefully controlled and balanced. You need to monitor the temperature and health of each cell and adjust the current in and out appropriately. Electric cars devote several microprocessors just to managing the batteries. Doing it without that is extremely dangerous, given the large amount of energy stored.

Not really. Relativity of simultaneity seems to directly contradict your view. How can it be true that two events are simultaneous but also be true that they are not? If you (and everyone else around you) measures two events to be simultaneous, using the best and most precise instruments available, is that subjective? It seems an odd use of the word. But the indefinite nature of quantum objects seems to be a fundamental part of the world, not a human invention. That's a good definition.

You confusion seems to come from thinking that all light and matter exploded from some central point and filled the universe. That is not what the Big Bang model describes. Instead, the universe has always been completely full of matter. As the universe expanded there was more room and so the matter got less dense and cooled down. Eventually to the point where it could form stars. We know see the light rom stars all around us, all formed in the last 13 billion years. So we see two main types of evidence for the Big Bang: 1. We see an increasing red-shift of light from galaxies further away. This is consistent with the geometric expansion of the universe which makes apparent recession speed proportional to distance. 2. We see the cosmic microwave background (CMB) all around us with a temperature of 2.7K. This comes from the time when the universe cooled enough to become transparent and so all the light that had been bouncing around in a dense cloud of gas was suddenly free to travel across the universe (this was about 380,000 years after the Big Bang). There is no other theory that can explain the CMB.

Agreed. It is absolutely true that there are no preferred frames! Which makes the truth of simultaneity quite a challenge. I'm not sure what a good definition of truth is. Something that everyone would agree was a fact, maybe? So if everyone in one frame of reference says two events are indisputably simultaneous then it must be true (to them) that they are simultaneous. But if everyone in another frame of reference agrees that they are not simultaneous then their truth is different.

I wouldn't say that was an opinion. I would say it is something that is true and proved to be true. In all cases. It is an absolute truth, in that sense. I am just not convinced that all truths are absolute. I'm not sure what you think is false. We know simultaneity is relative; this was proved by Einstein over 100 years ago. So I guess it is the fact this undermines absolute truth? But it can absolutely true for one observer that A happened before B, but for another observer it is absolutely true they happened at the same time, and for yet another it is absolutely true that B happened before A. So we have three absolute truths which are contradictory. I don't know what to make of that.

I wasn't making a point about whether you know what the truth is, but how you know truth is absolute.(I don't know that (*), so I guess it must be an opinion and therefore not true or false :)) You have ignored the simultaneity example, which I think undermines the concept that truth is absolute. (*) I don't know it isn't true, either...

Two events being simultaneous. Gödel proved that there are mathematical statements that cannot be proved to be either true or false. How do you know that there is such an absolute truth if it is unknowable?

The truth is an abstract concept that we are discussing. I am just testing how one would define it as absolute when it can be different for different people. So there are things that are neither true or false? What about the spin of a particle that hasn't yet been measured? As far as we know, it doesn't have a value until you know it. So truth is conditional? So if we are sitting in the middle of a train and we see two flashes of lightning hit each end of the train at the same time, we can it is true that those two flashes of light were simultaneous? And that is always true and cannot be changed by anything?

I was puzzled by this (thoughts of Stalin editing people out of photos) but then realised you want to see the edit history of posts, not change history!