Strange

+1 for the final paragraph (I'm ashamed to say it makes mine look a little flippant)

No, I can't see it either. Odd.

Worked straightaway for me. Maybe the forum software has decided you are not to be trusted! This could be a browser issue as I think the (visible) flag is set by Javascript on your end. Have you tried shutting down the browser and restarting it? (Yes, I did work in customer support. And, yes, "turn it off and on again" was a standard suggestion!)

To some extent you are right. The states and industry will continue to work to combat the problem, despite the president. However, much more could be done if the administration were on their side as well. As it is, the government is likely to try and block some attempts to improve things. They are dishonestly promoting "clean coal" instead of low carbon technologies. They have already attempted to block funding to any research that mentions climate change in the proposal (so scientists have just had to find alternative ways of describing what they are doing). This is dangerously close to censorship, or at least the "newspeak" of 1984. (p.s. sorry to hear about your dad.)

Argument from credulity?

You might like this: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-could-matter-escape-the-event-horizon-during-a-black-hole-merger-f1f5681fd017

Not quite as potentially confusing as the Babylonians who had no symbol for zero and so left a blank space.

There is. It's a dot. They use a comma for the decimal mark, I think.

This may be a silly question, but how do you know they are spider bites? Have you actually seen them bite you? I would see a doctor in case it is something else.

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy. Waves contain energy. That energy can be transmitted to something that absorbs the wave. In some cases, there is sufficient energy to change the shape of the molecule, this can then affect its chemical behaviour. Ultimately, this leads to the release of a neurotransmitter that allows a signal to be sent to the brain. And so on. But, really, you should take an organised course of study rather than trying to pick up bits of information piecemeal and then trying to fit them together.

You're joking, right? Surely you went to school at least a little bit? Just in case you are as stunningly ignorant as you seem (despite all your "I have studied in depth" claims): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics#Lenses http://www.ivyroses.com/HumanBody/Eye/Eye_Image-Formation.php

How could the universe be described by words if words had nothing to do with the universe? (Perhaps that is your justification for the opening of the Gospel of John.) But words, like mathematics, are just useful human invention. They are not an essential part of the universe "out there".

Which part of vision are you referring to? The formation of an image on the retina cane described classically (wave theory). In fact that is far easier than the photon model. The stimulation of the photoreceptors can also be described classically, but a more detailed/accurate description may depend on the fact that light energy is quantised (in the same way that the photoelectric effect can only be fully explained by quantum theory).

And that, in simple terms, is the problem with trying to use light as a frame of reference: light still has to be moving at c relative to you, even though you are moving at c.

I understand how our invention of geometry can be used to describe the universe, to some extent. But that doesn't necessarily say that geometry is part of the universe. So the universe is based on incomplete mathematics? Or only approximately based on mathematics? Once upon a time, we described the universe describing Euclidean mathematics. Presumably, at that time, you would have insisted that the universe was Euclidean. Now we can also describe the universe as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. So, presumably you think that is what the universe is. But in future there may be a completely different, perhaps quantised, description of the universe and you will insist, that is the way the universe really is. But all those models will still work. So you can't say that any of them are how the universe really is. They are just descriptions. They provide no basis for saying what the universe really is. We don't know, and can't know, what the universe really is, so it is a bit silly to claim that your belief is correct when it is likely to be overthrown in future. Your religious/Platonic beliefs have no basis.

Obviously not! Year-month-day is by far the most logical (which is why it is part of an ISO standard) as it allows sorting by date very simply. I always name files in this format, for example. But you are right that the US system is utterly bonkers.

Just a reminder that tar's whinging about how unfair it is that he has to pay tax to help other members of society started out with his objection to the US paying its fair share towards the problems cause by climate change. I was listening to a program from the Solomon islands yesterday. Five islands have already disappeared completely due to rising sea levels. The cemetery island is gradually being flooded and some graves (and the contents) being washed away so people can no longer go and pay respects to their parents or grandparents. Many houses that were formerly on solid land are now in the sea and collapsing. Those people need to build new houses, but they can barely afford to. This has never been a heavily industrialised country and never will be. They need financial help to overcome the problems created by "the west" so it seems eminently reasonable for "the west" to take some responsibility. But no doubt tar will tell them they just need to work a bit harder so they can afford to build on higher land (while there still is some).

There is a similar problem with dates. Is 10/11/12 the 10th November 2012 (UK) or the 11th October 2012 (USA) or 12th November, 2010 (Japan) Actually, I don't think people would normally use two digit years in Japan - apart from anything else, the current year is both 2017 and Heisei 29.

Here are a coupe of articles on the difficulties with defining energy in GR (i.e. for the universe): http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ (this one is about the issue of dark energy) However, we don't even know what dark energy is, or why its effects appear to have increased.

https://xkcd.com/1919/

That is a really stupid comment. Of course it has been detected: that is why the concept exists. No one made it up for no reason at all. Ditto virtual particles. Translation: "I am too lazy to learn any science, so I made up some fairy tales" Reported for spamming.

You have that the wrong way round. The universe doesn't obey our laws of physics, our laws attempt to describe (not always correctly) the way the universe works. 1. Your conclusion does not allow from the premise. 2. The universe does not obey equations, our equations attempt to describe the way the universe behaves. 3. Our mathematical descriptions are incomplete, approximate and only apply in limited circumstances. (Which is one reason I don't believe that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe). Says the guy who doesn't know what logic is.

I don't believe it is. And you have not provided any convincing reason for me to change my mind. That is a non-sequitur. Physics is a description of the universe. Therefore our description of the universe is based on mathematics. A description of the universe is not the universe itself. "A map is not the territory." Maybe you should do an introductory course in philosophy so you understand what logic is, how to avoid fallacies, and the difference between a signifier and the signified. You have already proved that you don't so there is no point repeating that. No one believes you.

If you don't know what you are talking about.

It is our attempt to describe how the universe works. I am saying it is not obvious. Having read some arguments on both sides, I am not convinced that the universe is fundamentally mathematical. If you had some argument beyond your personal belief, there could have been a useful discussion but "the universe is mathematical because it is mathematical" is not very compelling. Neither is "the universe is mathematical because I say so". I am not really interested in your personal beliefs, however strongly you hold them.