Strange

You have demonstrated quite convincingly that you don't have a single clue. Not one. Quit kidding yourself. #dunningkruger No one has said otherwise.So that's OK.

*facepalm*

So maybe it is time for you to stop pontificating about things you don't understand. So why did you say it couldn't be measured? You are not making very much sense here. I can't take anything you say seriously.

How Traveling Back In Time Could Really, Physically Be Possible

That is a dangerous attitude. It sounds like you are saying the president can't be criticised because he is the president. Next step: dictatorship. Pathetic. It is nothing to do with panic. He has DENIED it. If we take action early enough, we may not have to. Prevaricate (and deny) for too long and it may require more drastic measures. Actually, it is probably already too late. Lifestyles will have to change.

It might not be the forum software; does your browser do autofill of form fields?

So you don't have a service that tells you what the weather will be tomorrow on your planet? How interesting. Relative humidity. Precipitation. Wind speed. I guess this ignorance explains why your assertions are completely baseless.

Thanks. (I have had a few negative reactions to my answers recently so it is reassuring to know I can still be useful occasionally!)

Why not draw a diagram and work out the answer. Then you might get it. It obviously isn't going to help if people just tell you the same thing over and over again. All I can say is: light rays leave all parts of the surface at all angles. Some of those rays, from every part, will be at just the right angle to intersect your eye. That may seem improbable, but then only a minute fraction arrive at your eye. The vast majority don't. That is why the Sun is merely very bright. I can't think of any simpler way of saying it. If you really don't get it (and I find it hard to believe you are not just pulling our collective leg) maybe it is time to concentrate on something simpler.

This is simple schoolboy geometry, as has already been pointed out. You still haven't explained why you think it is impossible to see the Sun.

There is no matter involved in a merger of "just" two black holes and so nothing to generate Em radiation. But if there is an accretion disk, then that could be affected in such a way as to generate radiation; but even this might require more than our current theories to explain it (I really don't know). I think because of the size of the accretion disk that would generate it. Interestingly, he touched on this in another blog. The energy for the gravitational waves comes from the system: the extremely stirred up spacetime between the black holes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/10/ask-ethan-could-matter-escape-the-event-horizon-during-a-black-hole-merger

Why not? Rays leave every part of the surface at a range of angles. Some of those, from every point, must reach your eye. It is impossible for them not to (ignoring shadows, clouds, eclipses, etc). What is it abut that you don't understand? What is so complicated? Are you equally puzzled about how you see your teacup? Or do you think the Sun is special somehow?

https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/mth251/cq/Stage4/Lesson/fieldGuide.3.html Sheesh.

It won't help you if I do this. You need to do it in order to understand. But why is looking at the Sun any different from looking at a coin you are holding or a painting on the wall?

If so, why are you making statements that are clearly false? Maybe you think you know what these words mean but are mistaken about that.

It really isn't as complicated as you seem to be making it. Rays from every part of the surface reach our eye. Therefore we can see all parts of the surface. Where is the mystery in that? You seem to be going out of your way to fail to understand so you can claim it is mysterious. That is certainly the case for more distant stars, where we cannot resolve the surface. The Sun is close enough that we can see the whole disk. Draw a digram ... calculate the apparent size ... and maybe it will be less "mysterious".

That is not what he said. He was just pointing out that your lack of mathematical knowledge doesn't really equip you to tell other people about the nature of mathematical functions. But, while it may sound extreme, it is probably true that only people with a certain level of mathematical knowledge can fully understand the details. Most people are capable of understanding the general principles, though, if they are well explained. Unless you think effects like superposition or entanglement are intuitive, then it is pretty obvious that it is not metaphysics or dogma that tells us this, but simply our observations of the world.

There are arbitrary precision libraries as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_arbitrary-precision_arithmetic_software

The standard defines a quadruple precision, but I don't know if anyone implements it. There is also extended precision, which use 80 bits, that is quite widely supported.

I wouldn't be surprised. Word is notoriously unreliable with large, complicated files. You may have to split it into multiple files (one per chapter). Which, of course, make the problem of maintaining formatting consistency even worse. Especially as Word doesn't properly support importing and applying a standard template to a document. (I have usually ended up writing VBA code to manage formats across multiple documents.)

Not sure what you are asking. The IEEE standard wanted a way to represent infinity and chose a couple of encodings for that purpose. As with the NaN values, they would represent valid numbers if they hadn't been reserved for these uses.

Then it is perfectly logical to say that a calculator cannot do arithmetic because they are composed to atoms which cannot do arithmetic. You clearly have no idea what the word "logic" means. You seem to think it means "agrees with my religious beliefs".

Nope. Try again. Maybe using logic or evidence.

I agree. That is the exact opposite of what you said earlier. Errr...

I can refute it with exactly the same amount of logic and evidence that you use: you are wrong. OK? No it isn't. It is just your personal religious belief.