Strange

The formed very early in the universe. The large scale structure of the universe (walls, filaments, nodes, and voids) were formed by the action of gravity, from the small variations in density in the universe that originally came from quantum fluctuations in the initial hot dense state. So in a sense, they have always been there.

! Moderator Note It appears to be the correct place. You cannot delete posts.

! Moderator Note Please do not post files with no explanation. This is a discussion forum and the rules require you to post more than just a file or a link.

OK. I didn't (and don't) read it that way. But it is a valid interpretation. I'm certainly not going to expend any more pixels defending His Trumpishness

Sorry, science doesn't work that way. Even philosophy doesn't work that way. For example, others will say you are wrong. So we need some way to determine who is right and who is wrong. No one is just going to accept your word based on your observations (especially not if they have reviewed tour posting history). Ah, I see. "It is undefined so I am free to make up my own definitions". Sorry, science and philosophy don't work like that, either. Oh, so "life" is defined after all. This is nonsensical and self-contradictory. Very on brand.

Although, if you actually read what he tweeted, he appears to be saying that the quoted tweet is wrong (although he only defends his own actions, not Fauci, but that's only to be expected). Am I defending Trump? What a weird and messed up world we are in But no, I am not defending trump, just pointing out that it is important to go back to the source rather than just reply on how it is reported. No doubt many people will take it as a further justification for attacks on Fauci etc Some of the responses to the tweet are just surreal. Like claims that: the reason that hydroxychloroquine is not being made available as a miracle cure is because the "deep state" wants to kill as many people as possible. Riiiight

Well spotted! Yes, I thought of that as a confounding factor. But It could be interesting if there are objects bright enough that they should have been in the older photos.

You won’t learn how to solve the problem if people give you the answers !

I’m afraid none of that appears to be correct. There doesn’t seem to be any mechanism for B to exert a force on A, and vice versa. The only thing that can apply a force on A is C. And that force would have to be on the line A-C. With a corresponding force on C in the opposite direction. If B were exerting a force on C via the fixed coupling between them then that force would have to be aligned with B-C. And then you would need an opposite force on C in the opposite direction. If the force on B comes from the magnetic field around C then that force must be tangential to that circle, and not the angle you have shown. The reaction to that would be (I think) a torque on C, which would also be transferred to A. Which would again be tangential to C; in other words vertical (as things are in the diagram). So the forces on A and B would be a long way from being in opposite directions Also, you seem to be implying that you are “manually” entering the reaction forces (in the sense of Newton’s 3rd law). But the physics engine must be able to account for these automatically or it just would not work. The only time it won’t (I assume is where you add a force that comes from something outside the system (eg if you were modelling the effect of gravity). But that implies you are not interested in what happens to that “something”.

That is the number of driveways in 6 hours. So, how long for one driveway? Only one that I can see: $18 / driveway. Combine that with the previous answer (time per driveway) to work out how much she earns per hour. That is not the value for an hour, that is the total she needs to earn. Use that and the previous answer (how much she earns per hour) to calculate how many hours she has to work. ! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help, as that seems more appropriate

It would be an interesting exercise to work out how much energy you would need to extract to cause, say, an extra leap second to be needed.

I have given money to people via Go Fund Me, and they seem to have received the money. (And you can choose how much goes to pay for the service provided by Go Fund Me.) Then there are others like Kicksarter, which are more for inviting in creative/technology projects. I haven't yet invested in a Kickstarter project, but there are a couple where I came close. Big names like those, and other similar ones, can't afford to be (or seem to be associated with) scams because it would destroy their business. This might be helpful: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2013/05/08/top-10-crowdfunding-sites-for-fundraising/

I'm not sure. I think it is a reasonable depiction of petit mal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_seizure Probably more accurate than a lot of cinematic illness and injury, anyway!

That is wrong. She gets 18$ for each driveway and does 12 driveways in 6 hours So that is 12 * $18 in 6 hours. See how you go from there.

For some of those classes of transients, I would have thought you would also expect to see some objects in the new data set that were not there in the earlier one.

! Moderator Note Dimreeper has a habit of disrupting threads with irrelevant discussion. I didn't want this thread to get sidetracked. Now look what has happened...

Good point. That will reduce the increase in level. My guess is not by much. For example, we could estimate/guess that the amount of land below 1.5m averages about 10m from the coast (a lot of coastlines are steep or cliffs; a lot are very flat). Given the total length of coast is about 356,000 km [1] then this adds another 3.5 million square kilometres to the area to be covered, or about 1%. Much less than the rounding in my reporting of the figure as 1.5m! That is slightly complicated by whether we are only concerned with land that could be reached by rising ocean water, or if we were more interested in distributing the water evenly over the surface of the Earth. Anyway, looks like my estimate for the extra area that would be covered is not unreasonable (too large, if anything). About 1% of land is below 5m [3]. The total area of land is about 500 million km2 [1]. So less than 5 million km2 extra to be covered. You could assume a linear relationship between height and area, so the area under 1.5m would be about 5 million * 1.5 / 5 = 1.5 million km2. About half my initial estimate. [1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html [2] [2] I have a print copy of this from the days before the internet. We used love browsing it and amazing each other with things like: "Hey, do you know which country has the most TVs per capita?" [4] [3] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.EL5M.ZS [4] Bermuda, surprisingly. That is a bizarrely precise number. What is it based on? I hope that was enough explanation of the math? Let us know if not.

It says "the naval catalogue spans around 50 years of sky surveys, capturing details of the entire sky." So I would assume that they are distributed throughout the sky. It would be remarkable if they had all been in the same location, so I imagine that would have been mentioned if that were the case.

About 1.5 metres or 5 feet (assuming US gallons; 1.9m for Ye Olde Imperial Gallon) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=139%2C989%2C929%2C200%2C000%2C000+gallons+%2F+surface+area+of+oceans

There is an entire website dedicated to spurious correlations: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations You can use the data to make up your own.

I can't tell if this is serious or not. I have read both your posts a couple of times and have no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you simply trying to illustrate that well known saying "correlation is not causation" ?

Speak for yourself.

Your ideas seem to be more about infrastructure and policy, than actual testing.

Silly. Insightful.

Any successful theory has to explain dark matter and dark energy, because they are labels for things we observe. I don't know enough about how string theory deals with dark matter or dark energy. But as far as I know it doesn't say anything about them. If dark matter is a form of matter, then that will presumably be described by string theory when we know what that matter is. And if dark energy is a form of energy, then I suppose that would have to be included in string theory as well. I am not aware that it provides any special solutions to the problem. Neither dark energy or dark matter are "other gravity". And they don't exist on "other dimensions" whatever that means.