Strange

1. You should start a new thread to discuss this. 2. Gravity has nothing to do with the "luminiferous aether" (the clue is in the name) 3. Newton (very explicitly) said nothing about the nature or cause of the gravitational force. So stop making stuff up to support your religious beliefs.

And some people complain that "literally" is used figuratively. Or that "decimate" is used to mean destroy. Or that "awesome" doesn't just refer to things that inspire awe. Tough. That is the way people use the language. There isn't much you can do about it. You can't blame the dictionary. They just record how people use words. They don't tell people how to use them. Do you have any evidence of this difficulty communicating?

This is a really good video (yes, I don't say that very often) that explains how the speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations. Note that the equations don't include anything about the position or the speed of the "things" generating or interacting with the electric or magnetic fields. So the equations are the same wherever you are and whatever your state of motion (Galilean relativity). The equations were mainly based on Faraday's experiments. (Faraday was apparently a bit miffed that Maxwell "mathematised" them.)

The same is (potentially) true of every word in every language. Which is why the question is very, very silly. Why focus on "evil" and English? Why not the word "blue" (which covers a huge range of colours). Or Japanese (where the word for blue encompasses everything from blue to green)? If someone doesn't understand the exact way in which you are using a word then you explain it. "When you say 'aoi' do you mean a colour like the sky or like grass?" "No, I mean the flower."

Er, what? "There are three 'two's in the English language" That is the "grammatically correct number 2" in the sentence. It is the only way of writing the number two as a word. Although it is not a very sensible way to express the idea, it meets the (monstrously stupid) challenge. Of course, if your friend meant "the grammatically correct representation of the three possible words that could go there" then I would go for something like: "There are three /tu:/s in the English language" But I would be more likely to just tell the friend not to be such a dick and to write "There are three words pronounced the same as 'two' in the English language." And then ask him if he has stopped abusing little boys, yes or no. But maybe your problem with number twos is more Freudian? (Just a little joke there, based on our mutual dislike of the great professor.)

Actually, neutrons have multiple levels of riding (normally by the rate at which pulses are generated). Also, synapses have very complex signalling mechanisms between neurons involving multiple different chemicals. These can also be affected by the balance of other chemicals around (which is why drugs [in both senses of the word] work). Also, neutrons get multiple inputs and "decide" what to do based on those. This is not like a simple "and" or "or" gate in a computer. It will be a much more complex function which might be decided by the relative timing and frequency of the inputs as well as the priorities given to each source. I am not saying that the brain is not a computer (I see no reason to think otherwise) just that comparing it to an electronic/digital computer is far too naive. There are computers that rewire themselves. (They are not very common because they are horribly difficult to program effectively.) And there is no reason, in principle, that a computer shouldn't use chemicals in their function. (Of course, silicon is a chemical so they already do )

In which case it will no longer be a theory. Which is no longer a theory. So lets see where we are now. You have gone from: "There are scientific theories that are wrong because they are incomprehensible" (Incomprehensible to who?) "No. I mean there are scientific theories that are wrong because they are inconsistent" (Name one) "No. I mean there are scientific theories that might be found to be inconsistent in future" (Duh) Well, I guess you should be congratulated for eventually getting to a rational position. (Although I think it is far more likely that a theory will be falsified by contradictory evidence.) Note that examples like phlogiston where a theory is shown to be completely wrong, and is abandoned, are incredibly rare. I can only think of one other (the steady state universe). It is far more common for a theory to be replaced by a more accurate one, but to continue to be used in some cases. The obvious example is Newtonian gravity, which was shown to be "wrong" by Einstein, but is still the standard theory of gravity used in most cases. Sure. Because that led to the development of non-Euclidean geometry, and eventually the development of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds which were then used by Einstein to create his model of gravity.

Because you are making false claims. You started off saying that there are scientific theories that are wrong because they are incomprehensible. Then when it was pointed out that that was no way to judge a theory you said that there are theories that are self-contradictory or inconsistent. When asked for examples, you produced some "paradoxes" (counter-intuitive results) from pure mathematics. So, again, are there any scientific theories that are internally contradictory or not? Of course not.

From an article about the author of "The Art of the Deal" http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all Although it seems that now Trump (who wouldn't even give the writer any time because he has no attention span) claims that he wrote the book.

Huh? You just looked it up in a dictionary. Therefore it is defined. And of course, it is a concept that philosophers have discussed for thousands of years. For example: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/ The meanings of words are not defined by scholars. They are defined by usage. You can then use a dictionary to look up how the word is used: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil And, of course, this is the same in all languages (for all words). I think you might have made the mistake of looking in a thesaurus rather than a dictionary. And if you are interested in the origin of the word, then this might be useful: http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil

Nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether And, of course, in Maxwell's equations (and therefore special relativity) an aether is (a) not necessary (b) not supported by any evidence. But you shouldn't be dragging your quasi-religious beliefs into this thread anyway.

That is a very dull and ignorant article.

Tricky. Wold is probably the ideal word. If it weren't so obscure! I would partly say "rolling [green] countryside" Anyone got any better suggestions?

Then I would suggest changing it. Maybe to hill or heath or moor.

Ah, maybe it was meant to be world. That sounds more likely.

Done it. For human/pantai two of your choices are "see" and "wold". I think the first should be "sea". And the second is a really obscure word. I doubt most English speakers know what it means. (I guessed and got it half right!)

I guess he chose Indonesian because it doesn't (shouldn't) have any correlation to the languages spoken by those taking the survey.

I will have a go later when I have time. I think you should provide an "I don't know" option because for some of them, I don't have any idea (or maybe I can leave some questions unanswered?) I think things like this are OK, as there is a description of what the link is. Question 1.

This is the fallacy of begging the question. Christianity must be the truth because people believe in it. Why do they believe in it? Because it is the truth. And your god doesn't care that millions of innocent babies are killed in horrible ways. That sort of scum doesn't deserve worship. He should be indicted. And yet millions of innocent babies die is horrible ways. Looks like his plan didn't work. What is plan B? Welcome to the 19th century.

Then you should stop it. Especially as the rest of your writing does not have the sort of clarity required when producing specification documents. As I say, he goes to great lengths to explain that is not the case. You don't have a clue how psychology research is done, do you? Pretty much, yes. (Except I don't have any opinion about you. I don't even know you. All I can comment on is what you write here.) If you have "actual, factual scientific data" supporting your case, why don't your present it. Instead of just making assertions. There is a story behind the choice of name. But it isn't very interesting (it involves old men, a Japanese popular song, middle eastern dyes and confusion over the attributive form of Japanese nouns).

Yes. How else could it work. Of course, this only works for appropriate values of "explain". For example, there are people who say that GR does not "explain" gravity. Well, obviously it does. I guess what they mean is that it doesn't say what it "really" is. Well, of course not. No scientific theory says what anything "really is". Only metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and religion can (claim to) tell you what things "really" are.

You are right, there is no tidal force because the acceleration due to gravity is independent of distance (I assume that is what you mean by "inertial g", which is not a phrase I have come across before). The GR solution is, inevitably, complex. My understanding is that the GR solution reproduces the same acceleration as the Newtonian formula, but doesn't readily produce the expected time dilation (which, obviously, doesn't apply to the Newtonian case). Note that there are very few exact solutions to the Einstein Field Equations, because they are non-linear. So people often have to take a known solution and use that as a basis to approximate a solution for another case. That may explain why it doesn't produce the expected result. It sounds like this might be the page you found: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm

Someone else used the analogy of a pole to illustrate how "before" has no meaning in this context: What is north of the North Pole? It is not that the answer is "nothing" or even that there is no answer, the question itself doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the north pole exists and the big bang singularity almost certainly doesn't. We just don't know why not, yet.

Just came across this article. https://daily.jstor.org/the-qwerty-truth/ It says there were two key events in the development of the current layout: 1. Remington put all the keys needed for a salesman to spell out the product name (Type Writer) on the top row. 2. When people started learning to touch type, they went to courses run by ... Remington

That does seem unreasonable (although your comment was slightly ambiguous). I have countered it ...