Strange

Good point. And that is why they need to be formalised in a constitution. And so they need to be protected not just because someone (a government?) might want to remove them but because they may conflict with someone else's right.

Imagining the universe to be infinite solves that problem. As long as you can imagine an infinite universe ...

I'm sure you can come up with arbitrary examples of things that appear to match Bell's inequality (if that is what you are doing; I don't really know what your posts mean). However, the important point about Bell's inequality is that classical theory predicts a different result.

Because, presumably, if that were the case, everyone would agree on them. They don't.

OK. The protected vs granted distinction is good. Does that mean that "We [you] the people" granted the rights and then wrote that down in the constitution so that the government (and courts, etc) would have to protect them? Was "we the people" just those who wrote the constitution or was it ratified by some sort of popular vote?

Surely, rights such as "free speech" are granted and protected by the constitution, the government and the courts. They don't come from nowhere. A group of people thought they would be sensible rights to grant the population and so enshrined it in the law of the land. Not all countries have the same rights or to the same extent. There are things the USA does that would be considered a violation of rights in other places. In the best case, the law coincides with the rights that the majority of people think they should have. But there will always be some people who think they should have more rights than society at large thinks is fair, and those people will feel their rights are being violated. Even if other people don't think it is a right.

I would say that the field is always there (and everywhere) and the presence of mass like the earth just "perturbs" the field. If one could quantise the gravitational field, then gravitons would be how the quantised interaction would be described. They would be "virtual gravitons" so they are not particles and (you are not going to like this) don't really exist. It is just the way the mathematics describes quantum interactions. Virtual photons are said to mediate the electromagnetic force, but magnets do not release trillions of photons that go out and capture bits of metal.

You are right. It is 55 litres per minute, so I am out by a factor of 60. You are, again, right. I misread the 55 as the temperate. Thanks for checking. No, because one was a dimensionless scaling factor (an unnecessary dimensionless scaling factor). So: 55 litres * 1.3 (kg/m^3) * 1 (kJ/(kg K)) * 60K / 60 seconds = 7W, which is much more reasonable. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=55+litres+*+1.3+(kg%2Fm%5E3)++*+1+(kJ%2F(kg+K))+*+60K+%2F+60+seconds Does that seem right?

Because it works. It is a valid description (in most cases). And that is all science does: come up with good descriptions. If the description works, then use it. Any theory of quantum gravity will have to produce the same results as Newtonian gravity (in the cases where it is valid) and GR (in the cases where that is valid). But it will still just be another description of the way masses appear to attract one another. It won't tell us what it "really" is.

That is one description. Another is Newton's force between two masses. If a quantum theory of gravity is developed, then that will be another way of describing the asme thing. So, gravity is what makes mass attract another mass. It can be described in different ways: a force, curvature of space-time, in future other things. Of course, these are just descriptions of how it behaves. They can't tell you what it "really is". Nothing can. Ultimately what it "really is", is gravity.

As you say, "all of space" was that size. So there was nothing outside of that. "Emptiness" is not a thing.

Your thought experiment is rather unphysical because mass cannot just disappear. Also, my understanding is that gravitational waves have no effect in the Z axis (the direction of propagation). Most of the signal is from the time when the black holes are spiralling in towards one another (the "inspiral"). Then there is a short "ringdown" after that as the black hole returns to its spherical shape.

I *think* someone in free fall would notice jerk (is that the right word: change in acceleration) but I don't really know...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/par_for_the_course

No. It just says that you can create an abstract version of a problem that does not necessarily represent anything physical. I just went an extra step in thinking about the problem (purely) mathematically.

It is because 1) You can treat the mass of the Earth as a constant; and 2) You can ignore the inverse square law on the distances you are dealing with. This is why we can describe the force of gravity on Earth as g = 9.8 ms-2. But, note that it does vary from place to place and over time. This is an important tool to studying geology (for example, "seeing" what is going on inside volcanoes). You could, in principle, use the changing rate of your spinning plates to measure these changes. Yeah. Kind of...

It depends what you mean by the term "empty space" (and "put in"). If you mean a volume of (say) 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything put next to another volume of 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything then you will have 2 cubic metres that do not contain anything. But if you mean pouring the contents of the first cubic metre that does not contain anything into the second cubic metre that does not contain anything, then you end up with 1 cubic metre that does not contain anything. Or, you can take a set-theoretical approach and say that the union of two empty sets is the empty set [latex]\{\} \cup \{\} = \{\}[/latex]. But the set containing an empty set is not an empty set: [latex]\{ \{\} \} [/latex]. Mass fits inside space. I don't know what "the space of emptiness" means. Is there any reason to think that? In the big bang model, for example, the universe has always been homogeneously full of matter and/or energy.

That would fine if Tampitump were complaining about the corruption or abuse of the system. He is objecting to the very concept. I don't think anyone is suggesting you can. More importantly, eventually you have to leave the security of the safe space and go out into the college/university and get on with your course, social life, etc.

No. It was volume (55) * density (1.3) * one minute (60) * specific heat (1) * temp change = total energy required / 60 = power (I know multiplying the volume by 60 (seconds) and then dividing by 60 is redundant, but that's just because of the steps I took to get the final result.)

You seem to think that everyone should be the same. I'm sure there are some people who are willing and able to put up with the continuous daily abuse. There are others who need to get away from it occasionally. You might think that is weak, I just think it is human. And it is a silly one. Seconded.

Now please answer them. No, just discuss it here.

That is not what safe spaces are about. When I feel the need to get away form you for a while, I go to another forum. I'm sure that you find that reprehensible. I know you think you have the right to follow me anywhere and accuse me of being stupid and a regressive liberal. But I find it quite refreshing to go elsewhere for a while. Sorry.

Neither does the concept of safe spaces. Unless you think your right to free speech means you have the right to pursue people everywhere (except their home) and abuse them. But you don't think people should have a place where they can get some temporary escape from it. And no one is suggesting that.

A better example would be when we used to have a small number of no-smoking carriages or seats on trains and planes. By your logic, this should have been done away with and people should have just "manned-up" and put up with the smoke, smell and filth. How dare they want to get away from it for a while! (In those days, smoking was universal [maybe it still is where you are] so finding somewhere where you could get a few minutes fresh air was a relief.) Your usual "why don't they go home" argument, doesn't really work if you are travelling from A to B. Now, in some countries, there are designated smoking areas/rooms for people who want to get away from the smoking ban. I assume you disapprove of those as well. I bet you fit right in ...

I don't see why it would have stopped? I assume domestication must have happened quite quickly (or progress must have been visible) or the domesticators might have given up. After the first dogs were domesticated I think they have continued to evolve: look at the wide range of dogs with different physical and mental characteristics that there are now. I don't know if the fact that dogs didn't evolve from foxes is relevant? It may have been quicker to go from wild dogs to domesticated dogs, than it is to go from foxes to domesticated foxes (or even vice versa).