Strange

You are welcome. Now please answer them. No it isn't. It says "Copyright ... All rights reserved."

You do not have a reference 36. So where is this quotation from? You don't have a reference for these "criticisms", so where are they coming from? In fact, you don't have any references. So it is hard to take this seriously. No it doesn't. You talk about a "solution of Maxwell's equations" but there isn't one. So the document seems to be content free apart from some incomprehensible pictures. So, why not show your solution here and then people can comment on it.

You seem to be confusing the overall reaction (in which there are 6 H2O on the left and none on the right) with the intermediate stages, where more water molecules may be involved. For example, this shows that 6CO2 will produce 6H2O: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Calvin_cycle

But there is nothing new here. And of course it produces a graph similar to damped oscillation, because that is what it is. I'm sure it is fun to watch. But I don't see how it can tell you anything. And certainly not anything new.

While this is true (and equally true of a pendulum) I see no reason to think this can tell us anything new. The behaviour will be fully determined by Newtonian gravity. Actually, even that is unnecessary, as the force is constant in this simple example, so you don't even need Newton's equation. We find new things about gravity in extreme situations (a planet orbiting close to the Sun, black holes, etc.) Not in everyday situations that are well within the bounds of current theory. But feel free to provide some actual evidence (rather than intuition) that there is something new going on here.

That seems like a red-herring. The group that was being asked about is not a minority group who are regularly abused or treated as second class citizens. Which is why I'm not sure what they would need a safe space "from". Also, she chose to do what she did. Other people might have preferred to have a place where they could escape, temporarily, from the unpleasant treatment. I don't think you can insist that everyone has to stand up for their rights at all times (with all the attendant risks). If I were in one of those groups, I don't know that I would be willing to be a hero or martyr. And I don't know that people who request safe spaces are all avoiding challenging and new ideas. Presumably, if they spent all their time in the safe space, rather than attending lectures, seminars, going to the library, etc they would have a hard time completing their course. I can imagine there are people who might stand up for their rights in debates, protests and maybe even fights who would feel the need to be able to "get away from it all" for a while. I struggle to see why anyone would see this as such a dangerous idea. You said something along the lines of "they should just go home". But for people at university, say, that may not be practical; e.g. if their temporary home at the university is shared with people who continue the abuse, or they are not safe from abuse at their real home, etc. So this brings a space, which is like home should be, to them.

Do they need a safe space? Are they regularly abused (physically or verbally) just for walking down the street, sitting on a bus, etc? If so, then maybe they do. I don't know.

Exactly.

Vaguely related ... some of the best returns on savings currently available (in the UK) are from Islamic banks. Of course, what you get back for your investment is not "interest". But as it is more than you would get in interest elsewhere, who cares.

Well, at least you have made it easy for the police to track you down, by posting here.

Did someone say that this is one of those laser projecters used for creating vector images through a series of mirrors? Could it be that it is always being reflected and that one of the mirrors is wobbling/vibrating?

You have billions of particles involved. How many atoms do you think there are in the plate?

Where does you final 6H2O come from? From the extra 6H2O you start with! This page has the overall reaction as 6CO2 + 6H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis It then goes on to explain all the intermediate reactions.

I certainly feel like that some days.

As someone said in another thread, physicists play with toy models of the universe including some with zero matter and energy (but still based on the GR model of space-time). As such, there is time but no motion (nothing to move). Edit: actually, it was another forum, not just another thread.

In nearly all cases, that is the best image you can have. All you need to add is that the attraction is proportional to the mass of the two bodies involved, and that it falls off with the square of distance (in the same way that a light gets fainter as it gets further away). These are both quite intuitive results. More massive object weigh more (i.e. more attraction) and more massive planets have more gravity (all other things been equal). And with increasing distance, the attraction is spread out over more area (and the area increases by the square of the distance).

Science cannot answer that. (About gravity, or anything else.)

Typing this into Wolfram Alpha: 55 litres * 1.3 (kg/m^3) * 60 * 1 (kJ/(kg K)) * 75K / 60 seconds Tells us that you need to remove about 322 kJ from the air per minute (over 5kW). This doesn't sound to me like something that can be done cheaply or easily (or quietly!). (I am guess the future of 1.3 for the density of air at a sort of midpoint of the temperature range; it change quite rapidly here so the calculation won't be that accurate.) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=55+litres+*+1.3+(kg%2Fm%5E3)++*+60+*+1+(kJ%2F(kg+K))+*+75K

I'm not sure. They generally manage to avoid outright pseudoscience but they do like to report the more way-out speculative ideas (they sell better). And they don't often make it clear that it is not generally accepted (and won't follow up when it turns out to be wrong). And they love front page headlines like "Einstein was wrong" (of course, when you read the article it says nothing of the sort). So I would take anything I read in there with a pinch of salt, and try and find another source or review before taking it too seriously. I think Scientific American, for example, has much higher standards, and is one of the best popular science magazines out there. The articles are often written by the scientists who did the work. And they usually try to make it clear when they are using an analogy to explain something.

I don't think it is possible to have motion without time. But there can be time without motion.

I assume that in the USA it could only apply to private property. Because trying to do it in public spaces would require legislation and that would be unconstitutional. (Unless the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Or the constitution was changed.) In most other places, I assume it would be possible, in principle, to define a safe space anywhere.

It may not be illegal, but they would be entirely within their rights to throw you out for breaking their rules. If you came to my house and said the things you said here, I would throw you out. It is exactly the same thing. Ditto if I owned a bar or a chess club. Freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to say what you want, anywhere you want. Also, because you have the right to offend people it doesn't mean you have a duty to do so.

Exactly. Relativity of simultaneity is key to this (and why two events are not the same as two endpoints). This is kinda obvious when you remember that we are talking about a rotation between space and time. If we consider the famous train with two lightning strikes that hit each end simultaneously (for the observer on the train), you may think that the observer on the platform sees the train foreshortened and therefore "the lightning strikes must be closer together". But no, the lightning strikes are not simultaneous to the observer on the platform and so the lightning strikes are further apart than the length of the train. (For the platform observer, the rear of the train is truck first and then the train rushes forward to the place where it will be struck on the front.)

Doh.

It just finds the three posts in this thread.