Strange

But if the price is reduced pro-rata it is not giving them an advantage, it is simply levelling the playing field. I don't think that was the point at all. It was using relative price differences to highlight relative income differences.

Maybe. Depending what you mean by "real", "thing" and "time" (and maybe even "is"). Would you like to try defining your use of those terms in a precise way?

It works where it is testable. If the underlying assumptions/postulates/axioms (or, if you must, "beliefs") were wrong then the model wouldn't work. So they are tested indirectly. And sometimes have to be changed or abandoned. There is a vast literature on the philosophy of science, if you are interested.

Perhaps the other practical definition of time is relevant here: "time is what clocks measure".

No. I just wondered where relativity came into it.

He certainly built a useful model based on that. It works very well. Science doesn't really do "proof". What is a lot more than what?

I don't really understand the question. Relativity is about the relationship between measurements made by observers in different frames of reference. So someone in a different frame of reference could have measured my lifespan as more or less than I do.

This is really philosophy rather than science. But, yes, I think we all make assumptions like this about the world around us. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow and apples will fall from trees, until we have a reason to think otherwise. So science also works on certain assumptions. But those beliefs and assumptions would be (are) modified by evidence, when it is available. If possible, the assumptions are tested directly. sometimes that isn't possible. Is this surprising to you?

Yes, and yes.

As far as we can tell, they were the same. There don't appear to be any aspects of the early Earth which are inconsistent with current physics. For example, people have used the Oklo "natural nuclear reactor" to test whether the value of alpha (the fine structure constant) has changed. http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019

Time in general relativity is modelled as the fourth dimension of the space-time manifold. I don't know how it is represented in quantum mechanics. As for reality, that is a matter for philosophers and you will probably find as many opinions as there are philosophers.

Without some evidence that God's word previously stated the "facts" uncovered by science this is just a baseless assertion. I don't remember any of those ebing documented in the Bible. (Admittedly, I only read it once, about 50 years ago. But I remember science fiction stories mentioning all these things. Not the Bible.) That isn't the reason for disregarding it. (I certainly don't despise his God.) The only reason for disregarding it as "truth" is that it is unsupported and parts of it are contradictory and/or wrong. I am not convinced there are. On the other hand, there are some cases of people "spontaneously" recovering from disorders that were thought to be permanent or fatal. The human body is an amazing thing. Yes. But we have no answers to that. (But no compelling evidence that it doesn't just disappear.) The grammar of that seems to have gone awry somewhere. But I can be awewd by the scale of the universe whether I believe in a god or not. Yep. One of the purposes of the scientific method is to eliminate biases such as "common sense" because they are often wrong. Or, at least, there is no way of knowing whether they are right or not without further evidence. That is fine if you want to believe that. But I don't think you can assert it as a fact, without some evidence. A classic example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Sorry, I just get an endless "busy" icon from your dropbox. Perhaps you should post a summary of your idea here. (Or perhaps you should convert your Word document to PDF. As Word documents are notorious vectors for malware, I would recommend people don't download it. Apart from the fact that not everyone has access to Microsoft software.)

DFTT.

I have to apologise for fiveworlds. He frequently either misunderstands the question or provides totally useless answers. Do you want to do this from Windows (or Linux or Mac)? I am not aware of a general answer to your question. You may be able to log in to the router's admin interface and find the list of nodes it is attached to, especially if it is providing network addresses via DHCP. How is that relevant?

So provide an alternative model. And test it. Simply saying everything we know may be wrong is not science. It is not even philosophy. It is just pointless gainsaying. It was funny when Monty Python did it, but your shtick is not as clever.

Straw man. It is your hypothesis, why don't you tell us. Then we can test it. What we "know" is that the same models that work on Earth appear to work elsewhere. That is all we can know. What reason is there to think otherwise?

You seem to have leaped ahead to one of your pre-planned responses that isn't appropriate yet. No one has claimed that time does exist the same in deep space. Only that there is no evidence that it doesn't. What reason is there for thinking that time is not the same in deep space?

The (observable) universe appears to behave the same everywhere that we can see. That includes the existence of the same elements, forming stars and galaxies in the same way, creating the same spectral frequencies, evolving in the same way, etc. We have models that describe this, these models are consistent with what we observe.

That is basically correct. (Although complicated by the fact that there are different infinities. In fact, an infinite number of them ...)

I am glad I haven't seen that. One of the things that I loved about the film was that she wasn't explicitly portrayed as a caricature "Strong Woman", just as a character who had had to learn to survive. And hence was pretty tough. And, never mind the massive pay gap in Hollywood, here is some detailed analysis of the relative roles of male and female characters in movies: http://www.statschat.org.nz/2016/04/09/movie-stars-broken-down-by-age-and-sex/ http://polygraph.cool/films/

Or not working for an organization stupid enough to rely on such tests. Nonsense. Not necessarily. You could teach yourself, for example. Not necessarily. I know people who have not gone to university but who would do far better in tests of some of those subjects than people who have.

Imagine you are looking at an infinitely long ruler (like the number line). With markings every cm (or inch, if you are stuck in the 19th century). Now, imagine the ruler stretches so all the marking are twice as far apart. The ruler is still infinitely long, but it has scaled by a factor of 2. (Or the "density" of the marks has fallen by half). Does that help? We can, as always, safely assume that you don't understand. Nowhere does it say that the universe should be small to create black body radiation. All it says is that it is easier to analyse what happens by just looking at one small volume. All the rest of the universe is made up of similar volumes and so whatever we deduce for that one volume applies to the rest of the universe. Indeed. However it was denser - and therefore hotter. (Do you begin to see a pattern here). Because it was initially too hot and dense for light to travel any distance. Then it cooled enough for the electrons and protons to form atoms of hydrogen, at which point the universe became transparent.

That applies more generally as well. There was a radio program about the architect Zaha Hadid after she died recently. She was described as "uncompromising," and it was clear from the context (and tone of voice) that this was not a positive trait: it implied she was stubborn and difficult to work with. On the other hand, it would generally be considered positive to describe a male architect as uncompromising, with the implication that he had a clear vision and was determined to see it though. Strength rather than being difficult.

I don't think he does.