Strange

But it is impossible to know anything about "reality itself". All we have is our empirical observations. (And stuff you make up, apparently.) Which is of course, one reason why people don't mistake the model for reality (as you falsely claim). We may not be able to do it with 100% accuracy but we can do pretty well. Why do you keep making these blatantly false statements? And, of course the future is dependent on things that are yet to occur. That is why it is called the future. Duh. What does "reality is axiomatic" even mean? Well, that's a new one. What is you evidence for this? Your arrogant claims to special knowledge or vision are getting tedious. Especially as this superpower doesn't seem to do anything but make you post nonsense.

Correct. No, it was much closer because the universe is expanding. It would have been (I think) about 4 billion light years away. The light we see from those stars has taken 13 billion years to reach us because while it was travelling towards us, the universe was expanding so the light had an ever increasing distance to go. (A bit like walking the wrong way on one of those moving walkways - you will get to the ned but it will take you more time than if it were not moving.) And that star is now about 45 billion light years away.

I think you already did.

The number of files and directories in a directory won't (directly) make any difference to performance. Unless you want to search the directory, which is why Windows indexes commonly searched directories (like "My Documents"). I can't really think of much need to search the program files directory.

Also, note that entanglement is quite a "fragile" state and will be destroyed when any of the particles interact with anything else.

Why would using a different directory speed it up? A few things you could try to speed it up: Reinstall windows (and all your applications) from scratch. With older versions of Windows, this can speed things up. Buy more memory. Replace the hard disk with an SSD Switch to Linux.

And this is what was happening until dark energy intervened. I don't think your should be posting your crazy ideas in the mainstream science section of the forum.

Fixed it for you. You seem to have latched on to one aspect of one test of Bell's theorem and then totally misinterpreted/misunderstood it. For example, the link I posted earlier does not depend on any such linear relationship. No. Bell's Theorem just limits the possible explanations for entanglement.

That approach clearly isn't working. Maybe it is time to try something else. This sort of contradictory and incoherent posting style doesn't help you make any sort of point. It is painfully obvious that you are doing a poor job of communicating.

Climate modelling certainly does take into account convection (in the atmosphere as well as the oceans). https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=convection+climate+models

I think what you meant to say is that your supposed proof has been thoroughly debunked. The flaws in almost every step have been carefully explained.

This is so vague it is meaningless and unanswerable. Q: How can a thing do a thing and see a different thing? A: The thing is doing the thing with the wrong thing. That thing hasn't got a thing to do the thing with. I also fail to see how it is relevant to your claim. Which is still false. Please do not make this claim again until you have some support for it.

This can be shown to be false using exactly the same level of evidence and logic that you have employed. The argument goes as follows: no they haven't.

You have claimed this, or something similar, many times in the past. But, oddly, you have never given an example of anyone taking the model as reality or the map as the territory.

As semantics is about meaning, the phrase "just semantics" to dismiss an argument is just silly. The meaning of words and phrases is central to any discussion. (I expect cladking to come up with something about words not having any meaning, or something similar.)

I'm sure I recently read something about many animals self medicating (*) by, for example, eating plants with antibacterial properties (which are not part of their normal diet). So it is quite possible that animals would seek out plants that either help with the pain or the infection. And I suppose early humans could have done things like pull out (or knock out?) painful teeth - which is drastic but potentially better than having a diseased tooth. (*) It turns out there is a word for this: zoopharmacognosy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoopharmacognosy This is probably related to the development of herbal medicine in human populations.

What bay? What shore? Children!?

And I think your informal approach (relying on vague undefined terms such as "binary numbers") is why you have managed to mislead yourself.

What shore? Who are "they"? How ancient? There doesn't seem enough information here for anyone to even guess what it might be.

You seem to have thrown "practical" out of the window there. In favour of the non sequitur.

Oh, you mean the directory "C:\Program Files (x86)". Data should not be stored there, only (32 bit) applications.

What are "x86 files"? What is "PhysX"? But apart from that, in most operating systems when a file is deleted all that happens is that the link to it is removed from the directory and the blocks on disk made available for reuse. Until they are reused, the data is still there to be recovered. (Which is why file recovery programs work.) You can get secure delete programs which will unlink the file and then overwrite the data on disk. But are you asking about uninstalling a program? In that case there is data stored all over the place, including the Windows registry. So there will still be traces of it left around even if you delete the installation directory. This is why most programs come with an uninstall mechanism.

Proof by incredulity.

That occurred to me after I posted. The other difference is that with sleep you can feel yourself drifting off and then coming to. With anaesthesia it was like being turned off and then on again. (Maybe that is what fixes the problem, rather than the surgery!)

I had a quick skim of his website. Unusually, he does seem to have documented what he has done in great detail and taken some care in experimental methodology. I can think of a few obvious things to check but this isn't my area of expertise (*) and I don't have time to go through it all. (*) "What is?" I hear you ask.