Strange

I don't think it does (and, to be fair, Gideon did say they hadn't had time to read it). Although, it does make it clear that lungs have evolved multiple times. It doesn't say that. But even if the first cells came from space, that does nothing to falsify evolution. (If you had evidence that each new species arrived fully formed from space, perhaps...) Yeah. Science: all it does is look at lots of data to reach its conclusions. It is so much easier to just belief the first thing that comes into your head. (Or that you read in a holy book.)

I guess there is an effect from the brain having to start doing things in advance because of the delays in transmitting to and from the muscles. So the brain estimates what has to be done (in terms of force applied) based on what the weight appears to be. Then there is rapid feedback to the muscles that the force is more than needed and a resulting change to the stimulus. It is possible (I don't know enough about the nervous system) that the immediate feedback and change of stimulus doesn't go as far as the brain (that would probably be too slow and cause you to throw the object into the air, before being able to make the necessary adjustments).

You can repeat that as often as you lie. It doesn't make it any less wrong.

That may be what your religion tells you, but you are sadly mistaken.

I think you should take your quasi-religious beliefs about climate science elsewhere.

Nonsense. If you claim the science is wrong, despite the evidence, you are denying the science. That makes you a science denier. And that denial is based on belief rather than evidence. And double nonsense. The consensus exists because of the science. Is the consensus that gravity follows an inverse square law, or that water is wet, religion-like?

There may be such a concept, but there is no evidence for it. (Your personal incredulity is not evidence.)

You need to have either a moving wire or (equivalently) a moving/changing magnetic field.

That is off topic. The subject is climate science, not religion.

! Moderator Note I agree: moved. Its practical function is to perform calculations that are useful in everyday life: from economics to physics or medicine. But pure mathematics is just the pursuit of knowledge I guess. Although it may discover new "tools" whose application isn't known until much later (e.g. "imaginary" numbers, which turn out to be very useful). There is a whole debate around whether we discover mathematics (ie it is something that already exists "out there") or if it is something we have invented. I tend to that latter view, although there are good arguments on both sides. There are some people who think that mathematics is a 'real thing" and that the whole universe just emerges from mathematical rules. I do not find that very convincing. But it is surprising that we can describe the universe so well using mathematics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bare electricity". Electricity normally refers to the flow of current through wires. (Apart from "static electricity", which is an accumulation of charges on a surface.) Do you mean free electrons moving through space? (Q2 suggests you do.) It doesn't make any difference. The effect of a magnetic field on a moving charge or on an electric current in a wire is the same. The force is basically at right angles to both the direction of movement and the direction of the magnetic field: https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/magnetic-field-strength-force-on-a-moving-charge-in-a-magnetic-field/ No. No, they both affect positive and negative charges. But the force is in the opposite direction for each. This should be in a separate thread (in Physics).

Just because you don't like a particular interpretation does not mean it should not be taken seriously. No doubt there are some people who think deBroglie-Bohm they is equally laughable.

You don't give a source for this image but, from what I can read of the text, it would appear to be some sort of pseudo-scientific idea. I get the impression that your ideas seem to have been influenced by a text called "The Secrets of Magnetism". If so, I encourage you to throw that book away and study some basic physics instead. There are a lot of good online resources for learning about how magnets, light and electricity really work, without resorting to works of fiction like that (to be as positive as I can about it).

That is not the equation for the circumference of a circle. That will give you the y coordinates for the (two) points on a circle (with radius r) corresponding to the given x value. You could, perhaps, integrate over a range of x values to get the circumference but it seems unnecessarily complicated because: C = 2 pi r

Their smartphones, watches, etc (including, in future, their clothes) will communicate with the vehicles and the road ... and the streetlights

0^0 is not well defined, so it is not surprising that you get contradictory results. Also, one of your derivations uses an undefined value (0^-1) and is therefore meaningless.

! Moderator Note Moved to Biology

That is not what I asked.

Citation needed. Do you think there is any pattern that could not be reproduced using fractals?

Producing things that look similar is not necessarily meaningful (without, perhaps, some deeper justification or some statistical analysis of how similar the results are). Fractals are widely used in computer graphics, for example, to model naturalistic surfaces and textures. That doesn't mean that the objects being modelled are fractals (they aren't), just that fractals are a convenient way of producing similar looking results. Other, non-fractal, methods are also employed to get similar results. Unless you can show that there is more going on than just making pictures that look like something else, I am distinctly unimpressed.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations

I hadn't heard of Pick's theorem before. Based on that, it looks like the answer is at least 3. I can't think of any other way of solving it other than drawing all the possibilities, guided by Pick's theorem. Maybe someone more imaginative will have a better idea. But Pick's theorem does mean that the problem can be restated as: find all closed paths that touch exactly 6 points.

Rule 3 is redundant, given rule 4. And if rule 4 is correct, then it seems to me that the answer is 1.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help. Please note that people can help you solve the problem but not give you the answer. How far have you got yourself?