Leaderboard

Perhaps here you're simply redefining the word "don't."

Really? Show me the passages in the article where Einstein conflates them. It is true that 'spirituality' means a lot of different things for a lot of people. But that is also true for e.g. 'energy' (just look in a few New Age books...), or 'power' (or 'theory', or 'scattering', maybe even 'redshift'...). However, when one is on an intellectual endeavor, like science or philosophy, one must be as precise as possible, using clear definitions. Nothing is gained by intentionally making concepts more vague. That is fine for other language use, like literature and poetry, but not for solving intelligibility problems. But here in the context of the article, it is perfectly clear what Einstein means with 'religion'. It is not curiosity, it is not creativity/spirituality/imagination, it is not traditional religion, it is faith that certain principles hold in nature, so that science is possible. Notice that Einstein calls his 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind' an image. So he himself broadens the meaning of 'faith' to encompass 'religion' (but not to curiosity, creativity/spirituality/imagination, or traditional religion). As just an image, one could leave it from the text without disturbing its contents, its argumentation or conclusions. I have no idea why you again and again try to use concepts in much broader and vaguer sense than they are used in science and philosophy. What do you try to gain by that? PS Trying to understand 'bon mots' without their context is seldom a good idea when one wants to reach for intellectual clarity. Same holds for e.g. beecee's often cited Russel quotation: 'Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know'. It is a more or less poetic way to convey a message, but at the cost of being precise. To really understand what Russel means, one must read it in context.

@naitche Canada (MigL is Canadian) has never elected a female Prime Minister in it's history. Discussions about sexism in society whether one is from Canada, England, U.S. or etc are not merely rhetorical ones. I believe their are strong arguments to be made that sexism is a serious problem disenfranchising large portions on the population. I will attempt to do better. Phones can be clunky but ultimately I just need to be more mindful. Sometimes I do well for a awhile and then get lazy.

Newton's method was mentioned. sqrt(N) = a= N a=a-(a*a-N)/2/a Repeat until abs(a*a-N)<eps. For N=2 my calculator converged at 6 iterations.

That's what people seem to be doing as they ignore the historical context of sexism.

Yes. Everyone knows that. You seem to be telling us that as part of your defense of using the term "ignorant woman". No one is suggesting that no one can ever unintentionally be offensive. The problem I have is with those who KNOW it can be considered offensive to some, yet continue to defend its use because "you are too sensitive" or "it was proper English" or "not everyone knows what is offensive" or "it was factual". It feels to me that people who use such arguments are being obtuse.

Seriously? Did you state that because you feel that we are expecting everyone to be omniscient? MigL seems to either not know that the term "stupid woman" might be offensive to some (even though it's been stated about 50 times in this thread), or that because it is factual and a proper use of the English language that perhaps the person who is offended is a sexist. And now your defense of the terms seems to be a plea to ignorance, even though it's been stated around 50 times in this thread. If you don't care to modify your speech to avoid offending someone then don't. But don't act like you don't know some might be offended.

By ”finite” , do you mean ”final”?

"Hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities." Is a line which seems sarcastic to me. If you actually were interested in not offending anyone's "sensibilities" you could have just altered your post to avoid the potential. I am not saying you should have altered your post. It is your post to do with as you want. Rather I am merely pointing that you knew "stupid woman" potentially would cause offense and still chose to use it. So you were prepared to potentially offend people which makes the disclaimer sarcastic.

Essentially correct for the GR definition. Except I would say, it approaches Euclidian at a sufficiently local level. The mathematical definition will differ.

What was that again about none of you intending to mock others for disagreeing or having a different interpretation? Hmmm... The last several posts on this page and the one previous certainly seem to suggest otherwise.

No, you just need light. The speed of light was already determined by experiments before people even knew that light is made up of photons, e.g. see Fizeau–Foucault apparatus, or Rømer's determination of the speed of light. And then the speed of light was theoretically derived by Maxwell, also, no talk of photons necessary. That train of thought is completely wrong. Photons can be measured, because they have energy and momentum, but they are massles, i.e. they have no rest mass.

Fourth time: What is the physical mechanism for this expansion? Creation of matter? A big bubble in the Earth? Or ... ?

It's interesting that they've changed their strategy. Prior to Trump launching missiles at them, during Trump's term alone, they had used chemical attacks 8 times, all relatively open compared to this. Since then, there was silence until now, where suddenly the rebels are accused of using the chemical weapons instead. The dynamics have changed. Regardless guys, let's focus on the real monster in the middle east, Israel. They received 68 human rights condemnations from the UN Human Rights Council. Syria received 20.

"If I can read the title, I can understand the thread"

Well, numerically, a static value is absent of change. 0 if a finite value, therefore, it cannot change. If it could, x=x would make little sense to anyone. The state of me is finite, right? But how finite is it really, is the question. You could look at it as, my potential to exist as a state is singular finite value of 1, because I will be a completely unique individual at conception. I'm sure there is probably an infinite number of variables leading to my singular existence, but I am unique. We define the length of my life in terms of finite values. For example, I am 54 years, 24 days, and about 12 hours old, approximately. 54 does not mean though. This is merely a virtual definition of my age, which is derived from a segment of time, which is also not finite. When I cease to exist at some point in the future, which is a certainty, the state of me now possesses the finite value of 0. What is finite? Numerically, finite values do not change. My life is nothing but change from the time of conception until the time of my death. I only see two finite values associated with my existence. The potential for me to exist as 1, and my death as 0. We seem to be moving backwards in time. The clock starts running backwards as soon as we exist.