joigus

I do too! If I like the wine, and I like the fish, why would one ruin the other for me? I do feel that certain wines seem to go particularly well with certain foods. A young red wine and sufficiently ripened cheese are a great combination. And and red wine aged in oak and red meat too. But there's no reason not to break the 'rules' if you happen to enjoy it.

The grape, the brand and the vintage give you an approximate idea of what to expect in terms of price range. But I agree with @MigL: "Drink what you like" By that I mean: It's often the case that the wine I like the most is not necessarily the most expensive one, once grape, vintage and the particular vineyard have been factored out of the equation. You never know what goes in the price tag. There are, I suppose, as many factors as a particular producer can meet in trying to make each bottle profitable. If you can produce wine of a certain quality standard, but you only have one hectare with the right slope, sun exposure, blah, blah, maybe your pricetag will skyrocket for no apparent reason on the consumer's end.

This is unknown, and it quite depends on what is the level at which you want to answer the question (biological?, social?, etc). A good starting point for you to start getting some ideas is, as always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language If I had to pick a guess, I'd say it starts by correlation between gestures and other sensorial pieces of input and vocalisations (as @Sensei suggested), and the connection being "confirmed" by developing the neural connection during the growth of an individual. Many animal species have alert calls that are specific to the kind of threat. So there's this, and then there's also parental reinforcement, etc, which isn't essentially different IMO. A Google search "how did language start?" produces: From there, it could be argued that any cognitive refinement that helps remove ambiguity by using sound codes (or, in fact visual codes, like in sign languages) would be highly favoured from an evolutionary POV. For that to happen, the brain has to be wired properly. So: From a biological perspective, it seems to be related with lateralisation of the brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function And then, for higher language function we have the highly specialised FOX-P2 gene. Relatively recently, it was discovered that mute children who live in some kind of (restricted, mute) society, spontaneously develop a sign language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language Think about it --and this goes in the direction of @exchemist and @Genady--: If you grow up in France, what are the chances that you will end up saying fenêtre instead of "window"?

Curvature is frame-independent. If there is curvature in one frame, there is curvature in every frame. By going to a reference frame that compensates for that acceleration, you would go back to an inertial frame.

They would be there, but be too minuscule to measure. That's one of the reasons why LIGO was such a challenge.

No. Gravitational waves any sizeable would only be produced by extremely violent astrophysical processes, like BH collisions or the Big Bang. There is something called gravitomagnetism in which gravitational waves are included, but also includes other gravitomagnetic phenomena, like frame dragging. Maybe that's what you have in mind.

Yes. When physicists talk about simplicity, what they mean is most phenomena --perhaps all-- can be understood in terms of very simple principles. It's the constant overarching theme of a swathe of apparently different phenomena boiling down to very simple principles. The devil, of course, is in the details. And the very sophisticated formalism one has to learn first --and here's where the steep learning curve comes in--, in order to see how beautifully simple and economic the abstract formulation is. Thus, one could say chemistry is basically about exchange of electrons (red-ox) and protons (acid-base); physics is about minimising the action. We all know it's "just" about this. And as to geology and biology... Bad example. Biology and geology are genuinely complex. Complex in every sense.

Agreed.

This made me think of Feynman's comment on "unworldliness" and the 'beautiful' equation U=0, https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_25.html#Ch25-S6 By the way, I think the OP is using a word, "complexity" --that has a very specific meaning in physics and other sciences very intimately connected to it-- to mean something better captured by "difficult", "cumbersome", "steep learning curve", etc.

How likely? What are the odds for both particle and string?

More wishful thinking...

The only way it could be important is if it had observable consequences, isn't it? Why care so much about the model? Not every complex space with an inner product has a numerable basis. Hilbert spaces do. They must be dense (or closed under limits). That's a very nice property, and so we demand it. Does it play any role? Not really, as far as I can tell. No feature that's impossible to measure really plays any important role in the physics. Calculational convenience, I suppose. I am sorry, but it doesn't say much to me. Ok. That's your take. To me it does.

Sorry, a fractal what? From where?

I think the question could be translated into: Is there any way in physics that we can (experimentally meaningfully) ask the question of whether space/time, or either one of them --or any other variables for that matter-- has the power of the continuum? I don't think there's been any proposal to test that, and I don't think there can be. It is a very interesting question, though. When you report an experiment, you always do it by means of a finite string of numbers and/or characters. I think this says it all. It's probably an undecidable question, unless some connection is established --that we don't know of as yet-- between discrete mathematics and transcendent mathematics. It doesn't seem feasible that that will happen any time soon. Plus, I also said somewhere before, Self-quotation from:

For constructive criticism, read, For a little more constructive criticism: You're missing gluons and Z, W bosons. You're missing mixing angles and many other attributes of particles/fields. Dark matter and dark energy are very different things. Emptiness... that's not physically defined. Your diagram looks like a sink, gasket and all, with a rubber piece on top of it. Please, pull the rubber piece and let it all go down the drain. You're wasting your time, and you're wasting everybody else's.

Don't forget the Flemings of the Stone Age:

No, it's a quiet place, a mountain village. In that sense it's an island. I meant to use quotation marks: my "island". But I forgot. Sorry.

It's a wonderful feeling walking your dog along the beach. I don't totally rule it out. Maybe some day when I'm back in my island.

Don't sell yourself short. Intuition is a factor in this. Funny how data pop up in your mind. I've just looked at a map of Russia, and the story of the building of St. Petersburg came to my mind, and how it was meant to obtain a north-western port by Peter the Great, and the human sacrifice it took. That would have given me a better chance at the question, but it didn't come to me when I was trying to answer it. I would have remebered it is NW of Moscow.

Sorry. Modern physics has a funny way of self-flagellating itself for so many centuries of missing the point. Or, Modern physics has a funny way of self-flagellating itself for so many centuries of missing the point. I'm under a Victorian influence now, owing to a thread by @studiot.

I'm sorry to say I didn't do very well. 5/8. Congrats to everybody else. In my defence, I never studied musical notation --so I took a chance between the correct one and the opposite--, the St. Petersburg one was hopeless for me, as I can't quite place St. Petersburg in my mind within the accuracy of one time zone, and the grammar question puzzled me, as eg "from" is certainly a preposition, though IMO it never tells you where or when something is in relation to something else. OTOH, "across" and "about" give you all kinds of different relations besides those related to time and space. In my mind, it seemed just too narrow, so I decided to stretch my definition of a clause, to disastrous effect. I guess I would make a poor Victorian.

Exactly. +1 That's a good one. I think the one to keep in mind is, Not quite the point. You get closer to the heart of it if you keep reading, Modern physics has a funny way of self-flagellating itself for so many centuries of missing the point: Colour, strangeness, flavour, etc. It's not that physicists are thinking about pigments or ice-cream. If the mathematics is the right one --symmetries, conservation laws, boundary conditions, Lagrangian...-- then it's fine, and you can call them angels for all that matters.

The need for a mechanism. Another ship that sailed long ago. Incidentally, [...] and, Now, who said that? William of Ockham is the busiest dead philosopher ever!

No, you don't seem to. Can you produce anything other than Trash-Can material?

Thanks for your comments everyone. I'll get up to speed ASAP.