Genady

Thank you. Yes, this is my understanding. Quantum fields represent / fit something out there (reality), like gazelles' legs represent / fit the terrain they live on.

It is proven in GR that homogenous isotropic space is unstable. It has either to expand or to shrink. Which one and for how long, depends on initial conditions. Why the initial conditions, aka Big Bang, were what they were, is unknown. The dark energy is inferred not to explain why space expands, but rather to explain why the expansion accelerates.

OK, if 'to conform' means 'to socialize' then it perhaps is in human nature. I disagree. From the statement, "for an athiest to not play golf, they first have to be taught what golf is" follows the logical conclusion, "as long as they were not taught what golf is, they play golf". The conclusion is wrong; as this conclusion is a logical consequence of that premise, the premise is wrong. So, in order to not play golf, they don't need to be taught what golf is. They just need not to play it.

The expansion is result of gravity. It appears when the gravity is homogeneous and isotropic. If gravity is, for example, spherically symmetric, like around massive bodies, there is no expansion.

No, it doesn't work. The universe expands only on a very large scale, hundreds of millions of parsecs. Solar system, Milky Way, galactic clusters do not expand. The expansion is not a matter of scale, but a matter of physics.

Yes, but not will. The legacy code issues are almost as old as the programming itself.

Well, I know the answer. And I've just checked with ChatGPT, following your suggestion. Turned out that it knows the answer, too. Not too surprising as the answer is about 30 years old. It is a clever answer anyway.

Yes, indeed. For that reason, I didn't have a dog until I retired and moved to the island 20 years ago. Dreamed of having a dog all my life, but always lived and worked in big cities... Now the conditions are perfect, for them and for me.

I just try to replace vague words like "same way", "sort of", "forms" (in parentheses) by clarity. I don't think that vague talk is a fruitful endeavor. But if it is not what you're looking for, then fine. Sorry to say, but your going in circles is getting quite painful. It has been already covered and referred to. See https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128915-concerns-about-the-geometry-of-the-real-number-line/?do=findComment&comment=1232493

I see a relation between models in physics and reality akin the relation between living organisms and environment. Models in physics evolve to fit their domains of reality, like organisms evolve to fit their environment. Models in physics don't reflect or describe the reality, but they represent aspects of reality by being able to successfully work with it. Similarly, organisms don't look like their environment, but they represent aspects of the environment by being able to successfully operate in it.

Just for the reference: Real numbers don't have "next", shown here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128915-concerns-about-the-geometry-of-the-real-number-line/?do=findComment&comment=1231919 Real numbers don't have "smallest", shown here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128915-concerns-about-the-geometry-of-the-real-number-line/?do=findComment&comment=1232309

I thought that I have already shown to you earlier that there is no 'smallest real number', haven't I?

So, now you are talking about a different 'line', not the one we have defined earlier in real vector space as per the linked video? If so, we need a new definition. Riemann integral does not deal with lines, it deals with numbers. Again, a different 'line', this time, geometric one. No, they cannot be real numbers. Points are not numbers and numbers are not points. My not understanding was not that of an English language. It was a way to say, that saying "the same sense", or "the same way" in this case is meaningless. You are comparing different animals, lines and numbers. There is no obvious "same" between them. Another 'line'. R is a set of real numbers. There are no lines in this set, only numbers.

Evidently, not so famous and not so widespread, as I lived in five countries, among four religions, on three continents, and never heard of him.

We can get into a discussion on pets. In what way? I have two dogs. They are very good to people. But not between themselves. Fortunately, my house layout allows for an easy separation. So, one is a king of front yard, and the other of backyard.

I've suggested this four days ago (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128832-zero-point-lorentz-transformation-split-from-the-twin-paradox-revisited/?do=findComment&comment=1232116). It didn't help then. I am certain it will not help now.

It was not meant to be binary. I've identified the two extremes of the range but allowed for any combination of them. However, anything spiritual would've been OT.

Nothing to explain. I don't see that history supports this hypothesis.

That the hypothesis, is not supported.

No, I'm not.

It is a null hypothesis. The hypothesis that needs support is that it is a fundamental reason etc.

More science-is-wrong bots, but fewer god bots, isn't it?

It has an anti-particle, И.

If they create an artificial brain, they perhaps can fix the artificial brain. But what if your brain is not artificial?