Genady

I wonder about the other way around: why do you care? (This is psychology forum, right?)

I mean a human who has no religious beliefs, no religious rituals, no religious connection to others, no religious whatever. I don't think it needs a criterion based on a previous framework.

I disagree. I was an atheist before I knew about religion. I just didn't know then that I was an atheist.

I know a couple of them. They are really proud of their achievement and shrug about 'temporary glitches'.  They are really technicians, with no wider knowledge or interests.

In reference to another ongoing thread in this forum, I don't have any feelings about homosexuals and their activities. But I have feelings about religious people. I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them. I'm quite sure that being religious is learned. But what about being an atheist?

dU = δQ + δW It does not matter what one calls δQ as long as the equation holds. You can also say, "the warmness flaws out and the coldness flows in" or "the coldness replaces the warmness", etc.

Sure, accepted. I am really glad that you have found it and thank you, @Lorentz Jr and @md65536.

There would not be photons either, because electro-magnetic wave needs 3D. Without photons, charged particles would not interact. Thus, there will be nothing to hold atoms intact. There would not be objects, just a chaos.

Photons interact with electrons. These 'de-energized photons' would interact with electrons, pick up some energy from the electrons, and would not be 'de-energized' anymore. They would be regular photons, which would be detectable.

You can do the same here.

I don't see how having number of a referenced post instead of a link to the referenced post, would solve these two problems.

I agree, the boxes make it a mess. But one more click eliminates them: when they appear there is an option underneath, "Display as a link instead", underlined. Then, instead of this: it appears like this: Maybe the staff could change the function, so the latter is a default rather than the former?

Right, but why would I use a reference other than for others to read the referenced post? If this is the purpose, the link makes doing so much easier than a number.

Thank you! Why would we need the post numbers then?

Thank you! This is much shorter than how I was doing it. Didn't notice that "posted ... ago" is a link.

The other three languages I know have the same feature. (But this is OT, perhaps.)

If the numbering is not technically possible, then maybe there are alternatives available? E.g., an easy way to link to a post.

Yes, it would be helpful. OTOH, I can just say, "You claimed earlier, that ...". If this is true, but they object, they perhaps do not argue in good faith. Otherwise, they can rephrase what they said, clarify, modify, etc., and go ahead.

@kba, Thank you. I got the answer to my question:

bs

Oh, yes. Another long list. But this is technology, not science.

Yes, there are too many differences between English in science and out. Such comparisons should not be considered here. "Horizontal" differences are almost the same. How about wave-particle duality in QM? Historically, it was talked about quite a lot, but I don't think it is mentioned anymore. Not as an important concept anyway.

That does not count. They did not speak English then. 😉

Symmetry: from a simple geometrical meaning to invariance under transformation.

How about geometry? From a study of shapes and figures to a study of coordinate invariance.