Genady

Plants evolved from organisms which were not plants. The not-plants also evolved from organisms which were not plants. The bottom line is, not-plants did not evolve from plants.

No, it has not. Plants split off early from the rest of life. Schematically, so:

Expanding on and paraphrasing the @MigL's statement above: As a mathematician, "I'm not overly concerned with the 'why' of a paradigm, or set of rules, only its 'function'." "Math is simply a tool for describing/investigating the world" of absolute truths, which are independent of the world around us and thus hold and can be trusted when investigating new, unfamiliar worlds.

If I remember correctly, we have an area in the brain which is activated for basic counting - small quantities, comparing sizes, amounts, etc. This area is separate and removed from the language areas, and the two get activated independently in different situations / tasks. This does not support the view that math is at the basis of language. In addition to this, the quantifying systems and languages come in a variety of sophistications in different cultures. In some, language is very rich and complex, while counting is very limited. In others, vice versa. Again, not a refutation, but doesn't support the hypothesis.

I wonder how it is in fishes? E.g. in this Flying Gurnard I saw (in spite of being "Flying" it is a fish, not a bird )

Gerard ’t Hooft has created this website for you: How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist (uu.nl)

Don't 'we' understand the difference between a phenomenon and an equation?

@joigus is correct. However, would you elaborate on your question and on how it relates to that quote?

It looks like concepts in geometry are idealizations of perceptions and intuitions about space, concepts in algebra are idealizations of perceptions and intuitions about counting, and concepts in analysis are idealizations of perceptions and intuitions about acting.

Yes, I did. It has a beautiful and appropriate name, Voluta musica. Here is Wikipedia article about it. BTW, this article doesn't list "my" island in their distribution. Also, it appears that my specimen was especially large, and at a more shallow depth. Voluta musica - Wikipedia (att. @StringJunky)

What do you mean, Humans are important: All humans are important all the time All humans are important at some time Some humans are important all the time Some humans are important at some time ?

On top of that, having many quotes, even with citations, was discouraged. Not as a plagiarism, but just as a sign of laziness. You better interpret and say it in your own words., with reference to the source.

Zee, A.. Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell: "the equivalence principle leads us directly to an understanding of the gravitational field as a manifestation of curved spacetime." (p. 280) "the gravitational field and curved spacetime are effectively the same thing." (p. 285) "We could say that there is no such thing as gravity, only curved spacetime. But you could say with equal justification that spacetime does not exist; there is only the gravitational field. To me, it is just a matter of words, and the only relevant issue is which language you find more useful to think in." (p. 285) "In Einstein’s theory, the gravitational field is equivalent to curved spacetime." (p. 302) And so on.

Yes. And my picture, being made with an unprofessional equipment, doesn't convey the whole beauty. Plus, the real thing has an extra effect being in fact three-dimensional. I was watching it until I ran out of air. (No problem at 3 m.) They were crawling see floors long before Minoans. Hmmm... They are very rare now. For an obvious reason, I think.

Of course. This rule is designed to be used by a human, who can distinguish between a common speech and the content of an assignment, biology related in this case.

Chemistry?

Here is a conceptual explanation of the mechanics of this phenomenon:

In the school that I've mentioned in the OP, the definition was simple and technical: four or more consecutive words without citation - plagiarism.

"in GR, geometry is the field" is said repeatedly by Zee in "Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell" (I think, there.)

Sorry @swansont , I don't understand. What I have in mind is, take 5 kg of water around me, convert it to 5 kg of something dense, and use this something dense as my diving weight.

Back to physics now. Or, maybe, chemistry (?). Is it impossible to have a light something such that one turns it ON in the water and it converts, say, 5 l of water into 5 kg of a dense solid material? Is there a law prohibiting such thing?

This is just a question, How. On the other hand, maybe it was a Law professor ...

Where I live and dive now I don't need a suit and thus don't have this problem. This is the best solution. Also allows to use smaller tanks for the same time under water. But it was an issue back in NE of USA.

As a SCUBA diver, the one of the most irritating aspects of the activity for me is a need to carry weights when out of water. I've noticed that there are quite a few SCUBA divers here, they might agree. Is it possible to solve this problem, or it would be against the laws of physics?