Genady

I think it's an exaggeration. They are different in many respects. Perhaps, there were other forms, different, mixed, and intermediate, that did not survive for us to know them.

P ( A | A ) = 1

Free will or Predestined Both.

If the OP in this thread, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127224-artificial-consciousness-is-impossible/, were correct then consciousness would be such a characteristic. (Just a note, no need to discuss.)

Here is another way. The distance to the Sun and its angular size let you find its diameter. Now you have two unknowns, the distance to the Moon and its diameter. You need two equations. The picture gives you one equation based on the equal angular sizes of the Sun and the Moon. If you can measure the time between the Moon touching the Sun and the moment in the picture, it gives you time that takes the Moon to move the distance equal to its diameter. We know how long it takes the Moon to move the entire length of its orbit around the Earth. Comparing these two times gives you the second equation. Then you solve two equations with two unknowns.

Can you provide something in writing? I can't discuss a video, and also the forum rules require so.

Sun diameter = 1.392x10^6 km Moon diameter = 3475 km Earth to Moon distance = 152036000 / 1.392x10^6 * 3475 = 380000 km

The current state of affairs: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends — and it’s philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0 (nature.com)

I was not responding to you.

To me, the presence of vestigial structures and genes is strong evidence of no design.

Another project to fight macroalgae in order to help corals: Florida’s coral reef is in crisis. These crabs can help. - Vox

Thus, in a roundabout way this story fits very well this thread. Thank you.

Lord Kelvin - Wikipedia disagrees: The "Two clouds" speech:

The physicist–philosopher Ernst Mach (1838–1916), who spoke of “the artificial hypothetical atoms of chemistry and physics,” never accepted their existence. As late as 1916, shortly before his death, he declared that “I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas.” This goes to show that a scientist can maintain his own principles, bravely holding out against a wide consensus of the scientific establishment, and still be wrong. Weinberg, Steven. Foundations of Modern Physics (p. 58).

It is good for public support and perhaps for funding.

Three. Years 1-4, 5-8, and 9-10. All three were good and different.

This is very good point. Unfortunately, most people (in my anecdotal experience) have this image of math thinking being 'algorithmic' / 'logical' / 'sequential' / 'linear' / etc. Regarding the trial and error, my math teacher had rules of working on math problems, such as: - don't use notebooks, use loose sheets of paper instead, so you can spread them around on the desk or on the floor to see and to come back to your trials, errors, and partial or intermediate results; - use only one side of a sheet of paper, so you can see all your work without turning a page; - never erase what you tried; use a pen, not a pencil; ...

The down quark field interacts with the up quark field and the W-boson field transferring to them its energy and momentum.

I wouldn't know about it if not for this footnote in Zee, A., Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell:

Here is the Newton's original drawing, which the banknote artist has copied: How is your Latin? Anyway, the artist has added the background and in it, he placed the Sun exactly in the center of the ellipse, where the major and the minor axes intersect (the point C). This is where the Sun cannot be. By the Kepler's first law, and per Newton as well, the Sun is in one of the foci (the point S). PS. In the earlier hint ("Hint: focus on the geometric drawing.") the word "focus" was the hint.

Simpler, simpler. Where is the Sun?

It is quite elliptical:

Sorry, if you mean the angles between the orbit's planes, you're right, they are too wild for the real planets in the Solar system. Still, there is something else, more fundamental wrong.

No, something else is wrong. (The orbits might be viewed at the angle.) Hint: focus on the geometric drawing.