Genady

Exactly!

I think it is supported by facts. Here is a fact of existence, for example: For every number, a prime number exists which is greater than that number.

This is the time of comoving reference frame. Slower than what? Slower than a clock which is situated away from this high density. But the entire universe was this high density. There was or is nothing away from it.

As within any social group, e.g., gangs, fraternities, sororities, meditation classes, etc.

His arms will not remain straight. From the initiation of the move near the shoulders until the hands start moving, at least one second will pass.

It is not my belief. It is my understanding. I find it consistent, but I would change it given reason and evidence to the contrary. We are discussing the mathematical context here.

Maybe... But for now, have a good night.

The only idea I have so far is a good computer animation.

My point is presentation vs imitation. Trampoline is not an analogy, but an actual presentation of a non-Euclidean geometry. But not of a black hole. For one, trampoline presents a non-Euclidean geometry of space, but for GR it is essential that the geometry has to be that of spacetime. BTW, for visual presentation of non-Euclidean geometry I recommend the following book - many examples and good illustrations: Visual Differential Geometry and Forms: A Mathematical Drama in Five Acts: Needham, Tristan: 9780691203706: Amazon.com: Books

Thank you. However, it is significantly different from the topic of our discussion, because they actually presented the processes in question, i.e., oxidation-reduction and electrolysis, rather than demonstrated them with a fake imitation, like a trampoline demonstration of black hole:

I think, time is not an object that has a nature. It is a bookkeeping device we use to organize events.

All sets which have 5 elements in them. One can start with 5 and build all other numbers from it, if one wishes. I think so. It's just 5. What is there to measure? No, one can start building natural numbers from any number. It can be 2. Starting from 1 makes it simpler, that's it. Just exist. Relative to what is irrelevant.

OK.

Of course. This range is quite wide, however. OTOH, I might be biased, of course, and my personal experience is very limited, as I'm not a teacher. But that's why I've asked for evidence, if you had one.

I would think that they were interested in the science of demonstration if they wanted to dig deeper, to know how we know that, why do we think so, where did this come from, etc. I didn't see this.

I disagree with the part I've emphasized.

The distinction I make is between being interested in science and being interested in a cool demonstration.

yes, because and that "something" remains regardless of my mind. The statement, has two parts. The first part refers to a "map maker", and the second part refers to the "territory".

The point I've agreed with, but not the point for which I've asked about evidence. That point, I still doubt about. Anyway, I've asked, if you have evidence, and you could simply say, no, it is my opinion, or something like that.

I did not agree with that statement as self-evident. I agreed with it because I've observed kids liking science demonstrations and asking questions. However, I don't personally know one case where they went on to become interested in science.

Can this latest exchange be split off this thread, please? I am asking as the OP of the thread and as one who is referred as "he" in this exchange. It is OT anyway, isn't it?

The only difference I see is a difference in the degree of abstraction. 7 refers to anything with a count of seven. Dog refers to something narrower. My dog, narrower. My dog now, ... Etc. Something happens in the outside world, and 7, dog, my dog, etc. are concepts we use to organize that stuff. They all exist only in our mind, and they all correspond to something in the outside world.

I need a clarification. Maybe, by example. Let's take number Pi. What is its "syllogic existence in hard memory technology"?

Obviously, we agree on this. Why they would be different? Why them being analytic would affect their sort of existence?

How come? Is 1+4 also another way to say 5? And also 20/4? Etc. They don't mean the same number. They mean that different operations give the same result.