Genady

I don't know why to hide it, but just for consistency:

Are you asking, what is radius of a circle whose area is Pi? Or, is it a word play?

I doubt about the relevance of physics because, IMO, physics is not concerned with what exists, but rather with what happens. Mathematical existence is something completely different and unrelated to the physical universe.

This is not the definition in Marxism and thus, not the definition in USSR or Cuba.

Thank you all for the opinions and information. My personal feelings in this case are that the headache was ready to go by that time and any distracting activity that didn't work earlier would have worked then. It happened to be petting the dog.

I woke up with a dull headache today. Coffee didn't affect it, paracetamol too. Neither breakfast nor pool. Later, I pet my dog for 10 minutes, and the headache gone. Just like that. Coincidence or a known effect?

My calculations were a bit different, but the last line and the answer are the same. +1 Here is my reply to the friend who sent it to me:

Thank you for the recommendation. I will do this. And then, if I survive, I'll be back

Hint: This problem is about comparing frames of reference.

I understand this. My issue is that our existence seems to me less interesting and intellectually engaging than existence of physical and mathematical entities. This is why I keep going OT here. On this note, I'd rather quit. P.S. My coffee was really good this morning. But I guess I am a couple hours ahead of you anyway.

A better solution is incorporating of the law changes in the law itself. Example could be the "running coupling constants" in QFT.

If they change over time, then there are other laws that govern this change.

Is existence an absolute attribute or it might depend on a frame of reference?

Does it apply to mathematical objects?

But I did write "same" rather than "some", didn't I? Yes. I meet a person. This event affected some events in my life and also some events in that person's life. Later, some of these events in that person's life affected some events in my life. Etc.

Some are not connected; some are causally connected. Same events participate in many sequences.

The nature of our existence is a sequence of events.

To discuss these questions, we need to establish what is meant by 'geometry.'

This is more like it. Acceleration is a separate effect, though. Do you see that this dependence of expansion rate on distance is the same for all galaxies and thus means homogeneity?

No, I do not mean anything like this.

Oh yes, it is compatible! It is "expansion 101." Now, with this comment, you show that you don't know the very basics of the topic you try to argue about. I am happy to explain complications, but basics, you should learn yourself. If you really want to know, that is. Anyway, you made it clear with this last comment, that I have nothing more to do in this conversation. Come back, when you understand that Hubble Law means homogeneity and isotropy. Until then, I am out.

Who are the "we" that you refer to? No, the space does not get bigger. The statement of "making the same space bigger" does not have any meaning. Space does not have "size", to start with. Also, space does not have identity to be "the same" or not. Expansion of the universe makes the distances between neighboring free-falling systems larger. Neighboring in real universe means at the distances of the order of magnitude about 100 Mpc.

Exactly. During the expansion of the universe, no "new space" is added to it. What happens is, the geometry of the space changes.

I'd be glad to try, but I don't know what. Maybe you can clarify your request.

Space is not an entity. There is no "new space" or "old space."