Genady

What @studiot said above, plus, in connection with a "primitive socialism" mentioned earlier, there exist a modern variety in the form of socialist kibutzes in Palestine / Israel.

In physics they are not, and in mathematics the questions of existence are very specific / technical. Taking these objects out of their original domain, i.e., the physics and the mathematics, and placing them for investigation in epistemology and ontology seems to me an artificial and fruitless exercise.

I think I understand where the confusion comes from. I am not talking about existence of physics and existence of mathematics. I am talking about their contents, i.e., about existence of objects with which physics and mathematics work.

Any question to which physics looks for an answer.

Because that addition, "which physically exists", is not part of the question. "Which physically happens" is.

No, I don't think so.

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?