Genady

AFAIK, the fine structure constant is one of about two dozen numbers that need to be measured experimentally and plugged in the SM by hand because there is no known way to derive them from first principles. When the founders of QM called it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics," about 100 years ago, there were not that many of such numbers and many other unsolved problems, e.g., quantum gravity, dark energy, etc., were not yet known or formulated. I don't think it is generally considered as such today.

Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. OK, compare with logic. What does it mean in logic?

And the answer is....

Here is a mathematical statement: It has a profound meaning in math. What does it mean in English or Chinese?

Singularity is a consequence of GR. Gravitational wave is a consequence of GR. In GR, singularity is NOT a gravitational wave. If you want to consider a singularity as a gravitational wave, then either the singularity or the gravitational wave (or both) should be NOT what they are in GR, but something else. What are they?

It's not even why they think what they think. We don't know what they think. We only might discuss why they said what they said.

OK, this looks like the Fourier series I've mentioned. Any wave can be decomposed into a sum of weighted sinusoidal waves. Each component wave behaves independently, and the resulting wave behaves as their sum. The component waves do not affect each other.

No, you didn't upset me. By vague I mean that answers depend on what you refer to as wave and as wave carrying wave.

It doesn't make sense to go on with this vague language. The only way to ask and to answer meaningfully is to use mathematics. Check, e.g., Fourier series.

Please, don't eliminate infinities. I like them. A lot. I'd argue to the contrary. So, it can exist then. But not by us.

I'd like to know what you've posted, but I can't, because a) I'd have to follow the link, which is against the rules, and b) the link is a URL shortener, which is not advised to follow.

They have visited here two days ago

Step-by-step derivation here: How to Derive the Speed of Light from Maxwell's Equations: 7 Steps (wikihow.com)

Here are some lists: Category:Piscine and amphibian humanoids - Wikipedia or more generic Category:Mythological aquatic creatures - Wikipedia

About the wing: the point is to create a difference in pressure above and below. The pressure does not need to decrease on both sides. It can stay the same below the wing and decrease above the wing. So, it does not contradict that moving fluid does not necessarily have a decreased pressure. However, I think that your common sense understanding of Bernoulli's principle is incorrect. There are many solid explanations of it online. There are also various mathematical forms of the Bernoulli equation. E.g., If a pump makes a work, -ws, then the velocity, V, can change without a change in the pressure, P.

Yes. Why not?

No, I don't see why causing the fluid to move would decrease the pressure within the fluid. The Bernoulli's principle doesn't say so, AFAIK. I think you're right and I see where some decrease in pressure above the sinking piston might come from. As the piston moves down and the fluid above it moves down with it, a level of the top surface of the fluid is lowered because it takes time for the fluid sipping in from below to fill the gap. Thus, the height of the fluid column above the moving piston is smaller than "normal", and the pressure is lower accordingly.

Oh, such a pleasant read for somebody who cannot eat any dairy and who grew up in a greens eating culture. Thank you!

You haven't met the requirement to be paid attention to. Thus, you are placed in the ignore list.

Inside the flow, where there are no other sources of energy, the pressure where the fluid moves faster is lower than the pressure where it moves slower. How it relates to the pressure outside the flow, is another question.

I think I made a mistake there by jumping to conclusion that it will reduce a pressure on the wall.

Regardless of the wall being vertical or horizontal, if the fluid moves by external force, this movement does not reduce the pressure. Yes, perhaps you better go back and find where this idea of the reduced pressure came from.

The alphabet based writing, i.e., writing based on how words sound, appeared about 4000 years ago. Before that, writing did not represent how the words sound, but rather represented objects that the words refer to. The alphabet did not evolve from separating sounds, but rather from the previous symbols representing objects. For example, a letter for the sound "A" evolved from a symbol that represented an object for which the word started with the sound "A". History of the alphabet - Wikipedia

No, there is not. The rotating paddle wheel will circulate the water but will not decrease the pressure.

I think we can say any of that or something else, e.g., "the force is from the wall", - as long as we understand the mechanics of it.