geordief

Are we allowed ad hominyms now ?

You cannot fight the Man from Del Monte

Thanks,plenty there.

They were preserved in aspic.

Cream whipped?

I can't edit it now.

What are the conditions that favour the set of ,eg blackcurrant jelly? I assume the proportion of pectin to fluid volume is one of them. What about temperature....is that fixed? And does continuing the boil after the liquid is starting to set cause the set to deteriorate?(how fine is that judgement?) Any other parameters?

Thanks. Yes ,I thought of writing "Euclidean geometry" but was a bit uncertain as to the correct terminology "Natively" an auto misspelling for "naturally" I am guessing.(my bold)

Is the geometry of spacetime universally applicable because the old geometry of space and time as measured from any one point has proved incapable of modeling events in other places and times to a sufficient degree of accuracy under high speeds of relative motion? (which spacetime can do except under extreme conditions)

Is this discussion beating around the bush of the simple question "Does a leaf in the forest still fall when we are not looking"? Does our looking represent the scientific endeavour and the question as to whether the ship sails on regardless ,the philosophical endeavour? I feel that the scientific endeavour and the philosophical endeavour are complimentary but clearly are different paths to an ever progressing regressing ** end. There are other paths too,and some point in the other direction. ** damn that autocorrect facility

I spoke too soon .I think your first idea may have changed my settings back to more or less how it was(though what I actually did I am not quite sure ,since it didn't seem to work the last time I tried)

No ,don't think it is that ,for me (I just zoom it up to what is comfortable now .These devices can be frustrating but never so bad as to wreak physical vengeance on them- in my case the user is equally to "blame")

That happened to me too.I use ithe screen as a flashlight and often enough a chance knock in the dark brings it to settings and I get either high contrast or ,like you small font that I cannot seem to change. I have just lived with it for the past few weeks as I cannot find the way back

I love those questions and I don't think they are hard to answer (when you are as thick as me it is easier ) The first man or lady might have been escaping a wild beast of some description and instinctively appreciated the protection it gave. This appreciation may have been reinforced by repetition. So he was a proto scientist(statistician?) But trying to rationalize it in his free time he may have waxed philosophical (esp if he was trying to impress the lady)

I we start with "we don't know " then all assertions can seem plausible.

https://theconversation.com/a-new-kind-of-physics-stephen-wolfram-has-a-radical-plan-to-build-the-universe-from-dots-and-lines-136830 Along those lines?

How would you know that there were no more galaxies? They might just be moving too fast for you to see them. Apparently in our own distant future we will longer be able to see any of the galaxies that we can see today as their speed of recession will have gone above the speed of light....

That has never been observed has it?Even in the womb we may be aware of our mother(even her feelings,perhaps-at least as we interpret them) Actually this seems an ideal scenario.Does the child in the womb have an entirely separate sense of identity or is it mostly fused with what it perceives as that of its mother? Is there any way that could conceivably be measured?

Is our sense of who or what we are more based on our internal processes or is it more function of how the outside worldviews us? Or is it some indefinable feedback mechanism where these two processes feed off and on each other ? In short ,perhaps are we who we think we are or who others think we are?

I am sure the Greek philosophers would have kept up to speed with the latest findings and debunking. Had we been alive in their era we would quite likely have been astounded by their good sense.

I ? (or wherever you started from) Can a set like that be seen as how it was made rather than an end product? (a chimera to boot) Edit I thought a chimera was one of those retreating mirages that disappear the closer you get to them.🙄

You could maybe have an "edge" (wouldn't have to be a definite boundary-more an amorphous dynamic region) that you couldn't cross ,only follow its progression. But how could we find that edge (or that amorphous region? If we had all the time available to us in which direction we we point our craft? Away from the centre? Seems the centre is everywhere ,so that is no help. Maybe someone designed the universe wrong😢

Following on from Swansont's comment "There is nothing we can interact with outside of the universe. It is inaccessible to us" https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125641-two-objects-going-near-the-speed-at-lightrelativity/?do=findComment&comment=1184766 Is it possible (within the realms of possibility) to construct a "sub universe" whose inhabitants (not necessarily living inhabitants) cannot perceive anything outside their construction and where there exists a speed limit analogous to our own? We,as the creators of this universe would be able to see in but the "inhabitants " would be prevented by their speed limit from seeing out..

Is there any theory as to how this process was initiated? Which came first ,the observation of this universal expansion or the theory that the observations validated? (Hope I am not going off topic)

I have been told that "that would be the rapidly expanding edge of our big bang" is simply a wrong concept. (No edge)