studiot

You first asked about packets, so let's deal with that first. When you switch on a lightbulb, the lightbulb sends out the beginning of a pulse or stream or whatever you like to call it, of 'light'. When you switch it off again there is an end to the light. That large chunk of light is a large packet in very crude terms. Now it turns out that a stream of light is composed of very much smaller chunks of light, rather like a chunk of copper wire is composed of very much smaller chunks of copper, called atoms. These smaller chunks of light are not atoms so they are called 'packets' and they share, with the copper atoms, the property that they are the smallest chunks of that particular type of light. These small packets have a beginning and an end, just like the big one you generate with the lightswitch. Does this help and are you ready to move on to the rest of your questions ?

This problem is a classic example of forgetting that both SR and GR are point function theories. Difficulties can easily arise if you try to apply either to 'bodies' or systems that are too large to be considered as 'point partcles'.

This is a classic fallacy / 'paradox', due to trying to combine too many mutually statements into one. If you break down statement A into singleton statements you can see this.

Can you please explain what you are trying to do here?

Mechanical wear by friction and by impact against the end stops is by far the biggest culprit, because such processes are much faster than long term deterioration. Components are normally (or should be) made of materials that can resist the acceleration/deceleration stresses they encounter in normal operation.

I fail to see a definition or explanation of what you mean by any of these four terms you are playing with words with. You start of with the premise that spacetime and by implication time exists. Yet in your second post you claim You need to post proper derivation and discussion of this claim here not on any linked website - Those are the rules here. Are you claiming that time does not exist ? What is the difference between what you call 'time' and what you call 'physical time' ? Since you have distinguished 'physical time' are there any other sorts of time and, if so, are they relevant to your argument ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63901644

Very interesting comparison. +1

Noted thanks. Yes, I am watching with interest and learning lots as I don't really know much about AI.

Thanks for the info. So am I right in assuming that Your red box denotes an input question and your green box denotes the AI response ? It seems to me that the AI is conditioned to always give an answer, unlike a human. Isn't this a drawback ?

Going back to the original. In this modern day and age of AI's, surely AI's (along with everybody else) should be asware that B may not be deceased, but simply no longer a woman ? Furthermore in many countries the terms husband and wife are now blurred by same sex marriages. So my comment about was still stands By the way can somebody enlighten me as to what is CHATGPT please?

Welcome gobin, you may consider yourself anovice, but you seem a well informed one. Normally resurrecting such an ancient thread, rather than starting your own new one, would be inappropriate but I can see how your post follows on from the discussion. Classifying chemical bonds as inter (between) or intra (within) molecules only makes sense when molecules as indivisuals are actually present. More advanced authors, such as Cotton and Wilkinson, use the word aggregate, not molecule, to describe ionic bonding in solids. Other authors use words like lattice, crystal etc. So perhaps you would clarify what exactly did you wish to discuss, bearing in mind that science has developed the 'term' molecule considerably since Descartes first introduced the word in the middle 1600s. Indeed some technical disciplines have extended it further from being a definite physical or concrete noun into purely abstract concepts.

Well, as I said, I disagree, though it is a fine linguistic point. The correct tense to use would be past not present. However we all seem agreed that there are plenty of different possibilities.

+1 Yup I must own up to asking for one or two particularly stupid bobos to be put right that way, in case a later reader only read the first post and not my later apology and correction.

As I see it there are several possibilities not considered, either in the question or in the answer. My (correct) answer is: Since A's mother has not been declared alive, no one is a possible answer if A's mother is now deceased.

A couple of brief comments about constants. Firstly there are not as many independent constants as some in this thread seem to think. (Welcome back genady ) The SI scientific system which defines all scientific measurements, is based on 7 base quantities and 7 universal constants So sure there are lots of more convenient constant and quantities for all and sundry, but they can all be related back to these 7 + 7. Secondly I would put it more strongly than Markus +1 I have always understood that astronomers knew that the further away we observed, the further back in time the light we observe came from. As a result they have spent decades seeking changes to spectroscopic observations that could only be explained by changes to these constants in an earlier age. As far as i know, no such changes have ever been observed. That is a major task of the Hubble, James Webb and SKA telescopes. SKA: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63836496 Thirdly I agee with MigL +1 This should have been established on page 1 of this thread.

I agree so I asked Arnie. He said "watch my films, the car press wins every time."

Hello, erik, I see you have a total of 15 posts resulting in 4 plus points since you joined. That's better than 1 to 4 and better even than our most senior moderator. Please don't feel threatened, you are doing exceedingly well.

I'm glad to see the biology experts are back with us so perhaps they might explain something I have oftern wondered about please. Humans clearly have some capacity to regenerate, as witnessed by the fact that we grow and then discard one set of teeth, before regrowing a second set as we become larger. Presumably there is some genetic coding that controls and enables this ? Has any research been done to try to extend this capacity more generally to other body parts or even athird set of teeth later in life now we are living longer ? What are your thoughts ?

Please read again more carefully and more slowly what I wrote before. What connections do you mean ?

Most electronic circuits are pretty dust and dirt proof by nature. The main threat to these circuits is that they attract dust and dirt and that dust and dirt will coat the circuit board, components etc with a layer of dirt that sticks. This layer then thermally insulates the board and components and may cause some of them to overheat and fail. Most circuit boards can also be taken out and scrubbed in mild soapy water (or scrubbed in situ). So long as the assembly is thoroughly dried out before power is again applied everything will be OK.

Hey Mordred, it's good to see you back. Hope you made your fortune during you long(ish) abscence. I can still see you maths, they haven't disappeared. But the forum layout has been updated so rolls up a longer post with "expand" at the bottom.

I see no support for this outrageous diversion. Can we get back to Covid, which is a serious matter ? I learned today that the UK NHS has run out of Remdesivir, the only treatment drug if you have serious covid. What is more the medicines department at our district hospital cannot get more, even though they still have closed no-go areas dedicated to serious covid patients. The covid pandemic is far from over and there is still plenty of time to get properly vaccinated. At least that is still available.

Thanks for the heads up. Glad we have some alert mods here. Pity though, as real new members should always be welcomed.

Thanks for quote Eise. +1 [aside] Perhaps we will see you in the next round but one. [/aside]