Strange

I think it is better to think of relativity describing the (relative) relations between times and distances. It turns out that this can be described in terms of geometry. For special relativity, where there is just relative motion, this geometry is "Euclidean" (it is the same geometry we use everyday). For General Relativity, this geometry is more complicated, and is the geometry we have to use on curved surfaces (where the angles of a triangle do not always add up to 180° for example). And it is the effect of those changed times and distances which causes the effect that we call gravity. Note that we normally think of gravity as a force. This is similar to the thing you have probably been told: "there is no such thing as centrifugal force". What that really means is that when we look at something spinning from our perspective, the force is inwards not outwards. But if you are in a centrifuge, or fairground ride, being spun around you will feel the force outwards. So the repsence of the force depends on who is measuring it. Gravity is like that: we "think" we feel a force because the curvature of spacetime is making us accelerate towards the ground. (There are some subtle questions here (that you probably don't want to get into in your essay!) such as: is spacetime really curved, os is this just a mathematical description of distances and times that happens to work!?) Yes (roughly). But ... why do those (virtual) photons get emitted and absorbed! (See what I mean, you can always ask another question!)

That is a tough one. How do electric charges attract one another? It seems to be just in the nature of spacetime to be affected by the presence of energy. (One person, whose opinion I respect, said that the reason is because that is one definition of energy: the thing that curves spacetime!) There might one day be a deeper theory that provides an explanation, but for the moment, all we can say is: that is the way nature behaves...

! Moderator Note I agree. We are not being asked to write the essay! It is energy that bends space-time. And (as we know from E=mc2) mass and energy are equivalent. Gravity is just how we perceive this curvature of spacetime. It causes things to move together, even in the absence of a force. One analogy that might help, is to consider two people separated by a few miles and both travelling due north. As they get closer to the North Pole, they will get closer together (following the lines longitude). But nothing is pushing them together, it is just the curve geometry of the Earth's surface. It is just an analogy to visualise something that is stretched and curved (and even twisted) by the presence of mass. Even without understanding the math, you might get something out of this description of how the equations work: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ (If you find it confusing, don't worry. It is!)

String theory implies supersymmetry. Evidence for supersymmetry has not been found so far and it is running out of places to "hide". https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118053-string-theory-cannot-describe-our-universe/ There are other theories that attempt to combine gravity and quantum theory. All currently untestable, but there may be more hope for them in the long run.

The answer to a question like this is, because that is what the god wanted to do. That is the problem with a god as an explanation. It can explain anything. So it explains nothing.

niwrad has been banned as a sock puppet of forex

Depends how you define "solid" I guess. Just noticed a thread title about measurement of volume, which made me think of Archimedes principle which captures what I am trying to say. If you have a metal sphere with a volume (ie a measure of the space it occupies) of 1m3, for example, and place it in water then it will displace the same volume of water from that space to the space outside the sphere.

That isn't what I meant (but I can sort of see how it could be read like that). Within an object the space is filled by whatever the object is made of (wood, metal, blood, etc). Outside the object space is filled with air or interstellar medium or ... well, blood, maybe!

I would say that everything that exists, exists in space. It is not space itself.

Today I learned that the European E-road network was started in 1947 and includes some amazing international routes. The E45 goes from Alta in the north of Norway to Gela in Sicily. And the E80, together with Asian Highway 1, crosses all of Europe and Asia, linking Lisbon with Tokyo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_E-road_network

But as some people insist on using the pump on the same side as the gas tank (I have often seen long queues at a half-empty filling station) having a "random" distribution makes more efficient use of space!

Today I learned that (in newer cars, at least) there is a little arrow next to the fuel gauge to let you know which side the tank is:

Impressive Science Word has been banned for not knowing how to use a dictionary. Or something.

So it sounds like higher ideation is roughly equivalent to [good] imagination. I wonder if the existence of this appel du vide explains why some people have a fear of heights: because they think "I could just jump" they are afraid to be there in case they do? (And I am not afraid of heights because I have no imagination!)

Or Fujioka as it would be written today.

I don't know what "higher ideation" means. I tried looking the word up, but it didn't really help! Does it mean "more imagination" or something else? (If it did mean that, it might explain why I have never thought such a thing - probably also the reason I don't have a fear of heights.)

I would be interested to know how she got from 1/3rd to "all humans". I have stood on the top of tall buildings and cliffs and the idea of jumping has never occurred to me. It just seems bizarre. No, don't worry. You haven't done anything wrong. I am just sceptical!

Citation needed. I have never heard of this before. Is it really "almost every person"? I find that hard to believe.

Maybe I will start a new thread about how I have just discovered I can close one eye. It's a bit like blinking but different. Maybe I'll call it "winking". I wonder if anyone else can do it!!! Or how I can scratch my left ear with my right hand. I wonder if anyone else can do that!!1!

Except, you are not focussing on it. That is why it is blurry. I'm sure everyone can do it with practice. Everybody?

Evidence?

Good point. I suppose, if there were gods, they could choose to reveal themselves and provide evidence in this way. They seem oddly reluctant to do this. What I really mean was doing some sort of controlled scientific experiment. If gods were testable in this way then they would not be metaphysical beings and so, arguably, not gods at all.

Quite. A quick search found zero results for noise from a simulation of a Bose Einstein Condensate. So I can't even begin to guess what input source you used. And I cannot imagine what sort of "common algorithm" would turn noise into a synthesised instrument. Edit: Ah, I see on the other thread where you posted this, you admit it is a guess. I'm afraid your guesses about non-existent musical sounds don't count as evidence for gods. Do try harder. And try to be honest next time.

Today I learned that graphene can self repair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene

What is "it"? What does "it" do in the fixed background? Both what can't be correct? An inclusive definition of what?