Strange

What needs to be explained? You are relaxing the muscles of the lens and "defocussing" the eyes. Why does anyone think this is special or interesting?

If you type "anagram" into Google it says "Did you mean: nag a ram"

3,141 ?

I think the claim is that the Hebrew text: ויאמר אלהים אל־משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃ Contains the letter he (ה) which kind of looks a little bit like the wrong Pi if you squint. But, of course, it will appear in every chapter. Even more amazingly, the English version of Exodus 27:18 contains the letter e which, as we all know, is approximately 2.718 I think believing in numerology must be some sort of disease or symptom of brain damage.

Many things that "seem" to be impossible (or possible) turn out not to be. That is why science uses objective measurements rather than personal opinions. Your "of course" is completely mistaken. If the mathematical model predicts result X and we get result X (plus or minus some error bars) then that is consistent with the theory. That's all science says. Nonsense It is a fantastic state of affairs. That is what gives us the opportunity to develop new theories and/or new tests fr existing theories (to try and find the holes in them). The world would be very boring if we knew all the answers.

Reported for spamming No it isn't. Pi is normally represented by the lower case π rather than the upper case form Π. In fact, I have never seen the latter used. But you seem to be basing this idea on a superficial similarity in form between the Hebrew letter Heth and (upper case Pi). But what about He or Taw? They also resemble Pi. And, obviously, the letter Heth (and He and Taw) appears throughout the bIble not just in this chapter and verse. So, like all numerologists, you have noticed one approximate and inaccurate and assumed it has far greater significance than it does. Could you also explain how the authors of the Old Testament text knew that in 1700 (ish) someone would decide to use the (lower case) Pi as a shorthand for a number? I think we will be the judge of that. (AndI am fairly certain the answer would be: "oh no it doesn't; it just more ludicrous".) But thanks for posting the stupidest thread I have seen for a while. Quite amusing.

I don't know if Google might use its translating magic to look for meanings in other languages (eg English if you are searching from .com or .co.uk) Doesn't work in Japanese (lots of manga I don't recognise and Beat Takeshi who, I seem to remember, had a film of that name - or maybe he is just an idiot!) In Italian the results are dominated by a popular idiota meme, with Trump appearing about half way down the page.

I learned that Google Translate does Latin (I thought I had checked this before). But it does a pretty crap job of it.

I think you might have missed the point. It is not that the crackpots in question think anything is possible if you can imagine it, but rather that their pet theory is possible because they thought of it. (In reality, it is stronger than that: they are usually convinced their idea is correct because it makes sense to them - which it obviously will, because they thought of it.) (See also: the recent thread on "what is science" where you gave a pretty good response as to why science has to do better than "common sense" )

Great historical and linguistics analysis of the 2nd Amendment here: https://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Not really. The time dilation becomes infinite at the event horizon for an observer at infinity. For the person falling in to the black hole, nothing special happens. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html The photon is not a valid frame of reference so this can't really be applied. Spacetime inside the event horizon is not unlike space-time outside. The fact that the radial direction becomes time probably wouldn't make any difference to our perception - although that explain why you will never see anything falling in ahead of you: because it is in your future. Space & time are inseparable so the question doesn't really have an answer.

Why?

I am fairly sure that is because when you relax the focus, the eye focuses on infinity.

The entire population could also fit in Rhode Island. But it wouldn't end well: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

It might be more interesting if there was anyone who couldn't do this.

Yep. As investors like to say (or are forced to say by regulators) "past performance is not a guide to future performance." Similarly, most explanations for market movements are post-hoc justifications based on trying to find something (anything!) in the news that could correlate with the changes. There are exceptions where there are real justifications for a change: a company launches a new product that is expected to be successful; a restaurant chain has dozens of cases of food poisoning; a national bank announces interest rate rises; etc.

Huh? It seems a perfectly normal ability that most people have (or can learn).

I would say, just not aware of the cultural differences. The good ones learned pretty quickly to read between the lines of what was said.

Several times I have been in meetings with managers/salespeople sent out from the European head office to meet with potential customers in Japan. After a meeting where presentations and discussions were met with "yes, yes, very interesting" I had to try and explain why that meant "no, we are not interested".

That is a slightly different thing. To see those, you need to change the alignment of the eyes (as used for binocular vision) as if you were looking a distance, but keep the focus close so the image is in focus. I think the subject of the thread is (voluntarily) changing the focus of the eyes (presumably to infinity - but my distance vision now is so bad, I can't test that!) while keeping the binocular alignment on a closer object.

Sorry, I didn't intend to criticise. But on a science sit4e, you need to provide evidence to support claims (like "it will make your eyes strong"). What what is? Voluntary blurry vision? Well, obviously, it is changing the focus of your eyes voluntarily. I was a bit surprised that anyone thought this was worth discussing. I assumed it was something everyone could do quite naturally. But maybe not. But it is an utterly pointless thing to do.

I’m not judging you. But you need to understand that this is a science site.

It is a normal part of human communication. That is not evidence (it is an anecdote). And it doesn’t say anything about “better strength”

In linguistics, there is a subject called "implicature". This is the study of the underlying meaning of a statement that is not explicit in the words. For example, if someone says "do you have $5" they are not necessarily asking about your financial situation. Depending on the context, they may be asking if you will lend them some money, or if you will pay for coffee. So, when I asked if there was evidence, I was not just asking about its existence, I was suggesting that you provide that evidence.

Any evidence for that?