Strange

It is no more and no less "imaginary" than any other number. The Greeks thought that only integers and integer ratios were in some sense "real" but they were obviously wrong. As pi is irrational, a sphere is a really bad choice as a unit of volume. A cube would be much more sensible. But, as noted, volume is derived from other measurements.

And the changes in pressure would be much smaller. But even if the changes in pressure in these shock waves were 100 or 1000 times larger than the average pressure it will still have no effect on the dense atmosphere. These changes in pressure you depend on are taking place in a hard vacuum. (I don't know why you bother to link to one of your many threads where you fail to provide any evidence. That one was at least shut down mercifully quickly.)

Maybe this is like the difference between experimental and theoretical science. I was just listening to a radio program on Farady. Apparently, he didn't really approve of Maxwell's mathematization of his work because he didn't think maths was "the language of nature", only experiment and observation told you about the natural world. So there have been scientific advances that have been lead by "form" (the observed behaviour of electric and magnetic fields, the shapes of planetary orbits, crystal growth, classification/breeding of plants) which eventually lead to "function"; i.e. theory (Maxwell's equations/relativity, Newton's laws of gravity, etc) But there have also been times when function/theory leads and experiment/form follows (antimatter, neutrinos, ...)

That is 9.08 MICRO pascals. And the variations in that pressure will be even smaller (hence nanopascals). Sheesh. In talking about the effects, that article describes it as "feeble". Do you have any evidence to support this? This "shock wave" is less than a billionth of the atmospheric pressure. I don't think anyone is going to notice that. It would be like stroking a supertanker with a feather. You have absolutely no concept of scale do you? That was really close, a few thousand miles. Close enough to scatter dust in the atmosphere. As opposed to your comet which you claim was hundreds of millions of miles away. It pretty much proves you don't have a clue.

Is this another, "I don't understand maths so I wish people would stop using it so much" thread?

The very earliest light we see is the cosmic microwave background. This is light that was release about 360,000 years after expansion started. But now it is stretched across the entire sky. So you aren't going to see everything squashed into a point. Because that point was the entire universe and is now stretched out across the whole universe.

You have evidence of this, presumably? You have evidence of this, presumably? Why aren't there "people with money" funding both sides of the argument then? What data was that? You can't throw around insults like this without any supporting evidence? And yet ... and yet, it has been published. And, of course, people have anticipated and modelled what will happen as CO2 levels stop rising (on the assumption that sooner or later people will act). So the idea that no one would publish this is just silly. The oil companies have masses of money, for example. They are, no doubt, funding research in this area. So where are their results contradicting the work of the climate scientists? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding I wonder why they couldn't just "buy a consensus"...

That is not part of Javascript itself. It is an API implemented by the browser.

So you are complaining about the documentation of run-time environment and/or libraries, rather than the language. I have had no problem finding documentation for these things. I would recommend using something like JQuery (or one of the equivalent libraries) that (a) make these things much simpler than trying to write them from scratch and (b) are very well documented and supported.

Ah, that. Of course. It amazes me that so many people insist a theory must be wrong when they have such a poor understanding of it.

Not essential, but incredibly useful. As soon as you get to anything involving waves or oscillation, it becomes much, much simpler to use complex numbers to describe it. And that is why they are central in quantum theory. You could avoid them but it would make things much more complicated. I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean anything. I strongly recommend some introductory courses in mathematics if you want to understand what complex numbers are and why they are ubiquitous in physics (classical and quantum), signal processing and many other areas. That would be much more productive than making up stuff based on analogies that seem to only make sense to you.

And this should be the standard meaning of the word 'supernatural' not something you make up.

It is the fact that the speed of light is invariant that leads directly to the fact that time is observer dependent. I suppose you could develop an alternative where you choose to make time invariant and end up with a varying speed of light, but it would probably be more complex. For example, you will have to come up with new versions of Maxwell's equations. Are you up to that?

Because you are redefining the word 'supernatural' in a way that is not useful. "If I define circles as supernatural and squares as unicorn poop then ..."

Can you give a reference for this? It contradicts everything I have ever read.

Calculations based on an estimate would be better than no data at all. (Actually, the way you just keep cherry picking from documentary sources instead of answering the questions asked suggests that you don't even know what the word "data" means.) Then please do the calculations to show how a small rock can have that great an effect on the solar wind, and how that can affect the weather.

Currently we only know of 17 (plus their anti-particles). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

Sigh.

It is an international standard (ECMA). As such, it is very well specified and documented.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I was initially interpreting 'real' to contrast with integer rather than imaginary.

Pathetic. And cowardly. I suspect you are unable to explain your vague ideas because you don't know as much as you pretend to. (That and the fact they are just vague ideas.)

Of course not. The answer is a complex number. You seem to be ascribing some unnecessary significance to this.

Correct, when we observe distant objects we observe them as they were in the past. This is built into the models and allows them to be tested at different times (which is how the surprising acceleration was found). BTW There is another interpretation of your objection to "is" and that is one of definiteness. We use expressions like "the universe is expanding" or "there is a singularity at centre of a black hole" but this is (or should be) understood as meaning "according to current evidence and our best models it appears that ..." There is always uncvertainty and the possibility of being proven wrong in science.

Push gravity has been considered oon and off for centuries. It is pretty much impossible to make it reproduce Newtonian gravity, never mind the real world.

Imaginary numbers are (or can be) real numbers. There is no magic difference between them. They follow the same compatible underlying logic. (Edit: there is perhaps confusion between reals vs integers, rather than the components of complex numbers which should have less misleading names than "real" and "imaginary") Did you skip the class on complex numbers at school? It is just as "concrete" (whatever that means) as any other arithmetical operation on numbers.