I think the word they were looking for was not 'planet' but 'country'.

That's the only one I'm aware of, and it's not relevant.

Thank God Apple wasn't around back then, or we'd all have been forced to cease and desist from manufacturing planar stone implements with sharp corners.

Empirical evidence doesn't actually vary according to which hemisphere of the globe you're in.

Well, convincing would take proof, which we're not talking about. But as to what sort of evidence would make me favour the hypothesis... well, any.

Thanks for saying this so that I didn't have to. '2 is a countable infinity' is a nonsense statement on its own. Although, it does make sense if '2' is defined to mean the set of all sets which can be bijected with {a, b}, as is sometimes done. I think standard set theory calls this the 'rank'. And 'infinity can never…

Because he was a physicist, not a mathematician or some kind of general supreme intellect. He ranks quite low on the list of intellectuals pertinent to infinity.

It's not absurd. It's just unintuitive. You can't reject absolute infinity on the basis that it's unintuitive - humans have no experience of absolute infinities and therefore it is no surprise that they have little intuition for them. An 'absurdity' would be a logical contradiction - something you have not (and…

Wow, thanks. I'm surprised they move that fast. What sort of length scales are we talking about; what roughly is the major axis of the yellow ellipse, say?

Some of them seem a bit dodgy.

So is this video an extrapolation from some very accurate measurements of a small interval of time at the beginning, or was all of it directly observed? I ask because I imagine the scales involved here are hundreds of light years.

There are way too many minimalism posts on io9. Oh, the irony.

Nope, I want evidence; something that positively indicates that the hypothesis is true. Dreams being ostensibly detailed is consistent with the hypothesis being false, as well as it being true; therefore observing such is not evidence either way as to whether the hypothesis is true or false. Reasonable?

The whole reason that supernovae are special is that they contain loads of atoms which are not hydrogen. Hydrogen is no more specially related to supernovae than it is to the ocean, or earthworms, or... chewing gum.

I don't understand the pertinence of this tangent. Nobody has been talking about 'proof'.

Like I stated previously, I have had very colorful & realistic lucid dreams, some of them filled with very intricate elements. The thing is, how can I convince YOU of the validity of my own personal experience?

Except I'm an atheist. Truly you are a great example of a paranoid crank.

You don't need any technology. I'm just talking about some kind of observation which would tell you definitively whether we really do have intricate dreamscapes or not. If you've never had such an observation then you don't have any justification for believing it, do you..?

Obligatory "actually if the dinosaurs hadn't died, the adaptive radiation of the mammals would never have occurred and there would be no humans" comment.

I guess you also want to ban the Harry Potter books for portaying miracles. You're flat out mental. You think you're a paragon but you're actually an Orwellian nightmare. Thank God you're impotent and we don't live in your world.