That’s not what heat death means. Heat death means the death of heat. It’s the first thing you described.

No, that’s not a necessity. If you throw an object into space at greater than escape velocity, it will never fall back to Earth again. In the same way, the universe is light and fast enough that it won’t ever collapse.

I didn’t say gravity bends space, I said matter bends space.

I’m still struggling to understand what the “lie to children” was in what I actually said and what you quoted?

The analogy is rather sophistic. We don’t conclude that all living humans have heads by generalising from our experience of humans with heads, we conclude it because we know people die without heads, and why they do so. That’s very different from the reasoning behind fundamental constants, where there is no…

I don’t understand the correction. Are you saying gravity is not the cause of spacetime’s curvature? Because I didn’t say it was...

Actually that does have an answer. Gravity is a fictitious force (like the centrifugal force) which arises due to the curvature of space by matter. This is the premise of general relativity, which is a century old and well-evidenced theory. Check out PBS Space Time for a good layman’s guide.

What I’m saying is that there is no evidence that there is one; and in such circumstances, one shouldn’t assume that there is. It’s certainly not a necessity.

Agreed. Extrapolation is inherently fragile.

Don’t think so, the idea there is that gravity might be different on very large scales. This system was a long way away but it’s still small scale.

The question probably makes no sense. The gravitational constant is as simple as it gets. There’s no reason behind it. If you insisted on a reason behind everything you’d have an infinite regress.

Why is it remotely obvious?

3,750 light-years away is peanuts compared to the observable universe, let alone the entire universe (which may even be infinite).

But in context it’s clearly talking about different batches... so it’s just erroneous. Hardly an uncommon occurrence for this blog.

I don’t see how that makes it less of a single material than plastics.

How did you conclude that? I concluded the opposite... halfway through, the statements start to exclude all armadillos, rather than including them.

I had the same conclusion. Very obvious puzzle... not much fun. Weirdly statement 1 seems to be irrelevant.

Awesome! Well, it’s either spontaneous, or these are the Latvian equivalent of crop circles.

Man, what a waste of energy. You misinterpreted their comment. We get it. It’s a minor mistake and the original comment could have been clearer. Move on with your life. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill now: saying that there is no “linear” to the states of water is obviously silly, they can be naturally…

Suggest a better metric for incentivising good games.