All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Black hole?

    There is lots of evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
  3. Black hole?

    There is no evidence the universe is cooling. There are loads of theories which is most likely why my posts are all over the place, depending on what I read last, and if I believed it or not. Galaxies are flat, and revolving, they have blackholes at the centre. When galaxies were formed they would be contracting and revolving faster and faster, the heavier elements most likely would have been thrown to the outer arms of the individual galaxies. Before a huge star formed at the centre of the galaxies which most likely supernovaed and collapsed into a black hole, and span even faster. etc The Problem with string theory there isnt just one string theory there are dozens. Also a mathematical model can not hope to model everything in the known universe, there are toooooo many variables. My view is that a Quantum theory of gravity using a bit of probability to get around the number of variables, and chances of things happening, is really the only plausible way to go. This applies to space also I think Mordreds thread addressing this, everything even space is just quantum fluctuations. Space is expanding due to quantum fluctuations, matter came out of space one way or another, and gravity is caused by the contraction of space, quantum fluctuations in space are heavier material mini black holes maybe ejected when galaxies were formed could be the source of dark matter with anything in between, etc. I prefer to ask questions rather than speculate and argue, so I am withdrawing from this forum for the time being at least BYE
  4. Wormhole Metric...... How is this screwed up.

    Like you said equation by far the most screwed up shape you can bend a BH into.
  5. Quantum Entanglement ?

    Teleportation of info between atoms. https://phys.org/news/2009-01-long-distance-teleportation-atoms-meter.html and faster bose einstein condensates https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicists-faster-bose-einstein-condensates.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter
  6. Today
  7. Blu-ray Audio Issues - A three-pipe problem?

    Hi GeeKay, maybe I can help you with this. From what you are describing the movie content is defaulted to a high-res audio codec (with this move it is DTS HD Master Audio), while the other parts are not (they would be in standard PCM or DTS/Dolby). So your player or decoder (the Audio Video Receiver or the TV) cannot decode this codec. There are a couple of things that you can do: Set your Blu-ray player's audio output to PCM (aka LPCM) not bit stream. This *should* resolve the issue as it then outputs in a digital format that your AVR or TV can decode; But if your Blu-ray player cannot decode the original codec (which would be strange, as the player should automatically read the disc in a format that is compatible - all players & discs are backwards compatible), you need to change the movie's audio format in the disc set-up to PCM or DTS/Dolby Digital. In order to do so, you could try the movie's own menu (each movie at its start should give you the option to change the audio format according to choice), or by pressing the audio set-up button on your Blu-ray player's remote and then toggle through it until you get the desired codec that works. I trust that this would resolve the issue. If not, there is likely something wrong with the way that the discs were encoded/written.
  8. God and science

    There is no complete explanation. That doesn't mean there is no mechanism. Just that we don't fully understand it yet. #GodOfTheGaps Therefore you agree that mathematics is not the only way of describing the universe, so there is no reason to assume it operates on the basis of that description. But it does relegate it to the level of superstition based on fear of the unknown, rather than a rational explanation.
  9. God and science

    It's a question for some people and that particular point was for someone else. Yet. Unless you want to say gravity didn't exist 500 years ago: before then there was no scientific mechanism which could have explained why down was down. There are quite a few scientific hypotheses out there about how consciousness arises so people are working on it. I take it you think computers cannot be conscious no matter how complex and convincing their behaviour? And it is a useless concept which explains precisely nothing. Worried that things can't have existed forever - no problem make up something called god and say it can exist forever. What has that explained? Can't fathom how consciousness can arise - dally no more, invent something called god and claim he did it. What has that explained? Why are people so scared to just say 'i don't know'? I quite agree. But a).those other methods still need thought and rigour and b.) some phenomena are perfectly suited to investigation via the scientific method. Consciousness is one of them.
  10. Points of view

    Ya, I tried a Transformation of SR @ C, it starts to give nonsense answers to stuff even if you take two C frames minus each other the geometries work but the answers are definitely not correct. See, I tried to take Gravity @ C versus Rotation @ C to transform it down to not being undefined despite being not undefined it gave odd answers for vectors within the geometric shape and not the geometric shape or vertices. In any case, you cannot use the Light-like Worldline as a base reference frame or you get some really inaccurate answers at certain times for time-like worldlines, why because half the cone is in space while the other half is in time, the left edge is the time-like vector at that point where the right edge is a space-like vector, where zero is Light-like Vector, it does not operate probably under those conditions.
  11. (High quality version: https://i.imgur.com/iQEDfXq.png) "Giant intuitive diagram showing how an artificial neural network works; by allowing error signals (aka changes in costs) to “trickle” backwards from the output layer. For example: “Trickling” backwards simply means a value (aka cost) computed at some neuron \(j\) in layer \(L\) is input to values generated by computations of some prior neuron \(k\) in layer \(L-1\). Some cost computed from neuron \(k\) then becomes input to values generated by computations of some prior neuron \(m\), in layer \(L-2\)." Links: Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077FX57ZZ Free copy with equations that are nicely coloured differently than their surrounding text content (instead of equations with the same colouring as their surrounding text content)…on research gate : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321162382_Artificial_Neural_Nets_For_Kids Free copy on quora: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-intuitive-explanation-of-artificial-neural-networks/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9
  12. Artificial Neural Networks for Kids

    1) I don't need to read all of the ai-academy ml content, to see that it could be clearer. Reading the introductory chapters, tells you a lot about the remaining content. 2) I am not saying you shouldn't use ai-academy, all I am saying is that ai academy can be supplemented by Artificial Neural nets for kids. 3) The tutorial's quora page does talk about a scratch written neural net done by the author 2 years ago, but the tutorial is not code specific. The tutorial however does heavily describe matrix compatible explanations. I think some code should be included in the tutorial though. Anyway, how would you describe back propagation in your own words, in terms of math too, without thinking about a specific programming language?
  13. God and science

    Yes. That is what “god” means. They are both languages we use to describe the world around us. So it seems to make perfect sense. Do you have any rational argument for why they are not similar? It isn’t obvious that is the case. There are arguments on both sides (although you haven’t presented any). That doesn’t change my argument at all. Just because we can describe the universe with math/words/geometry/watercolours doesn’t mean that the universe operates by math/words/geometry/watercolours. You have a simple and naive opinion based purely on your religious belief rather than logic. I am saying that is just a description. In the same way as Newtonian gravity describes it as a force. So, as you think the universe works according to our description, does that force exist? Or does the universe only work according to some of our descriptions and not others? Or did your god stop operating the world according to Newtonian mathematics 100 years ago? Ther may be an alternative mathematical description in future. Will you then have to insist that the universe doesn’t really operate as 4D space-time after all. You seem to suffer from a mediaeval belief that science is about truth. It isn’t.
  14. Well, ya I knew that was not Dark Energy, so it is Normal Matter and Dark matter, but I knew DE didn't group that way, that picture is a single time slice so it cannot be Dark energy which required a time component.
  15. No dark matter and dark energy needed?

    The paper is interesting. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11425
  16. Yes, that animation is super. I shall have a look with my 24" monitor, I've just watched it on my laptop. The one I saw was much simpler called something like 'Universe in a box'.
  17. Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

    They say the same thing about the supporters of Pauline Hanson in Australia but they obviously haven't looked into why she has been popular with poor people regardless of where they came from. If you want some hints (a) the left wing politician who took up her Ipswich City.Council seat in the late 90's has been charged with massive corruption (2) The state politician of the same left wing political party whose state electorate covered Pauline Hanson's federal electorate was convicted of molesting 3-6 primary school children between the ages of 9 and 11 who were in the school class he taught and (3) the state premier called a 'media tart' said after the convicted child molester was jailed that he "was still a mate of mine because he did all of that (child molesting) before he became a politician". That left wing political party has employed this ex state premier in $200K p.a. jobs for the past 10 years and the person who he handed the premiership reigns over to became the CEO of the Australian Bankers Association, go figure. The 'media tart' state premier introduced clause 8 of the Imperial Bill of Rights 1688 into our state constitution (unlike our federal constitution) that ensured that any state politician could not be prosecuted in any court outside parliament and introduced state legislation so that none of his MP's could be convicted inside parliament. It was called the 'Nuttal" law and was scrapped after the corrupt politician lost his seat and was charged and jailed for corruptly accepting $300,000 from a developer. But due to old mates in the pseudo left wing political party the corrupt politician was paid his entire superannuation of around $1.5 million and his mates only got back the $300,000 that he'd been paid corruptly, GO FIGURE???????? And if you want to get more constitutional the same right wing political party masquerading as a left wing political party brought the status of constitutional arrangements between the commonwealth and the states into conformity with the commonwealth of Australia being an independent, sovereign and federal nation, in their own legislation, without seeking constitutional approval from the people, and then proceeded to sell off most of our nations public assets. So being called a deplorable is much preferable to actually being a witless supporter of a right wing political party that prefers to BULLY the people who no longer support it because they won't get rid of the slimy filth that has corrupted the party to its very essence. If you can't get your head around why a left wing person would support someone who the majority of the media thinks is the devil you aren't looking close enough.
  18. Lol you quoted before I removed the failed first link to the news post. By the way the simulation looks cool when you stream it to a big screen TV.
  19. Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

    You should be aware that comments like these: . Don't exactly square with conclusions like these: And that’s just in THIS thread so far. The case against your conclusion becomes even stronger upon a cursory search of your comments in other discussions.
  20. Yes, that's the visualised distribution of matter in the LCDM model. i think the picture helps in describing that expansion is everywhere.
  21. Well this particular image doesn't show the DM distribution. The image came from the Millennium simulation. http://www.illustris-project.org/ The simulation also show the DM distribution and tests the metalicity ratios.
  22. This is something I have been building on for about 3 years or so now, originally as a part of a proof for a solution to the Navier-Stokes Equations and Smoothness problem; to give a simple summary, deflections between ray instances in wave fronts must fall into a specific category based on ray-to-ray angle for a ray deflection instance, simply assuming 3-dimensional Euclidean space with time, and would include (and from what I understand, can only include): Front to Front Wave Deflection Instances: - Shared Linear Trajectory Infinitesimal Wave Front Section - Acute - Obtuse - Near Shared Angle Infinitesimal Ray Pair - Acute Ray Deflection Off Rear of Ray And then a corresponding set of deflection instance types for Front to Rear Wave Deflections. These deflection instance type result geometrically when we hypothetically assume a repulsion-exlusive model of physics, charge, and particle interactions - where, basically, whenever 'attraction' occurs between charged particles, it is actually manifesting geometrically from what are fundamentally repulsing deflections between wave fronts, and clockwise or counter-clockwise intrinsic coiling of wave fronts is responsible for charge. I'll add more to this later, ran out of time to be able to finish the rest of this post right now
  23. No, it is not Dark Matter. As StringJunky said, it is a visualization of the large scale structure of the universe.
  24. Hello everyone! The Argentine submarine ARA San Juan last reported on November 15. On November 23, the Navy published that two hydrophone stations operated by the CTCBO, meant to detect nuclear explosions, heard a non-nuclear explosion near the possible position of the submarine, suggesting a total loss of the ship. My information isn't at the source, alas - data from Twitter, and so on. Signals, positions of the hydrophones, timescales https://twitter.com/SinaZerbo/status/933745155399708674/photo/1 do you understand too that the three blue-to-red histograms are strongly amplified, hence the scale does not apply? I suppose the blue histogram maybe fits the scale in dB ref µPa2/Hz, the others not. How do you understand the several replicas after 90s? I can only image an artefact from signal processing. An echo would need a reflector >70km away, and then the echo couldn't have an amplitude similar to the first sound. Do you know if the hydrophones on Tristan da Cunha were active? And if yes, why didn't they pick the noise? They were nearer than the ones at Ascension and Crozet that picked it https://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/featured-stations/types/hydroacoustic/ha09-tristan-da-cunhaunited-kingdom/ https://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/featured-stations/types/hydroacoustic/ha09-tristan-da-cunhaunited-kingdom/page-1-ha09/ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPVIXa_W4AEyAcF.jpg and from the sensitivity map (look at the shadows by the islands), those on Tristan da Cunha seem as efficient as the others, to the West too https://twitter.com/ferencdv/status/933737271748050944 they were put into service before 2010. And if the hydrophones' sensitivity at the inferred loss location wasn't worse than 1t TNT or 4.2GJ (see map), it corresponds to 7MPa (700m depth to crush the hull) times 600m3, or 1/6th the vessel's volume (D=8.2m L=65m), so at least this would be consistent. It's consistent with other potential sources too. Thank you!
  25. God and science

    Does god have to be a deity? May I add that god need not be strictly a deity as some may imagine god to be. Explain to me how Godel's theorems would go against anything that I say. Seriously? Comparing words and mathematics does not make any sense whatsoever. So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics? When did I say that the universe "is" geometry? It's not about what the universe fundamentally "is" but how it operates. I have stated this numerous times in my previous posts. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between something "being" what the universe fundamentally "is" versus being an integral aspect of the universe's function. It's not that the universe "is" geometry, but that it operates BY geometry and mathematical algorithms which dictate it's operation. There are algorithms which dictate the function and operation of the universe, to say that such algorithms are not a part of the universe would be saying that the universe does not have any rules by which it functions by. If the universe operates according to certain rules and principles, it must be operating according to certain rules and algorithms. There is no other way that the universe could operate and still follow certain rules and principles if the universe was not like this. It is clear that the universe is based in 4-dimensional space-time. Are you seriously not aware that Euclidean and pseudo-Riemann models of manifolds are not mutually exclusive of each other? A Euclidean manifold can still be a pseudo-Riemann manifold. The fact that the universe is not Euclidean means that space-time is something "real" in and of itself which can be curved, which makes the "realness" of space-time an integral aspect of the operation of the universe. The only difference in the models you stated is in how the way that the geometry of space-time behaves, but they don't dispute whether the universe is based in 4 dimensional space-time. The universe functions in accordance with the laws of physics. Certain quantities, such as force and energy, are related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration in accordance with algorithms which relate such quantities and can be described in an equation. The universe clearly operates in a certain manner that can be distinguished from other possibilities in which the universe could operate by. For example, the gravitational constant could be imagined to be a different value, and that would make the universe operate in a different way by altering the strength of the gravitational force, which is something which can be measured. The universe's mechanical and physical operation are not random, there are rules which describe how certain measurable quantities (such as the force of gravity) relate to other measurable quantities (such as the distance between two masses). These relations are dictated by rules which relate the quantities to one another, these rules are called algorithms. The universe's operation is in accordance with these specific algorithms which can only be part of the universe itself. Are you arguing that the universe does not base the rules by which it functions on mathematical algorithms and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time? It's clear that the universe must operate according to certain rules and principles that dictate the way that the universe mechanically and physically operates. The universe's function is dictated by something, and that something is based on it's structure in space-time and specific algorithms. There is no way that the universe can't be based in algorithms if it is clear that the universe has rules that it operates by, which are necessary for the universe to work a certain way and not a different way. It's simple: The universe operates in a certain way, in accordance with the laws of physics. The algorithms by which the universe functions, in order for quantities such as force and energy to be related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration, and in order for space time to be something which can be "curved", must base it's functioning in four dimensional space-time to function in such a manner. As for sacred geometry, it is basically the idea of certain geometrical concepts being associated with a spiritual significance. If you are talking about this idea in a strictly scientific sense, then you can't necessarily prove that something has spiritual significance, but that doesn't mean that the idea of sacred geometry can't be supported by observation. For example, the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals are observed in nature. One could relate this to their own previous ideas about spiritual significance to reason that the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals have some sort of significance. It would only make sense in the context of previous ideas about spirituality that such a feature would have spiritual significance. While not exactly scientific, that doesn't make it wrong. It can still be correct without being scientific. It could be related to the idea of god in that sacred geometry would be "divine" in a sense. The question is not just "why is the universe so complex" but "why does the universe exist at all" and "why does consciousness exist in the first place". There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness. The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong. Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.
  26. Welcome to the upgraded SFN

    We did used to be able to cap them separately, but for whatever reason that feature seems to have disappeared in one of the updates. Or I can't find it.
  1. Load more activity