Leaderboard

Puerto Rico agrees. Black athletes agree. The anti-fascist movement agrees.

The politics of Black Holes ? Why is there a political/religious undercurrent to anything we discuss here ? Next thing someone will be comparing D Trump's divisiveness to Dark Energy separating everything at an increasing rate.

31.5 million. She said half, and he got ~63 million votes. The thing is, the truly deplorable ones say the same thing. They just want to MAGA. They claim to be patriots. But we can see what their vision of "great again" is by their actions. Their vision is white, straight, and Christian (among other things), none of which is founded on the constitution, and how can one be a solid citizen if one rejects the tenets of the constitution? Your habit of making claims based on no associated evidence whatsoever has gotten tiresome. Is there a house or senate bill in the works that is proposing to disallow burning coal? Is this happening in places that have legalized recreational pot smoking? (IOW, do you have evidence to back up your assertion?) Evidence? (while we know for a fact that Trump has disclosed classified material to foreign adversaries) As opposed to Trump, who has not stood up to Putin. Based, again, on no evidence whatsoever. What if we passed a law outlawing straw man arguments? Really? You know this...how? Marital rape, OTOH, is illegal in all 50 states. Regardless of your political affiliation. (and see how easy it is to back up a factual claim? You should try it sometime.)

Which do you think is more likely... That all of these people whom you love, respect, and care about very much were all deeply misguided and that you were the only one who could see the best choice, or that perhaps you made a mistake and instead should’ve listened to and aligned with your family when voting? Of course. I do this all the time, but admit it doesn’t always feel this is being reciprocated. Too often, arguments are dismissed with labels (liberal, SJW, MSM, left, as infinitude...) and the respect you advocate must go both ways. Further, the more I listen the more I see deep factual errors in their statements and become increasingly disheartened about how truth doesn’t seem to matter to them (as per this thread). It’s difficult using facts and reason to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither. In short, it’s hard to find common ground with a person denying the existence of the ground itself. Btw - Likewise on my condolences about your dad. I lost mine a few decades ago and know the wound to our mental well-being such passings create. We may frequently disagree online, but that doesn’t negate our shared humanity and understanding of loss. I hope the positive memories you have of him easily crowd out the sad ones you and your grieving family are surely feeling today.

Blackholes matter! No, ALL holes matter!

At least not according André Maeder, University of Geneva: Interesting. Let's wait and see.

Archeologists can also get it wildly wrong. I remember a Science Fiction story I read once about a group of cosmic archeologists digging through the ruins of a planet the inhabitants had wrecked. The found a picture strip which they worked out were sequential frames so they worked out how to view the film. Upon watching they came to the conclusion that the planet was the most hostile place in the universe. Stick like inhabitants wandered around but were constantly being blown up, shot or knocked down. Yet they seemed to keep getting up to be knocked down etc again and again. At the end of film there was a scene they couldn't work out, but seemd to be writing of some sort. It said It said "A Looney Tunes production"

If there are 40 cards in the deck and 4 of them are aces, the probability the first card drawn is an ace is 4/40= 1/10. There are then 39 cards left in the deck, 3 of them aces. The probability the second card drawn is not an ace is (39- 3)/39= 36/39= 12/13. The probability of drawing "ace, non-ace" in that order is (1/10)(12/13)= 12/130= 6/65. Similarly, the probability the first card drawn is not an ace is 36/40= 9/10 and the probability the second card is an ace is 4/39 so the probability of drawing "non-ace, ace" in that orderis (9/10)(4/39)= (3/5)(2/13)= 12/130= 6/65. The probability of drawing one ace out of the two cards is 2(6/65)= 12/65. I am not sure that using your other method, while correct, would be any simpler. If there are 40 cards in the deck and four of them are aces, there is 4/40= 1/10 probability the first card is an ace. There are then 39 cards in the deck, 3 of them aces. The probability the second card drawn is an ace is 3/39= 1/13. The probability both cards are aces is (1/10)(1/13)= 1/130. If there are 40 cards in the deck and four of them are aces, 36 cards are not aces so there is 36/40= 9/10 probability the first card is not an ace. There are then 39 cards in the deck, 35 of then not aces. The probability the second card drawn is not an ace is 35/39. The probability the cards are two non-aces is (9/10)(35/39)= 21/26. The probability the are not "two aces" nor "two non-aces" is 1/130+ 21/26= 3/390+315/390= 318/390= 159/195= 53/65. The probability the cards drawn are one ace and one non-ace is 1- 53/65= (65- 53)/65= 12/65 as before. I found the second method much harder than the first!

The problem is that no one knows what Trump thinks about most issues. It is impossible to find middle ground when wants and goals are mysterious. Trump campaigned that the govt would pay for healthcare and that everyone would be covered. Once elected he asked Republicans in Congress to figure something out; he didn't have a plan of his own. Congress repeatedly fail to come up with any that didn't raise costs while also causing millions to lose coverage. Trump's position became to just let the whole healthcare system fail and figure something out from there (his actual words). It is currently unclear if subsidies will be paid or which parts of the ACA are on the chopping block. Where is the middle ground; none of us even know what is happening. tar, you have been in this thread defending the current push for tax cuts but what can you definitively tell us about it: will it include changes to taxes for 401k's, will it include repeal of mandate for health insurance, will it limit state tax deductions, will it lower capital gains tax across the board, will it change or illuminate the estate tax, what will the corporate tax rat be, and as a resident of NJ do you believe you'll be paying more or less overall (local & federal) if passed?? What about Pay-As-You-Go Act (PayGo) will Congress include a waiver for it or allow the automatic cuts to things like medicare kick in? How can you and I find middle ground if neither of us know what is happening? You are complimenting the Presidents achievements based crowd reaction to a speech in China meanwhile Trump hasn't even passed a budget yet! We are still on continuation from Obama's last budget. Stop with the "everyone hates on my President" nonsense and start listing some facts and real policy. Start specifically explaining what Trump has done or is in the process of doing. You like how he has handled China, great,explain to me what Trump plans to do about the islands in the South China sea, negotiating a new trans-pacific partnership, labeling China a currency manipulator, and etc. What about NAFTA: is Trump re-negotiating it, pulling out, or is nothing changed? You like how Trump has handle Syria; is Assad an friend now or is it still the position of the U.S. that Assad goes? I bet between you and I there is tremendous middle ground on most issues. The problem is you have chosen to make defending Trump a priority over all else. You defend Trump despite having no clear understand of what his plans are. It is a nonstarter position if middle ground is desired. Arguing that what the President thinks doesn't matter and that it all comes down to what people do reads good but doesn't make any sense. Our government is us; we the people. Our government creates and manages the policies/laws that governs our lives. What our representatives think,what their intentions are, are paramount.

Worked straightaway for me. Maybe the forum software has decided you are not to be trusted! This could be a browser issue as I think the (visible) flag is set by Javascript on your end. Have you tried shutting down the browser and restarting it? (Yes, I did work in customer support. And, yes, "turn it off and on again" was a standard suggestion!)

Has there been another recent change? It seems that when I give someone rep (up or down) - it doesn't register it straight away... does it go into a queue to be approved by the mods or something?

Any representation including images can be described via math. The question becomes how to properly do so. Start with breaking your images to a coordinate basis. Then attempt to break said image into vectors. Finally look for symmetry and assymetry relations to organize said vectors. I wish I could recall a particular theory that literally breaks any picture one can take and describe it under math. Its not strictly physics but the mathematics can be related to physics. The problem I found reading your post on the other thread was the lack of proper descriptives via proper terminology. You tend to try to apply a scattering of random theories, some of which have little to do with one another. Its actually a struggle to figure out where to start to help you advance your ideas to proper physics descriptives. Unfortunately as Vmedvil started this post as the OP the priority I applied is more to his posts than yours. This is to prevent thread hijacking. I suggest starting a seperate thread under Speculation so I can properly focus on your particular ideas. One other rule to follow, never reply to a thread with personal models. Always answer via mainstream physics.

I always have to spend time on your posts lol. They are precise enough to warrent the proper time to reply

One thing I truly appreciate about your threads Dubbelsix is you spent literally dozens of posts simply to accurately describe the length of a vector. One of the most vital aspects of group theory. You then applied that under a precise coordinate basis. A vast majority of your posts literally applied to a complete tensor closure. Unfortunately not many understood the Dirac notation. You then specified at every post including your own site that you are toy modelling. Not once have I ever seen you state this is the way it is. Yet you always maintained proper mathematical rigor in every examination you performed. The bonus is you much like me can pick up any professional peer review topic and understand it correctly via understanding the mathematics and not the written descriptives or images. That is the true advantage learning vector calculus and differential geometry provides... Like I said every equation has a precise mathematical proof that must be properly understood before trying to manipulate it. After 25 years of intensive study of physics. One becomes amazed on just how interconnected various theories are

OK lets do some math to show some details first lets describe how the Bose Einstein works in a heuristic manner ie a more familiar examiniation [latex]DU=pdV[/latex]. First take the first law of thermodynamics. [latex]dU=dW=dQ[/latex] U is internal energy W =work. As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as [latex]DW=Fdr=pdV[/latex] Which leads to [latex]dU=-pdV.[/latex]. Which is the first law of thermodynamics for an ideal gas. [latex]U=\rho V[/latex] [latex]\dot{U}=\dot{\rho}V+{\rho}\dot{V}=-p\dot{V}[/latex] [latex]V\propto r^3[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Which leads to [latex]\dot{\rho}=-3(\rho+p)\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] We will use the last formula for both radiation and matter. Assuming density of matter [latex]\rho=\frac{M}{\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3}[/latex] [latex]\rho=\frac{dp}{dr}\dot{r}=-3\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Using the above equation the pressure due to matter gives an Eos of Pressure=0. Which makes sense as matter doesn't exert a lot of kinetic energy/momentum. For radiation we will need some further formulas. Visualize a wavelength as a vibration on a string. [latex]L=\frac{N\lambda}{2}[/latex] As we're dealing with relativistic particles [latex]c=f\lambda=f\frac{2L}{N}[/latex] substitute [latex]f=\frac{n}{2L}c[/latex] into Plancks formula [latex]U=\hbar w=hf[/latex] [latex]U=\frac{Nhc}{2}\frac{1}{L}\propto V^{-\frac{1}{3}}[/latex] Using [latex]dU=-pdV[/latex] using [latex]p=-\frac{dU}{dV}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{U}{V}[/latex] As well as [latex]\rho=\frac{U}{V}[/latex] leads to [latex]p=1/3\rho[/latex] for ultra relativistic radiation. Those are examples of how the first law of thermodynamics fit within the equations of state. There is more intensive formulas involved. In particular the Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics. You can fit that into the previous post where I detailed those statistics. This shoulld better help you understand that portion. Now lets supply some details on GR in particular the Newton limit Central potential and Newton limit In the presence of matter or when matter is not too distant physical distances between two points change. For example an approximately static distribution of matter in region D. Can be replaced by the equivalent mass [latex]M=\int_Dd^3x\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] concentrated at a point [latex]\overrightarrow{x}_0=M^{-1}\int_Dd^3x\overrightarrow{x}\rho(\overrightarrow{x})[/latex] Which we can choose to be at the origin [latex]\overrightarrow{x}=\overrightarrow{0}[/latex] Sources outside region D the following Newton potential at [latex]\overrightarrow{x}[/latex] [latex]\phi_N(\overrightarrow{x})=-G_N\frac{M}{r}[/latex] Where [latex] G_n=6.673*10^{-11}m^3/KG s^2[/latex] and [latex]r\equiv||\overrightarrow{x}||[/latex] According to Einsteins theory the physical distance of objects in the gravitational field of this mass distribution is described by the line element. [latex]ds^2=c^2(1+\frac{2\phi_N}{c^2})-\frac{dr^2}{1+2\phi_N/c^2}-r^2d\Omega^2[/latex] Where [latex]d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+sin^2(\theta)d\varphi^2[/latex] denotes the volume element of a 2d sphere [latex]\theta\in(0,\pi)[/latex] and [latex]\varphi\in(0,\pi)[/latex] are the two angles fully covering the sphere. The general relativistic form is. [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu x^\nu[/latex] By comparing the last two equations we can find the static mass distribution in spherical coordinates. [latex](r,\theta\varphi)[/latex] [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}1+2\phi_N/c^2&0&0&0\\0&-(1+2\phi_N/c^2)^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&-r^2&0\\0&0&0&-r^2sin^2(\theta)\end{pmatrix}[/latex] Now that we have defined our static multi particle field. Our next step is to define the geodesic to include the principle of equivalence. Followed by General Covariance. Ok so now the Principle of Equivalence. You can google that term for more detail but in the same format as above [latex]m_i=m_g...m_i\frac{d^2\overrightarrow{x}}{dt^2}=m_g\overrightarrow{g}[/latex] [latex]\overrightarrow{g}-\bigtriangledown\phi_N[/latex] Denotes the gravitational field above. Now General Covariance. Which use the ds^2 line elements above and the Einstein tensor it follows that the line element above is invariant under general coordinate transformation(diffeomorphism) [latex]x\mu\rightarrow\tilde{x}^\mu(x)[/latex] Provided ds^2 is invariant [latex]ds^2=d\tilde{s}^2[/latex] an infinitesimal coordinate transformation [latex]d\tilde{x}^\mu=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha[/latex] With the line element invariance [latex]\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g_{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] The inverse of the metric tensor transforms as[latex]\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})=\frac{\partial\tilde{x}^\mu \partial\tilde{x}^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta} g^{\alpha\beta}x[/latex] In GR one introduces the notion of covariant vectors [latex]A_\mu[/latex] and contravariant [latex]A^\mu[/latex] which is related as [latex]A_\mu=G_{\mu\nu} A^\nu[/latex] conversely the inverse is [latex]A^\mu=G^{\mu\nu} A_\nu[/latex] the metric tensor can be defined as [latex]g^{\mu\rho}g_{\rho\nu}=\delta^\mu_\mu[/latex] where [latex]\delta^\mu_nu[/latex]=diag(1,1,1,1) which denotes the Kronecker delta. Finally we can start to look at geodesics. Let us consider a free falling observer. O who erects a special coordinate system such that particles move along trajectories [latex]\xi^\mu=\xi^\mu (t)=(\xi^0,x^i)[/latex] Specified by a non accelerated motion. Described as [latex]\frac{d^2\xi^\mu}{ds^2}[/latex] Where the line element ds=cdt such that [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}d\xi^\mu d\xi^\nu[/latex] Now assume that the motion of O changes in such a way that it can be described by a coordinate transformation. [latex]d\xi^\mu=\frac{\partial\xi^\mu}{\partial x^\alpha}dx^\alpha, x^\mu=(ct,x^0)[/latex] This and the previous non accelerated equation imply that the observer O, will percieve an accelerated motion of particles governed by the Geodesic equation. [latex]\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}(x)\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{dx^\beta}{ds}=0[/latex] Where the new line element is given by [latex]ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu[/latex] and [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial\xi^\alpha}{\partial\xi x^\mu}\frac{\partial\xi^\beta}{\partial x^\nu}\eta_{\alpha\beta}[/latex] and [latex]\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\partial x^\mu}{\partial\eta^\nu}\frac{\partial^2\xi^\nu}{\partial x^\alpha\partial x^\beta}[/latex] Denote the metric tensor and the affine Levi-Civita connection respectively. now as the topic of Higg's came up lets supply some details on this. Higg's field details that will make understanding the Higg's itself simpler. Keep in mind I am using Lewis Ryder "Introductory to General Relativity" for this. You may find more recent articles with slightly different metrics. (PS this will take me some time to type in and latex)First we need to notice that there is actually 4 field quanta in electro-weak theory. [latex]\gamma, W^-, W^+, and, Z^o.[/latex] notice the second and third is an antiparticle pair. Now the problem is we need a mechanism to give the neutrinos mass without giving photons mass. This is where the Higg's mechanism steps in. To start with Peter Higg's looked at superconductivity. The defining characteristic of conductivity is that at a temperature below a critical temperature [latex]T_c[/latex] some metals lose all electrical resistance. Resistance literally becomes zero, not merely very small. [latex](E=Rj) =j=\sigma E[/latex] where [latex]\sigma[/latex] is the conductivity. A metal in conductivity state then exhibits a persistant current even in no field:[latex]j=\not=0[/latex] when E=0. The key to understanding superconductivity is to describe the current as supercurrent [latex]j_s[/latex]. But unlike the equation above to realize this is proportional not to E but to the vector potential A. [latex]j_s=-k^2A[/latex] with a negative proportionality. This is the London equation. The relevant property we however are seeking is the Meissner effect, which is a phenomena that the magnetic flux is expelled from superconductors. Higg's then showed that suitably transformed into a relativistic theory, this is the equivalent to showing the photon has mass. (just not rest mass lol) The reasoning goes as follows. First the London equation explains the Meissner effect, for taking the curl of Amperes equation[latex]\nabla*BB=j[/latex] gives [latex]\nabla(\nabla^2B=\nabla*j[/latex] noting that [latex]\nabla*B=0[/latex] (no magnetic monopoles) gives [latex]\nabla^2B=k^2B[/latex] which is equal to [latex]\nabla^2A=k^2A[/latex] In one dimension the solution to this is [latex]B(x)=B(0)exp(-kx)[/latex] which describes the Meissner effect-the magnetic field is exponentially damped inside the superconductor, only penetrating to a depth of order 1/k. This however is still non relativistic. To make it relativistic [latex]\nabla^2[/latex] is replaced by the Klein_Gordon operator [latex]\Box[/latex] and A by the four vector [latex]A^\mu=(\phi,A)[/latex] giving [latex](\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2})A^\mu=k^2A^\mu[/latex] the vector potential is a field but we are currently interested in the photon, the quantum of the field. so we make the transition to quantum theory by the usual description. [latex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\mapsto-\frac{i}{\hbar}E, \frac{\partial}{\partial}{\partial x}\mapsto\frac{i}{\hbar p_x}....[/latex]etc giving the quantum of the field [latex]A^\mu[/latex], [latex]E^2-p^2c^2=k^2c^2\hbar^2[/latex] where E is the total, including rest energy of the field quantum an p isits momentum comparison to [latex]E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4[/latex] implies that the mass of the quantum in a superconductor is [latex]m_\gamma=\frac{k\hbar}{c}[/latex] the photon behaves as a massive particle in a superconductor. This is the import of the Meissner effect. Now we need to make a further connection to the Bardeen-Cooper_Schreiffer (BCS theory) of superconductivity which is a microscopic theory that accounts for superconductivity by positing a scalar field [latex]\phi[/latex] (spin zero for scalar fields). Which describes a Cooper pair of electrons, the pairing is in momentu space rather than coordinate space. You can correlate the many particle wave function of Cooper pairing with the above. I'm trying to save time here lol and this is already getting lengthy. The main difference between a superconductor and the Higg's field is that the Higg's field is all pervasive unlike (unlike BCS which is inside a superconductor) The Higg's field through treatment gives rise to the mass of the above neutrinos in the same manner but not to photons. In point of detail the Higg's field can be treated as 4 separate fields one for each of the above. latex]\gamma, W^-, W^+, and, Z^o.[/latex] Now the Higg's potential when [latex]t<t_c[/latex] has a maximum at [latex]\phi=0[/latex] and two minima at [latex]\phi=\pm A[/latex] when[latex] t>t_c][/latex] there is only a minimal at [latex]\phi=0[/latex] THIS is the Mexican hat potential. [latex]V \phi=\frac{m^2}{2}\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^4[/latex] where [latex]\phi^4[/latex] is the quartic self interaction.. The extremal values of [latex]V\phi[/latex], given by [latex]\partial V/\partial \phi=0[/latex] becomes[latex]\phi=0,\pm\sqrt{\frac{-m^2}{\lambda}}=0,\pm a[/latex]when there is no field [latex]\phi=0[/latex], the energy is not a mimimal but at a maximal, further more the lowest energy is a state in which the field does not vanish and is also two fold degenerate. I hope that helps better understand the Higg's field and how it came about ie was derived in the first place. Section 10.10 Lewis Ryder "Introduction to General Relativity".. Scalar field Dynamics here we need to couple the scalar field to gravitation. [latex]\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\triangledown\phi^2)+V(\phi)[/latex] and the dynamics can be described by two equations. ::Friedmann equations [latex]H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi}{3M^2_P}(\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\phi})^2+V(\phi)[/latex] and the Klein Gordon equation obeys the scalar fields [latex]\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\acute{V}(\phi)=0[/latex] if the [latex]\phi_a[/latex] is large we have [latex](\triangledown \phi_a^2)<<V(\phi_2)[/latex] the speed of expansion [latex]H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}[/latex] is dominated by the potential [latex]V(\phi_a)[/latex] in equation[latex]H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi}{3M^2_P}(\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\phi})^2+V(\phi)[/latex] the advantage of Higg's inflation is that inflation is readily modelled using just the standard model of particles. We do not need k-Fields, inflatons, curvatons, Quintessence or any other quasi particle or field. Secondly we can model inflation as a symmetry phase transistion which is extremely important as we tie inflation with the electro-weak symmetry breaking itself. Higg's inflation. Higg's field. Is a complex scalar field [latex]SU(2)_w[/latex] doublet. [latex]\phi=(\begin{matrix}\phi_1 & \phi_2 \\ \phi_3& \phi_4 \end{matrix})[/latex] the vector bosons (guage bosons) interact with the four real components [latex]\phi_i[/latex] of the [latex]SU(2)_{w^-}[/latex] symmetric field [latex]\phi[/latex] false vacuum corresponds to [latex]\phi=0 or \phi_1=\phi_2=\phi_3=\phi_4=0[/latex] the true vacuum corresponds to [latex]\phi_1=\phi_2,,,\phi_3^2=\phi_4^2=constant>0[/latex] assign V on the Y axis, [latex]\phi_3[/latex] on the x axis, [latex]\phi_4[/latex] on a 45 degree between the x and Z axis. when you have conditions [latex]\phi_4=0,\phi_3>0[/latex] then the rotational symmetry is spontaneously broken. The Higg's boson becomes massive as well as the vector bosons W+,W-Z and photons the two neutral fields [latex]B^0 and W^0[/latex] form the linear combinations [latex]\gamma=B^0 cos\theta_w+W^0sin\theta_w[/latex] [latex]Z^0=-B^0sin\theta_w+W^0cos\theta_w[/latex] where Z becomes massive. whee as our ordinary photon [latex]\gamma[/latex] remains massless as the photon does not interact with the electro-weak Higg's field. It is electro-weak neutral. The electroweak symmetry is given by [latex]SU(2)_w\otimes U(1)_{b-L}[/latex] as time decreases the vacuum expectation value [latex]\theta_0[/latex] decreases. (expansion in reverse) the true minimal of the potential is [latex] \phi=0[/latex] this occurs above the critical temperature [latex]T_c=\frac{2\mu}{\sqrt{\lambda}}[/latex] at this point the field interactions take on in essence superconductivity properties. Now isn't that far more precise than images??? Every formula in physics has a mathematical proof, every definition has a mathematical precision. This is only a very miniscule portion of developing an effective GUT>>> We haven't even touched on [math]SO(10)\otimes SO(5)\otimes SO(3)\otimes SO(2)\otimes U(1)[/math] Do you actually believe your images compares to the mathematical precision involved in symmetry breaking via the SO(10)??? How does one make a single prediction with nothing more than images? How can you possibly determine all possible paths involved in a two particle interaction let alone a multi particle system?

Godel killed Hilbert's dream a nearly century ago. Firstly you still haven't answered this. Did you or someone else disprove Godel's two theorems whilst I was in the bath?

Straight up, ma neutron.

The odd thing is that much of the article seems to be reasonably accurate (it may be copied from Wikipedia, I haven't checked) but has these weird political accusations thrown in!

I hadn't heard about this. I'm sure anyone who thinks this way has a vision of a cosmic vacuum cleaner powered by dark energy, sucking up dark matter into some kind of dark bag in a dark hotel of the universe. Does this extremist Wackopedia treat space-time as a conspiracy?

But white holes exist, right? And they're basically good? Anything bad they do is probably because of a lone degenerate.

That makes exactly as much sense as saying they should have arrested him before he set off the bomb. There is also some irony to the idea that you seem to thing that you should be allowed to busy stuff that's a potentially dangerous oxidising agent, but other people shouldn't be.

Finally a good answer. At last at least some one knows something about what laws dont apply inside a black hole. I thought big bangs and black holes were accepted by the catholic church, infact have you not written somewhere else on the forum the big bang theory was developed by a catholic priest. It is more likely an atheist conspiracy to disagree with the church and state a single big bang was not the beginning of everything. Being a expert, I guess you are stating loop quantum gravity is nonsense, and all those people working on it are educated idiots. But that is just one of many conclusions I can come too.

Good hypothesis. Can't wait till he's redshifted out of here. He got too close to Putin's event horizon and got trapped. I think there actually is some politics that can be mentioned. The way we gain our information has become more and more concerned with entertainment rather than information, and that often means that good data is poorly presented, resulting in poor information. This whole "beyond the laws of physics" example shows how an attention-grabbing bit of entertainment corrupted the learning experience that should have happened.

This is another unsupported assertion. And also the fallacy of begging the question. If you have nothing to contribute but just repeating your beliefs, then we should ask the mods to close the thread.

I made this equation to be easily changed but explain it detail what all that does it so i understand how it is to be used. ∇Eb(x,y,z,ω,M,R,I,ρ) = ∇(1/((1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb) + (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫E(pfpd3p) - (kC2/R2) + (Λ/3))1/2Δx(1/3.08567782*1019)))2/C2))1/2))MbC2 Taking in account for now.

Second question when it says ρ =(g/(2π)3)∫E(p f(p )d3p is f(p ) with respect to or an actual variable, same with d3p

So, as respect to, then this is wrote correctly. ∇Eb(x,y,z,ω,M,R,I,ρ) = ∇(1/((1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb) + (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫E(pfpd3p) - (kC2/R2) + (Λ/3))1/2Δx(1/3.08567782*1019)))2/C2))1/2))MbC2 Basically, are those nested variables or with respects to, respects get subbed. Wait I see what you did now, okay Hold on. ∇Eb(x,y,z,ω,M,R,I,ρ) = ∇(1/((1-(((2MbG / Rs) - (Isωs2/2Mb) + (((8πG/3)((g/(2π)3)∫(p2 + mp2)1/2(1/eE-μ/T±1)d3p) - (kC2/R2) + (Λ/3))1/2Δx(1/3.08567782*1019)))2/C2))1/2))MbC2

<Sigh> Evidence of getting things done? Especially in the context of presidential actions. He doesn't "get things done" as a colloquial expression if he lags behind other presidents — which he does. What major legislation has he passed? Giving a speech. That's "getting things done". No other presidents gave speeches before, apparently. And somehow speech is action. Again, nothing that other presidents have done! People actually walked with the president. WOW! I am SO impressed by that. There is something sad about this. If you ignore the roughly 20 women that have come forward...but then, ignoring women in this way is exactly what Trump and many of his supporters are all about.

Besides approving of a through-the-teeth liar because he's also a salesman (and gosh, thanks for assuming all salesmen lie), I don't understand the whole "We need a ruthless businessman as our leader" mentality. I can only imagine that Trump supporters are no different than the rest of us, and have at one point or another been totally screwed over by a ruthless business practice. It's insane to wish that upon our fellow citizens. This isn't like hiring the toughest lawyer to defend you in court. Trump is lying to the people who put him in office like the ruthless, care-only-for-the-deal businessman who has screwed over everybody at least once in their lives. Whether it was the insurance company who denied your mother's claim, or the contractor who took your money and ran, or the private company who promised clean drinking water for your community but gave you lead poisoning instead, or the corporate raider who bought the company you sweat your life for so they could sell it for parts, or the company who raised the price of the medication you need to survive by a couple of orders of magnitude, we've all been victims of the ruthless businessman/Trump mindset. The experiences were horrible, life-wrenching, and abominable. They kept our potential diminished, and reduced our overall happiness. And now a guy who lives to be ruthless is our leader. He's helping the uber-rich lean even more on the pool table to ensure they'll win... everything, I guess. What they have now is not enough, and I think they understand that folks like tar will believe and support them in their ruthlessness. There is no middle ground. It's the villiainaire's game (billionaire villains), and they ABSOLUTELY need you to stay and play it, but they don't actually want you to do very well. Especially if your not white and not grateful.

hey strange hi; I am blue89 , I cannot reach you via personal message. would you like to apply patents together?? let me know if it is possible. (Note: I am sorry I could not find any way except here to express the statement) Regards

I see the thread has been hijacked by trolls talking about their own personal hole theories. http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html

I saw a soda machine at the food counter at a movie house in Blacksburg, where no interaction with a person was required to by your drink. The woman on the plane with Trump did not say no. She sat there for 15 or 20 minutes, not denying his advances. Then got up and went back to her seat. I saw the interview with her where she states this. I think the incident happened, but I don't think it was without her consent. Middle ground requires that one, in addition to protecting a woman from an abusive spouse, protects a non-abusive spouse from being destroyed by a questionable claim. Sodemy is illegal some places, and was illegal some places where it is no longer. Since when does the progression of the human race require sticking a penis in someone's ass hole?

dimreepr, That is my point. Dems think that touching your wife butt, without her permission is sexual abuse. So the wife is mad I didn't take out the garbage, and she calls the police when I slip my hand down her pants. There really is sexual abuse. Redefining what qualifies, does nobody any good. Regards, TAR