All Activity

Let me take this one piece at a time. My answer to your opening question is...both. I do not perceive individual enhancement through advanced technology, on the one hand, and using advanced technology to further the evolution of the whole species as being mutually exclusive. My comments regarding our intelligence or consciousness eventually merging with that of AI, and thus making us many times smarter, come from reading all of Ray Kurzweil's books, a book by Michio Kaku in which he discusses it, and following Elon's company Neuralink closely, with each iteration of their brain computer interface getting advanced. It may take quite some time, but I do believe that one day such an interface will exist, and then, given that our greatly enhanced intelligence will be able to address the deepest questions in math, physics and the other sciences, the sky will be the limit. Not sure I agree with you about technology historically making some people smarter and other people dumber, the reason being you are attributing the responsibility of availing oneself of new technology so as to further oneself to the technology. That both makes no sense and I am someone who believes if you want to learn something new, get a new skill set, get a higher paying job, etc., it's up to you to do that. I enjoyed the touching insouciance of our banter, the almost inflatable swimming pool toy of it all. Sigh...Oh this, oh that... I know there are a bunch out there. Probably like you, I have seen models that allow disabled people or those suffering from loss of mobility due to neurodegenerative disease to regain some of that function. I remember the very first iteration from Elon's Neuralink being used to do research into neurodegenerative diseases via direct brain stimulation, i.e. applying electrical current to the affected neurons. The telepathy one was incredible. A woman who was one hundred percent paralyzed, had locked in syndrome, stared intently a computer monitor for a bit, which had what appeared to be a Microsoft Word document open, and then suddenly a perfectly grammatically constructed sentence appeared on the monitor. Then yesterday, I think, Neuralink came out with another iteration, this one looking like a small sugar cube. Incredibly, in an out-patient procedure, the cube is installed below the skull, above the part of the brain where there is a problem, but not in the brain itself. Again, a man who had lost mobility due to a disease was able to regain a good deal of it this way.

Your welcome

whoa Thank you, that was unexpected, evidently I did understand the video, I was so sure the video had to be wrong.

No the Higgs field does not interact with gluons nor does it interact with photons. Both being massless particles.

I would like to ask if Gluons are affected by the Higgs field in the same way as atoms. I've watched PBS video about the possibility that the Higgs field doesn't engage all particles equally but the specifics weren't clear.

Because this is how "toward" and "away" are defined.

I recently re-joined Facebook and have been doom-scrolling endless animal videos by amateurs, and I have to say that there's more to many animals than meets the eye. Animals are not robots, completely driven by instinct.

Why do you consider only one component of the acceleration ?

Both S1 and S2 in the drawing are accelerating rather toward the Earth:

The following figure shows the absolute accelerations: The following figure shows the accelerations relative to the Earth, obtained subtracting aE from the absolute accelerations: S1 is moving towards the CBH but it is accelerating away from the Earth, that has a greater centripetal acceleration.

! Moderator Note Advertising is against our rules, but thank you for noting the transcript/summary was generated content. I will remind everyone that discussion of the synthesis of dangerous chemicals is also against the rules

Could a relationship be formed between a "tie" in game theory and the halting problem in "decidability" in automata theory?

Here is a clear example of lack of guess work. This uses only 5 main equations and look at what can be calculated. \[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&T (Gyr)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H(t)&Temp(K)&rho(kg/m^3)&OmegaM&OmegaL&OmegaR&OmegaT \\ \hline 1.09e+3&9.17e-4&3.71e-4&6.25e-4&4.53e+1&4.15e-2&5.67e-2&8.38e-4&2.12e+1&3.13e+0&6.64e+1&1.56e+6&4.59e-18&2.97e+3&7.56e-1&1.29e-9&2.44e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 6.08e+2&1.64e-3&9.75e-4&1.59e-3&4.48e+1&7.36e-2&1.01e-1&2.28e-3&1.49e+1&3.10e+0&4.63e+1&6.16e+5&7.13e-19&1.66e+3&8.48e-1&8.31e-9&1.52e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.94e-3&2.49e-3&3.94e-3&4.41e+1&1.30e-1&1.79e-1&6.05e-3&1.08e+1&3.05e+0&3.29e+1&2.48e+5&1.16e-19&9.27e+2&9.09e-1&5.12e-8&9.12e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.89e+2&5.27e-3&6.20e-3&9.64e-3&4.32e+1&2.28e-1&3.15e-1&1.57e-2&7.90e+0&2.99e+0&2.36e+1&1.01e+5&1.93e-20&5.17e+2&9.47e-1&3.07e-7&5.31e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.05e+2&9.44e-3&1.52e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&3.96e-1&5.52e-1&3.98e-2&5.83e+0&2.90e+0&1.69e+1&4.18e+4&3.28e-21&2.89e+2&9.70e-1&1.80e-6&3.03e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 5.82e+1&1.69e-2&3.71e-2&5.65e-2&4.03e+1&6.81e-1&9.61e-1&9.98e-2&4.33e+0&2.79e+0&1.21e+1&1.73e+4&5.64e-22&1.61e+2&9.83e-1&1.05e-5&1.72e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.20e+1&3.03e-2&8.98e-2&1.36e-1&3.80e+1&1.15e+0&1.65e+0&2.47e-1&3.22e+0&2.63e+0&8.47e+0&7.20e+3&9.73e-23&9.00e+1&9.90e-1&6.09e-5&9.65e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.74e+1&5.42e-2&2.17e-1&3.26e-1&3.50e+1&1.90e+0&2.80e+0&6.08e-1&2.40e+0&2.42e+0&5.81e+0&3.00e+3&1.69e-23&5.03e+1&9.94e-1&3.51e-4&5.41e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 9.29e+0&9.71e-2&5.21e-1&7.83e-1&3.09e+1&3.00e+0&4.61e+0&1.48e+0&1.79e+0&2.14e+0&3.84e+0&1.25e+3&2.93e-24&2.81e+1&9.95e-1&2.02e-3&3.02e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 4.75e+0&1.74e-1&1.25e+0&1.87e+0&2.55e+1&4.43e+0&7.32e+0&3.61e+0&1.35e+0&1.76e+0&2.37e+0&5.23e+2&5.14e-25&1.57e+1&9.87e-1&1.15e-2&1.67e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 2.21e+0&3.12e-1&2.97e+0&4.36e+0&1.83e+1&5.69e+0&1.09e+1&8.70e+0&1.03e+0&1.26e+0&1.30e+0&2.24e+2&9.43e-26&8.74e+0&9.36e-1&6.28e-2&8.87e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 7.91e-1&5.58e-1&6.80e+0&9.18e+0&9.27e+0&5.18e+0&1.44e+1&2.06e+1&8.79e-1&6.42e-1&5.64e-1&1.06e+2&2.13e-26&4.88e+0&7.22e-1&2.78e-1&3.81e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.45e+1&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&1.66e+1&4.62e+1&1.00e+0&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&6.77e+1&8.60e-27&2.73e+0&3.11e-1&6.89e-1&9.18e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -4.38e-1&1.78e+0&2.29e+1&1.68e+1&6.88e+0&1.22e+1&1.72e+1&9.44e+1&1.53e+0&4.76e-1&7.31e-1&5.84e+1&6.40e-27&1.53e+0&7.43e-2&9.26e-1&1.23e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -6.84e-1&3.16e+0&3.27e+1&1.73e+1&1.11e+1&3.51e+1&1.74e+1&1.81e+2&2.64e+0&7.67e-1&2.03e+0&5.66e+1&6.01e-27&8.62e-1&1.41e-2&9.86e-1&1.31e-6&1.00e+0\\ \hline -8.22e-1&5.62e+0&4.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.35e+1&7.58e+1&1.74e+1&3.36e+2&4.67e+0&9.33e-1&4.36e+0&5.62e+1&5.94e-27&4.85e-1&2.53e-3&9.97e-1&1.33e-7&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.00e-1&1.00e+1&5.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.48e+1&1.48e+2&1.74e+1&6.10e+2&8.30e+0&1.03e+0&8.52e+0&5.62e+1&5.93e-27&2.73e-1&4.51e-4&1.00e+0&1.33e-8&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.44e-1&1.78e+1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&2.77e+2&1.74e+1&1.10e+3&1.48e+1&1.08e+0&1.59e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&1.53e-1&8.03e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-9&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.68e-1&3.16e+1&7.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&5.07e+2&1.74e+1&1.97e+3&2.62e+1&1.11e+0&2.91e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&8.62e-2&1.43e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-10&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.82e-1&5.62e+1&8.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&9.15e+2&1.74e+1&3.51e+3&4.67e+1&1.13e+0&5.25e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&4.85e-2&2.54e-6&1.00e+0&1.33e-11&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.90e-1&1.00e+2&9.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&1.64e+3&1.74e+1&6.26e+3&8.30e+1&1.14e+0&9.42e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&2.73e-2&4.51e-7&1.00e+0&1.33e-12&1.00e+0\\ \hline \end{array}}\] No guessing straight application of the FLRW metric.

Your analogy is constructed so that someone with information deliberately hides it from someone else. What reason is there to believe the universe is constructed in such a way? 1: What does the arrows mean? acceleration? Is S1 moving outwards? 2: You base your idea on galaxies. According to observations galaxies do not expand, but the universe do. Your idea for an explanation of universe expansion is simply not logical (in addition to the obvious mathematical issues explained by other members)

What does that have to do with physics ? Simply put the reason cosmological redshift exists has nothing to do with probability but is a direct consequence of expansion due to thermodynamics. There is no guess work involved. The further an object is from us the greater the cosmological redshift value will be. That will not change due to some hypothetical probability. Just as there is no guess work behind expansion being homogeneous and isotropic. Physics isn't guess work. Its careful examination of observational evidence combined with mathematics to describe what is observed. Its not random guesses or mere logic games. That has been repeatably mentioned this thread. Any object you measure at the limit of any telescope will have the corresponding redshift to distance relation. That isn't based on any guesswork but is simply put what has been shown through all observational evidence. For example using one equation I was able to show your guesswork incorrect with regards to the SMBH. You could easily have done the same thing. The formula for Newtons gravitational law is extremely easy to use. If you spent more time studying why cosmology states what it does and learn how the thermodynamic laws are involved in expansion you would be far better off. Simply put expansion is easy to understand once you look at those equations of state I posted earlier.

Suppose you have a black box containing 10000 balls and you can't mix them. You extract from the box 100 balls that are on the surface and they are all red. Is it scientific to conclude that all the balls in the box are red ? No, because the balls deeper into the box may have a different color.

Hi, to begin with, I am a bit of a chemistry noob. But I came across this YouTube video from a channel called SciShow explaining the 5 most dangerous chemicals. In short these are the 5 chemicals listed in the video and why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSoDW2-wrc&ab_channel=SciShow In short the video lists these 5 and the reasons behind it: ”Germany, 1939. In a secret bunker on the German-Polish border, Nazi agents were experimenting with a deadly chemical they named Substanz N. This chemical was extremely dangerous, boiling upon exposure to air, exploding upon contact with water, and releasing lethal hydrofluoric acid when decomposed. The Nazis planned to use Substanz N to arm their troops and melt Allied bunkers. However, they eventually deemed it too risky to work with and discontinued the experiments. This gives a glimpse into the realm of the most dangerous chemicals in the world, some of which even the Nazis found too extreme. One such chemical is chlorine trifluoride, a highly potent fluorinating agent that can ignite violently upon contact with various substances, including things like bricks and asbestos. This compound is so reactive that it outperforms oxygen as an oxidizer, making it extremely hazardous to handle. Chlorine trifluoride is known for its ability to burn through concrete and dirt, highlighting its extreme danger. Azidoazide, another compound, is considered the most explosive chemical ever created, with its sensitivity being beyond the capabilities of measurement. Even the slightest disturbances can lead to explosive reactions, making it a nightmare to work with. This is a free summary of a YouTube video autogenerated by url deleted Dimethylcadmium, on the other hand, stands out as one of the most toxic chemicals gram for gram. This compound, a deadly organometallic substance, is known for its acute and chronic effects, swiftly affecting the bloodstream and major organs with toxic compounds of cadmium. The carcinogenic properties of dimethylcadmium further accentuate its lethal nature, making it a severe threat to human health. Despite its explosive and flammable characteristics, it's the extreme toxicity that makes dimethylcadmium stand out as one of the most dangerous chemicals in existence. Thioacetone provides another perspective on chemical danger, being acclaimed as the world's smelliest compound. While not explosive or carcinogenic, the foul odor of thioacetone is unbearable, causing people to fall ill and leading to city evacuations. The pervasive stench of thioacetone showcases the diverse forms of danger that chemicals can exhibit, extending beyond physical harm to psychological and social impacts. Lastly, fluoroantimonic acid claims the title of the strongest corrosive agent and the most dangerous acid ever created. This super acid, 10 quadrillion times stronger than sulfuric acid, poses a severe threat due to its ability to rip through organic tissues and even bones upon contact. The extreme reactivity of fluoroantimonic acid limits the ability to conduct experiments with it, as it devours glass and fume hoods, emphasizing the need for cautious handling and observation from a distance.” Now to my question regarding this as I struggle to find conclusive information and don't really have much knowledge in the matter. Are these the 5 most dangerous chemicals in the world or are there others that they have missed? Maybe some have occurred since the video was released 9 years ago that have to be considered? What would you classify as the most dangerous? Looking forward to learning and seeing your opinions on the matter!

Wow, I did not know of this at all, this is actually really cool, thanks for sharing!

I've lived in Sweden all life, so lots of snow. Don't know about the technicalities but it gets VERY bright when the sun reflects on larger areas of snow, not even sure if white is suffice as the color anymore by then

Based on this it seems like the teenager is lying. https://headphonesaddict.com/how-loud-are-apple-airpods/ they even used human shaped dummy ears in the test.

I do dive and I've had octopus who recognized me when I would approach, I often fed them, but I've kept a lot of them in aquaria, their behavior is fascinating! The ones around here are usually quite small seldom ever getting more than three feet across. BTW, three times in my life I've had an octopus crawl up out of the surf and attempt to crawl up my leg, I have no idea why. I agree he mirror test is less than useful for many animals. My dogs would always walk up to a mirror and smell their image and walk away... I think they knew it wasn't real because it had no smell. A dogs world is less temporal than ours because of they know what happened before due to the smells they can "see" that we cannot.

In my own biased opinion, I always assumed that we underestimate animal intelligence. In part, because we cannot help but view it through our own experiences and hence, assume that anything closer to us (in appearance and behaviour) must also be more intelligent. A change is coming in that regard, though: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7555673/ When I did my undergrad, I was highly skeptical of some of the tests (such as the mirror test) as it presumes something about the animal (e.g. that the visual cue has any relevance to them). Moreover, typically only few animals are used in behavioural studies. If we were to study human behaviour, we would not (or at least should not) overinterpret the outcome. Yet, in animal studies folks often assume that there is less individual difference. I think most pet owners know that there is a lot of individual differences and only fairly recently studies have started to push to a change in the perspective of animal behaviour analysis.

My dogs certainly would. (Don't know about your diving experiences, but I 'communicated' with dozens of octopi in their natural habitat. The latter includes divers.)

Well that does raise it at least an order of magnitude, I'm not sure most adult humans would make that complex of a connection.

Yes, in my own way.