All Activity

RIP "the simplest cause."

There were a number of compromises made prior to. Ultimately they only pushed the problem into the future with devastating results. With runaway slaves and attempt to maintain the power balance between the sides, the issue of Slavery ended up crossing State borders.

I think that the things are more complicated. As I explained in my first post, the objects that we observe are only a little part of a colossal galaxy cluster around a colossal black hole. The motion of objects that we observe is influenced not only by the colossal black hole but also by the other objects in the colossal galaxy cluster. In addition, as I said in some of my posts, it is possible that there are other colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes that influence the motion of objects that we observe.

I sometimes wonder if there's an issue with zero (maximums/minimums) as a concept. Not sure what we could replace it with though.

In what ways, specifically?

Have you considered asking AI for recommendations?

Let's take 4 unique digits for example: 1234 (1123, 2113, 2311, 1231, 1132, 3112, 3211, 1321) {4) + (1124, 2114, 2411, 1241, 1142, 4112, 4211, 1421) {3) = 16 different combinations. 4^4 unique combinations has derivative of 16^3, 16^3/4^4 = 16

So is trying to teach you the correct application of Physics and Astronomy. Because it seems all of these guys efforts are wasted on you.

Another Canadian to pipe-up in Dim's defense. Up until the 1800s wars and battles, at least for the 'noble' class, involved a certain amount of pageantry, showmanship and 'gallantry, with colourful uniforms and flag bearers. The 1800s saw a change in this; war was no longer glamorous, as new weapons and old tactics fed the common foot soldier into the shredder that saw tens of thousands killed in single battles. The need for the Red Cross was inspired by the carnage and bloodshed at the battles of Solferino and Magenta in the Italian wars of unification in the late 1850s. The American Civil War was no different ; bloody carnage and destruction that pitted brothers against each other in pointless battles of little strategic significance ( watch Sergio Leone's 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', starring me, of course, for a good depiction ). By the time of WW1, the bloody carnage of hundreds of thousand of soldiers, in pointless battles, had been implemented on an industrial scale.

@Ghideon you are right much processing power is needed. I thought if I could get the size needed to test down to the size of a smaller RSA number that has already been factored, I could crunch it. Three hours no results. I had some help with the programming. A tester pointed out that I get 41351 instead of 41227. That is 124 digits off. But I am hoping is close enough to guess. Does anyone here do number crunching? I could use some tips on brute force crunching. Clear[x, pnp]; pnp = 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 46391065875914794251435144458199; x = 30000000000000000000000000000000000001; While[x <=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x], Print[x]]; x+2]; While[x<=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x],Print[x]];x+2]; Clear[x,pnp];pnp=2564855351; eqn=((pnp-(Sqrt[(x^2*pnp^4+2*pnp*x^5)+x^8])/pnp^4-(1-(x^2/(2*pnp)))*(pnp^2/x^2))); Solve[eqn==0&&x>=0,x,Reals]//N (*{{x41350.98025},{x6.387801493*10^11}}*) In[1]:= While[x<=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x],Print[x]];x+2]; Clear[x,pnp];pnp=pnp = 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 46391065875914794251435144458199; eqn=((pnp-(Sqrt[(x^2*pnp^4+2*pnp*x^5)+x^8])/pnp^4-(1-(x^2/(2*pnp)))*(pnp^2/x^2))); Solve[eqn==0&&x>=0,x,Reals]//N (*{{x41350.98025},{x6.387801493*10^11}}*) Out[2]= 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 Out[3]= 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 Out[4]= 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 Computational processing required.

At 10-43 sec. or Planck scale, geometry ceases to have meaning. Since time is part of the geometry of space-time, it also ceases to have meaning. People should stop asking "What happened before 10-43 sec." There was no 'before' as we know it. The compact hot dense universe of that 'time' could have existed forever or for an instant; there would have been no difference.

Which yields accurate changes in depth perception over the z direction. But what about x and y? The objects along the horizontal and vertical plane if lined up at the same point in the z line doesn't matter because those objects are further away too but because they are at the same point in the z line the changes in depth for x and y can't be shown this way even though they are further from the observer looking straight on. It is a dimensional problem. Of course knowing this I'd figured out a wholly different way to get an accurate calculation of all dimension, it having to do with the post above. This is the problem Newton would have had with the motion of more than two gravitational orbits not a physics problem, really it would be a problem for more than one object if it weren't for our ability to find the Lagrangian coordinate between the two. Due to the fact that redshift is based on the doppler effect it couldn't be a culprit for redshift but like I said my actual physics based dataset for the actual mechanics of light doesn't say enough to rule out tired light as a cause. It says there is an increase redshift over greater distances due to some assumptions about what light is and what forces at play. Obviously you'd need a larger dataset to measure against cosmological redshift. It even explains why it takes so long for light to be emitted from inside the sun very nicely and why neutrinos are exempt. It even says something about particle wave duality at close distances. It says a different color has nothing to do with the doppler effect at all. The light's wavelength isn't increasing because it is coming from an object that is moving away, or because it has some negative motion, which doesn't make sense to begin with you can't change the velocity of light, that's what relativity is about.

In so far as any means of measurement via particle accelerators etc correct. We simply cannot produce those temperatures.

which is 15 orders of magnitude higher than our models have been tested so far, right?

As everything is in thermal equilibrium including the four forces you can describe that state as a single photon field. It doesn't mean the other particles didn't exist but you wouldn't be able to tell one particle type from any other. The reason it's oft treated as a photon field is that temperature is part of the EM field and blackbody temperature uses the virtual photon as the mediator. Keep in mind one can arbitrarily describe any state by any arbitrary number of fields the term field is any collection of values under a geometry treatment

How many fields are there supposed to be at 10^{-43}secs. Are the 10^90 particles all from the one field? If all the particles are identicle ,what is exciting the field? (doubtless very naive and wrong headed questions)

Roughly 10^90 particles all in a state of thermal equilibrium so indistinguishable from one another. The initial volume if you extrapolate back corresponds to roughly 1 planck length in volume for a temperature of 10^19 GeV which if you convert corresponds to Planck temperature. Any math prior to 10^{-43} seconds will give a singularity condition. The universe is described by thermodynamics as using a homogeneous and isotropic system. Where expansion is an adiabatic and isentropic system so yes a closed system

Do we have any idea of what was in that volume? Was whatever it was differentiated in some sense or was it simply composed of densities of the same thing? Is it believed it was a closed system? Does the small volume as compared to the volume that we see now mean it was "actually" small-or does it just indicate that it was highly ordered and the volume is only of any consideration in relation to what we see now? Are the indications that the volume at T+10^-43secs was bigger that the volume as one tties to model further back in time?

In your defence Dim, near the start of the war, there was a battle that, from some in the North's point of view prior to the battle...fit that description enough to bring sightseers. "On July 21, 1861, Washingtonians trekked to the countryside near Manassas, Virginia, to watch Union and Confederate forces clash in the first major battle of the American Civil War. Known in the North as the First Battle of Bull Run and in the South as the Battle of First Manassas, the military engagement also earned the nickname the “picnic battle” because spectators showed up with sandwiches and opera glasses. These onlookers, who included a number of U.S. congressmen, expected a victory for the Union and a swift end to the war that had begun three months before." https://www.history.com/news/worst-picnic-in-history-was-interrupted-by-war Otherwise no. Far from it.

No, it is not. It is rather quite straightforward. Here: You could make a table in Excel that calculates the angle \(x\) and you could play with different configurations of distances between the Earth and the CBH, \(EB\), the Galaxy and the CBH, \(GB\), and the Earth and the Galaxy, \(EG\). When \(x \lt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates toward the Earth. When \(x \gt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates away from the Earth.

I think we are delving into semantics and conflating 'danger' and 'risk'. As I understand it 'danger' refers to the possibility that something will cause harm. Thus botulinum toxin is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup as it has a greater possibility to cause harm when we are exposed to both. On the other hand, HFCS is riskier simply due to the fact that you are more likely to be exposed to and harmed from HFCS than you are to be exposed to and harmed from botulinum toxin.

There is enough dihydrogen monoxide on our lovely blue planet to kill every human on Earth many times over. Dihydrogen Monoxide... you can't live without it, but it can and often does kill people... of course I'm talking about water. Until you define what you mean by "danger" anyone is free to define danger in what ever way is most meaningful to them. To me numbers killed is most significant, to others the amount needed to kill an individual is most significant, chemical reactivity is probably closer to what the op had in mind but failed to specify.

If at all possible I am looking for really good books on AI from all different fields of study.

Anyone even remotely involved in it. A bitter bloody destructive war that shattered the nation, destroyed cities and vast areas of land and the South's economy, leaving dire poverty and hunger and around 2 million wounded on top of 600,000 dead. Your question is like someone suggesting the Hutus in Rwanda took machetes to their Tutsi neighbors and hacked them to death because it livened up block parties.

I am assuming that it can be. Thank you, looking into it now