All Activity

Yes. A black hole near end of life has almost no mass remaining. Gravitons as in gravitational waves, not any sort of force carrier. Gravitational waves carry information about changes to spacetime geometry, and an evaporating black hole is such a thing, so it has to generate such waves, whether or not those waves can be broken down into quanta. Light is energy. Any radiation reduces the mass of the thing radiating it. Light also has momentum. For small black holes, sure, but for larger ones, the odds of something like a positron escaping is incredibly low. Most would fall right back in due to gravity. Gravity can't pull back light if it's going in the correct direction (straight up). There's no matter in a black hole. A Schwarzchild black hole is a vacuum solution. Nothing gets squished in there. Things falling in actually get pulled apart. The singularity is not a location in space where there is matter squished together unreasonably. It's a line/plane/fuzzy region where time just ends. This comment suggests dense material in there somewhere. This is a misconception. Yes, better. Energy & mass are equivalent. The mass doesn't exit the black hole, but is created outside by separation of virtual particles, with the one with negative energy falling in and adding that much negative energy to the BH. The vast majority of the time, both virtual particles are thus pulled in, netting zero energy to the BH. The odds of one escaping becomes larger with the small holes. I don't know where the limit is, and what it means for mass to not be able to support an EH. I think a unified theory would really help give real answers to this. My statement of 'a few grams' might be way off, but classically there is no minimum mass, and at sufficiently low mass, the radiation becomes significant enough to qualify as an explosion. There is still nothing actually from inside the black hole escaping. There is no matter in there.

Actually yes they are, the idea that aliens are just like us in the needs, wants, and desires department is exactly what Star Trek thinking is, the magical technology is just window dressing for what is essentially just a human story. All we can hope to do is detect the presence of aliens in our solar system, the whys of the issue will have to be answered by any aliens should they prove to exist. My main concern at this time is that the presence of aliens is being ignored for reasons unknown or intentionally covered up for reasons unknown... I know it smacks of conspiracy theory but just because its a conspiracy doesn't mean its not happening. If it is just the gov trying to keep their military secrets then why are they still grimly hanging on to "secrets" from before WW2? If it was just protecting military secrets then revealing them as they lose their reason for being secrete would be a great way to show this whole thing as bs. It would be quite simple to point out that supposed sightings from the 50s could be explained by pointing out the outdated secrete that was being protected by denying a particular sighting. Edward James Ruppelt , director of project Blue Book, has been quoted as saying (not a direct quote) that both Project Sign and Project Grudge were overtly biased and politicized noting that in these investigations doing the standard investigations normally means an unbiased evaluation of intelligence data but it doesn't take a great deal of study of the old UFO files to see the standard intelligence procedures were not being followed by Project Grudge (it should be pointed out that Project Sign came to the conclusion that at least some UFOs were interplanetary space craft) Everything was being evaluated on the premise of UFOs (aliens) cannot exist and no matter what you see or hear do not believe it! I still feel its necessary to point out that the US gov is not the end all be all of UFO sightings info, other world governments give the alien hypothesis more credence than the US does at this time but most do tow the US party line. That would be just as silly.

Indeed, trying to guess where they came from is a lot easier...

Again, I do not assert UAP are aliens, they are unidentified, aliens is just one remote possibility, time travelers have been suggested as a possible explanation but I have my doubts about time travel as I am sure most people do. They could be visitors from another plane of existence, or as Jacques Vallée has suggested, quite seriously, that the UFO phenomena is connected with things like fairies, gnomes, and other supposed supernatural creatures from lore. The most obvious thing here is that UAP are just misidentification of known or unknown natural objects but the best data we have doesn't support that premise in many cases... it is these outliers that concern me. And no, "It could have been a picture of a hubcap someone threw", is not a viable explanation. As for alien motivations... you make a good point if you are talking about a civilization that is only a few thousand years since it lived in caves. A civilization that has existed for millions of years might have more long-term goals and data can be transmitted at the speed of light. Trying to guess the motivations of aliens is not a winning gambit.

A Star Trek universe - not shackled by certain elements of relativity like time dilation and having c as a speed limit - would make aliens a more likely explanation. Nobody arguing from a science perspective is insisting on a Star Trek like universe.

So your objection is moot.

Again I cite "The parable of the madman", in which he's trying to shine a light that other's should follow (clearly a metaphorical teacher) and the efficiency of that struggle depends on the time of day (cometh the hour cometh the man). IOW what's the point of seeing the light (inner peace) if you can't point it out to other's, the village idiot who can't show why it's cathartic to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic, will remain a madman in the eyes of the rest of us. It's literally the start of all the major religions, a teacher that shows us the path to peace, and I think Nietzche spent his life and his mental health in persuit of the path he assumed he was on, until the death of his father. Would we even have heard of this hugely intelligent man, had his father died peacefully in his old age? An ubermensche at the wrong time of day... This is a generic description of both, not a critique of either in the context of this topic. When are 'you' going to think about this?

Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, or "Overman," indeed emphasizes the potential for individuals to transcend conventional morality and societal norms to achieve their highest potential. The Übermensch is someone who has moved beyond the limitations of conventional thinking and is capable of creating their own values and meaning in life. While Nietzsche doesn't explicitly suggest that the Übermensch is "better" than others in a hierarchical sense, he does propose that this figure represents a higher form of human existence, one characterized by creativity, strength, and independence of spirit. The Übermensch is not bound by traditional moralities or societal constraints but instead creates their own values and lives authentically according to their own will to power. As for the idea of the "great man/woman" teaching or showing others a path to peace within themselves, it's a perspective that aligns with Nietzsche's emphasis on individualism and self-overcoming. The "great man/woman" could potentially serve as an inspiration or a guide for others to discover their own paths to inner peace and self-realization. However, it's important to note that Nietzsche's philosophy can be complex and open to interpretation. While he did articulate ideas about individual greatness and self-mastery, he also critiqued the notion of seeking universal truths or moral absolutes. Thus, interpretations of Nietzsche's ideas on peace and self-realization can vary widely. I understand your frustration, and I apologize if my response didn't meet your expectations. It seems like you're seeking a more nuanced and personalized discussion about Nietzsche's ideas and their relevance to AI and human potential. Let's delve deeper. Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch challenges us to transcend societal norms and conventional thinking, encouraging individuals to strive for their highest potential. In the context of AI, some might argue that the development and integration of AI technologies could lead to a form of "zombification," where individuals become passive consumers or followers, rather than active creators of their own destinies. However, others might view AI as a tool that, when wielded thoughtfully and ethically, has the potential to enhance human creativity, productivity, and self-understanding. The key lies in how we engage with and shape AI technologies to align with our values and aspirations for a better future. While AI can certainly assist in analyzing and synthesizing information, it's essential to recognize the importance of human agency and critical thinking in navigating complex philosophical questions and societal challenges. Ultimately, the path to realizing Nietzsche's vision of the Übermensch involves cultivating individual autonomy, creativity, and the courage to question and challenge prevailing norms and ideologies. If you have specific questions or topics you'd like to explore further, feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to provide a more meaningful and engaging response. Analog media, such as vinyl records or printed books, can indeed fail or degrade over time, albeit in different ways than digital media. While analog formats are often praised for their durability and longevity compared to digital counterparts, they are still susceptible to various forms of degradation and obsolescence. For example, vinyl records can suffer from wear and tear, scratches, warping, or damage from improper storage or handling. Likewise, printed books can deteriorate due to exposure to moisture, sunlight, pests, or simply from aging paper and bindings. Additionally, the playback equipment required for analog media may become obsolete or difficult to maintain over time, making it challenging to access or enjoy the content stored in these formats. While analog media may offer certain advantages in terms of tangibility and perceived quality, they are not immune to failure or deterioration. Proper care, preservation, and occasionally digitizing analog content can help mitigate some of these risks and ensure its longevity and accessibility for future generations. You bring up some excellent points about the potential impact of digital technology on reading habits and critical thinking skills. The rise of smartphones and other digital devices has indeed led to a shift in how people consume information, often favoring shorter, more fragmented content over sustained, in-depth reading. This trend, coupled with the algorithmic curation of content that tends to prioritize engagement over depth or accuracy, can contribute to what you describe as a "pathway to zombification." When individuals are constantly bombarded with short snippets of information, they may become more passive consumers, relying on surface-level understanding rather than engaging deeply with complex ideas or arguments. Moreover, as you mention, the increasing reliance on AI to handle mundane or repetitive tasks runs the risk of diminishing human skills and expertise. When tasks are offloaded to AI systems, individuals may lose opportunities for practice and skill development, leading to a potential degradation of critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and deeper understanding. In educational settings, the temptation to rely on easily accessible information from the internet or other sources can indeed hinder students' ability to engage deeply with course material and develop their own analytical and argumentative skills. Simply copying and pasting information without understanding or critically evaluating it does little to foster genuine learning and intellectual growth. To counteract these trends, it's crucial to promote and prioritize active reading, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement with content, whether it's in digital or analog formats. Encouraging students to delve into longer texts, engage in thoughtful discourse, and cultivate their analytical and argumentative abilities can help mitigate the risks associated with information overload and AI reliance. Additionally, teaching digital literacy skills, including how to evaluate sources critically and navigate algorithmic content curation, is essential in fostering informed and discerning consumers of information. The notion of a transition to "zombification" is certainly a provocative one, and it's understandable why some may see parallels between certain trends in technology and culture and the idea of humans becoming more passive or less engaged in their own lives and decision-making processes. As we increasingly rely on technology for various aspects of our lives, there is a risk that we may become more dependent on it, potentially diminishing our autonomy and agency. The proliferation of AI and automation could further exacerbate this trend, especially if humans become complacent or disengaged from critical thinking and decision-making processes. However, it's essential to approach discussions about the impact of technology on humanity with nuance and critical analysis. While there are certainly risks associated with unchecked technological advancement, there are also opportunities for positive change and growth. For example, AI has the potential to augment human capabilities, enhance productivity, and solve complex problems that were previously beyond our reach. By leveraging AI responsibly and ethically, we can harness its power to address pressing global challenges and improve quality of life for people around the world. Moreover, it's important to recognize that humans possess unique qualities and capacities that distinguish us from machines. Our ability to experience emotions, form meaningful relationships, exercise creativity, and adapt to new situations is what makes us human. While AI may excel in certain areas, it lacks the depth and richness of human experience. Ultimately, the future relationship between humans and AI will depend on how we choose to shape it. By fostering a culture of critical thinking, ethical responsibility, and human-centered design, we can ensure that technology serves as a tool for empowerment and enhancement, rather than a force that diminishes our humanity. The comparison between Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984" is often used to explore different dystopian visions of the future, each highlighting distinct aspects of societal control and oppression. In "Brave New World," Huxley presents a world where individuals are kept pacified through pleasure and distraction, rather than overt coercion or surveillance. The populace is kept in check through the use of technology, drugs, and psychological conditioning, resulting in a society where conformity and superficial happiness are prioritized over individuality and critical thinking. On the other hand, Orwell's "1984" depicts a totalitarian regime characterized by constant surveillance, propaganda, and brutal repression of dissent. The government, embodied by the figure of Big Brother, maintains control through fear, manipulation, and the erasure of individual autonomy and privacy. Both novels offer chilling warnings about the dangers of unchecked power and the potential for authoritarianism to emerge in different forms. Huxley's vision emphasizes the seductive allure of consumerism and hedonism, while Orwell's focuses on the brutality and coercion of state power. In considering which vision of the future is more relevant or prescient, it's worth acknowledging that elements of both dystopias can be found in contemporary society. Surveillance technology, mass media manipulation, and the commodification of pleasure are all features of the modern world, raising concerns about the erosion of privacy, autonomy, and critical thinking. Ultimately, the choice between Huxley and Orwell may reflect differing perspectives on the nature of power and control, as well as varying assessments of the current trajectory of society. Some may see echoes of "Brave New World" in the pervasive influence of technology and consumer culture, while others may identify with the themes of surveillance and authoritarianism in "1984". Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread? Reference: Wikipedia - Artificial intelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence Wikipedia - Ubermensch - Friedrich Nietzsche: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermensch Wikipedia - Brave New World - Aldous Huxley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World Wikipedia - 1984 - George Orwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

I think I have read that spontaneous emission processes can be modelled as a special case of normal stimulated emission, but due to interaction with the virtual photons of vacuum fluctuations. We did not go any of that at university, as QED was out of scope for chemists (and my physicist girlfriend at the time preferred to talk about other things). Is it the case?

Energy and mass are equivalent properties of a system. IOW, a Black Hole can radiate away massless but energetic photons and lose mass. When the remaining mass is no longer able to support an Event Horizon, and it can be quite a large mass, it explodes back into normal space-time, with a gamma ray burst. There is a problem with this scenario, and it's at the forefront of research. A certain property of Quantum Mechanics dictates that information must be preserved. Black Holes, in effect, swallow information and randomize it by re-emitting it as non-specific Hawking radiation and a final gamma ray burst. So we know we are missing vital knowledge about the process. This is likely because S Hawking's theory was a 'crude' combining of GR and QM; a self-consistent Quantum Gravity model is needed. ( and ther are questions as to whether that is even possible )

The most basic purpose of life, any life on any planet, is to reproduce. I can see generational starships spreading a race through an area of our galaxy, or even probes that deliver embryonic life to other star systems, but what is the purpose of your Von Neumann probes ? They can't gather and return information to the sender, as that would take twice as long as the journey to get here. So why would any advanced civilization undertake such a project that may return information outdated by millennia, or not return any at all. For any civilization to advance to a level of interstellar travel, they would need to use concepts like effort/benefit analysis, otherwise they would have made stupid decisions, and not advanced to such a level. And sorry, but sending probes that don't return information, or return it 10 000 years out of date, seems like a stupid undertaking to me. The second part of your post reminds me of the time travel problem ... "Time travel is impossible because no one, from a future where they have time travel, has ever been seen." For all you know, your UAPs might be from the future, instead of from other star systems; how would you differentiate between the two ? And why do you consider one choice more likely than the other ?

I will say that when you go from a radius of 3 to a radius of 4, that this is accurate even with my maths if you look at the object straight on. However, if you were to do it this way when calculating depth you'd need to realize that if you fitted the 7, 11, or 12 other spheres around that surface volume (9pi) you would need to adjust your xy and yx planes because now all the other spheres need to be placed differently giving different perceived radii to stack further iterations upon. I don't think calculus takes this into consideration. I do know that when it's 8 spheres around the sphere of origin the way I do it if you took the two spheres on the bottom and right and had them where you have the two spheres in front it would look exactly the same as it did before. No change to the xy and yx planes.

So inertial observers. By the way here's how to do the kissing number problem in four dimensions if your interested. THE KISSING NUMBER IN FOUR DIMENSIONS Oleg R. Musin "In three dimensions the problem was finally solved only in 1953 by Sch¨utte and van der Waerden. In this paper we present a solution of a long-standing problem about the kissing number in four dimensions. Namely, the equality k(4) = 24 is proved. The proof is based on a modification of Delsarte’s method." https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0309430 you wish to use vectors well you have those relations here. Its rather detailed. as you linked Newton and the kissing number above thought you might find it handy with regards to your spheres

I wouldn't do that either. This a problem with the calculability of depth perception, it is essentially geometrically accurate animation. Earth is the only observer of Mars and its moons. If we were to continue this line of discussion I would have to get back into this. But, alas, the hour is getting late and I must rest.

great so I employ full GR for an observer in each case which will get different answers ? Observers affect geometry. length contraction is part of SR. An observer moving at 90 % c won't see a circle. with the equivalence principle inertia has equivalence to gravity with regards to observer effects. Pythagorus theorem doesn't even work without conversions to restore Pythagorus theorem. So your triangles wouldn't work correctly. You do want your equation to be useful in some cosmology based measurements if the answer is yes then you will need to account for geometry changes. Your going to need to include the effects of curvature and observers in those coordinate changes.

We have have the gravity as the G term. We don't need all that yet for testing the numbers, if you wanted to get more complicated and try and apply theoretical physics best fix the methods used if they are wrong about the numbers in predicting trajectories for completely different reasons i.e. purely geometrical. Best use a system we can test from an Observatory where we don't have to worry too much about it. Mars and its Moons would be perfect for the three body problem.

precisely my point " its relative to the Observer. How do you define one observer from another ? How is it relative ? If I have an observer a coordinate \(c_1,x_1,y_1,z_1\) living in a gravity well. What effect does it have from an observer moving a 0.99 c etc etc. You have no means of describing one observer from any other observer. How do I know if you are using strictly Galilean relativity or Special relativity ? am I suppose to read your mind ?

That one doesn't, no. And I have already pointed out I did it wrong it was supposed to be: The change in radius relative to observer was I had also performed that one wrong at first on the previous page.

gravitons are still a viable possibility you don't need them to describe a BH or the effects of Hawking radiation on a BH but its also not incorrect to do so. here is the thing about Hawking radiation a virtual particle pair must form outside the event horizon. Due to conservation laws all particles pop into existence as particle pairs primarily but not restricted to conservation of charge. (matter , antimatter for example) which Hawking radiation uses. the matter particle escapes to infinity while the antimatter particle falls in. Its a rather simplistic descriptive but the mass loss is due to being the anti particle of the pair. A photon is its own antiparticle. The difference between them isn't charge but rather its polarity. As a wave it obeys constructive and destructive interference. So anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons. Now this may or may not cause interference with other particles as all particles also have wave and particle like characteristics. However that is moot as the only thing needed is the antiparticle of the pair formed to fall into the BH regardless of what particle is involved. you would get a reduced mass through mass energy equivalence regardless if it is anti photons or some other particle type. As far s I know Hawking never did specify which particle was involved. His original paper simply had particle antiparticle pairs. As photons are generally used with blackbody radiation its the most common treatment. However you also have methods using entropy but entropy in particle physics related to effective degrees of freedom ie spin. charge , flavor, color, energy momentum etc. for example see here "Then Hawking’s black hole emission calculation [9, 10] for free fields gives the expected number of particles of the jth species with charge qj emitted in a wave mode labeled by frequency or energy ω, spheroidal harmonic l, axial quantum number or angular momentum m, and polarization or helicity p as Njωlmp = Γjωlmp{exp[2πκ−1 (ω − mΩ − qjΦ)] ∓ 1} −1 . (5) Here the upper sign (minus above) is for bosons, and the lower sign (plus above) is for fermions, and Γjωlmp is the absorption probability for an incoming wave of the mode being considered." https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0409024

And do I discount what someone else said about gravitons? I'm still confused as to where the mass goes as a blackhole evaporates. Is it better to think of it as losing energy? Couldn't the EH be classified as a perfect black body at some point in the black holes lifetime? Not trying to make any particular point with these questions. Just what's coming up into my mind as I research.

You are making the error of UFP thinking, as though the only viable way to visit us is by a ship that carries aliens here in some short time frame and the aliens then explore our solar system. This is highly improbable, more likely Von Neumann Probes would be sent out all over the galaxy. Such a probe could manufacture all the probes we see and even biological beings. This solves the distance, time, and resource constraints and makes much more sense than sending manned space craft actors the galaxy. Of course this is just my personal speculations and has no weight other than speculations. As for the amount of data, you miss my point, for many years the Air Force tried to say that UFO sightings were only unidentified due to a lack of data. Then documents were released that said in fact that some sightings were inexplicable despite have huge amounts of data. This is the reason its important to say that these sightings can be unexplained despite large amounts of data. The amount of data cannot be used to dismiss or confirm this phenomena. @MigL I understand that its difficult to step outside your world view and even look at things you have been taught to dismiss out of hand. From what I've seen on here you don't strike me as the type to simply ignore this because "It can't be true" syndrome. I don't follow the UFO phenomenon because I'm a crazy nut case, its because I found out that, for what ever reason, UFO sightings were being misrepresented by the government for reasons unknown. If no one was affected by this ie it was just something that is unimportant, then I would see no reason to pursue this. But it is important, in fact the existence of aliens would be the most important thing the human race has discovered in modern times possibly for all times. Not looking at the available data will not change the data or the direction that data indicates. If you won't look at the data then don't, I have admitted that with current understanding of how science works then no data we currently have can be said to be significant and no matter how hard we try until a alien probe lands on the white house lawn in full view of a scientist with instruments nothing can be said to be "scientific data" I think this is really not true and in fact I think we have data that is equal to data in the same way that is accepted by scientists as long as its not about UFOs. UFO, the very idea of what the term indicates poisons the well for some people. The old saw of "It can't be aliens, due to some supposed impossibility like distance or time. These are not impediments to technology, only biology and only then if you insist on a Star Trek like universe. Yes the data so far falls far short of scientific rigor but exactly how would such data be collected with out knowing when a UFO is going to appear? There are reports that IMHO qualify as significant evidence but evidently looking at them is not worth anyone's time. I personally think that is sad... I think it hearkens back to when "science" refused to even consider stones fell from the sky... imagine that. Here is an example of significant data. http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/JEMcDonald/mcdonald_fsr_16_3_2_70.pdf

Sometimes I'd rather not get in a religious debate (guess I was just taking the easy way out)

My wife and I are of the generation that was dating and getting married when the "pill" was just becoming available. Not at all scientific, but I didn't notice any changes going on in our or our many friends' relationships when the wives starting taking birth-control pills.

I don't care what the title is. If your claiming you formula does this or that it requires the terms that relate to those claims.. Claiming redshift with no time component to describe frequencies is simply wrong old math or new math. Describing past and future gravity terms without anything relating to a force term is just as wrong. Claiming details concerning different observers without a coordinate system is another example. So far your equation only shows volume changes you need additional mathematics to do anything beyond that. This is the equation you posted does it describe anything at all beyond change in area ? The time component used in that equation would be observer dependent it's not proper time. proper time using a coordinate system is this for Euclidean geometry (flat spacetime) \[\Delta\tau=\sqrt{\Delta t^2-\frac{\Delta x^2}{c^2}-\frac{\Delta y^2}{c^2}-\frac{\Delta z^2}{c^2}}\] that's one of its simplest forms. The equation I posted only shows how to convert from coordinate time to proper time for 4d Spacetime using Cartesian coordinates it does nothing else... to have it do anything beyond that requires additional mathematics its as simple as that

I'm sorry this topic is titled, "New Math, Old Theories" not "Old Math, New Theories". There is a geometric method not explicitly shown in this thread, how I got the 3.8etc number as opposed to using derivation for area expansion and integration to define the radius of a sphere at one radii into the k vector. I have determined that it is a strong candidate for the solution to the three body problem but admitted however that it might not be the culprit for redshift, since redshift is SELF-inconsistent using calculus. Of course if you were to take this New Theory and apply it to, say, teleporting back in time, you'd need the New Math as well.