All Activity

@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. 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. It increases less and less but it still increases every distance you add, 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.

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

Your question is complex and contains unresolved issues and active research. That is ar far as I know an unresolved question; the scientific community does not have a single, universally accepted formal definition of intelligence. Then we have to assume that intelligence* and cognition can be expressed mathematically in a way that is useful. There are attempts in for instance Computational Models of Intelligence and I am not aware of any consensus. You may want to look for work that uses Kolmogorov complexity and Markov blankets (I do not have any sources; tried and failed to locate an article I read some time ago) That assumes that Intelligence can be expressed in a model of computation. As far as I know the debate about whether all aspects of what we consider "intelligence" can be fully captured and replicated by computational systems is not settled. Examples to illustrate the complexity: You might be able to mathematically define some type of intelligence that performs well on a typical IQ test**. That does not mean the same mathematical definition is applicable to the intelligence required to : -construct new IQ tests -evaluate results of IQ tests -Ride a bicycle to the facilities providing the IQ test. -decide if it is appropriate to use an IQ test in a certain context; moral or ethical. (These examples are inspired by iNow's answer) *) Or intelligences, as @iNow correctly points out. **) such as those used by Mensa or other organisations

I was going to compare how I think to how it thinks. yeah, I am wanting ta build sort of a builder assistant while also learning as much theory as a kind to build it.

I sort of regret my earlier post, which was meant as a bit whimsical, suggesting that sugar was the most dangerous chemical. I did understand that danger, in the OP context, was meant in the sense of extremely toxic in tiny amounts and not "might give you pancreatitis or diabetes in a few decades of nonstop bingeing." I was offering it in the same way that someone will say mosquito when asked what's the world most dangerous animal. True answer, but often not what the asker had in mind. Danger must be defined, it having multiple meanings. Ask an electrician and they would probably say "squirrel." 🙂

I see, so you have no intention of having any form of testability. In essence not doing what's needed for a physics theory. Pictures and drawings mean nothing for physics. They are nothing more than a visual aid and of zero value beyond that. I would have thought you would have realized when I used math to demonstrate where your idea fails you would have caught on to the value of calculations. For example at what distance from a mass such as a BH would a particle follow an orbit ? Or when will the path remain straight ? Guess or calculate? Which do you think is the better route of determination ? What velocity must the object have to maintain an orbit if it's too slow it will simply fall into the BH. If it's too fast it escapes (function of 1/r^2 ) Newtons gravitational law.

I wonder whether that is because the views are sufficiently superficial that things could be argued either way? The issue I feel is that generally speaking a consensus can only form if folks use the same basis, and arrive at least at a set of conclusions. One might disagree in the areas of uncertainties, but at least agree on the same set of facts. This, however, is no longer the case. Especially when we look at social media, including youtube. I think when wikipedia came up tech folks argued that social media and all the free information would disrupt science and our general understanding of the world. I think they were right, just not in the way they thought they would be.

I did not know about carborane acid. Rather interesting. Thanks for drawing to my attention.

It's too tiresome and boring.

The op... "Most Dangerous Chemicals"

More accurately 10^{-43} seconds and yes it does have a volume but as mentioned the entire observable universe is contained in that volume that expanded. In other words you can't point anywhere and state the BB happened in that direction or in that location as every location was part of the initial volume.