All Activity

My previous post was meant to be humorous. But on a serious note, embarrassment definitely has 'context'. At different times of my life, I have been embarrassed by different things ( lately sight and age related ). It also depends on the presence of an 'audience', , the size, age and gender of that audience. And some of these factors affect people differently or not at all. As an example, in the line above, I originally wrote "been enbarrassed by", and the editor flagged it as misspelled. I checked the two Rs and the two Ss, I even googled the word, until I finally realized I had typed N instead of M ( eyesight issue ). And even though it was just me and my cat, I still felt a twinge of embarrassment at my foolishness.

Thx GPT

Indeed my apologies, I could have sworn that my sentence ended with "for some people", it's what I intended to write. It was my perspective, but then I've never had to fight to protect him. My apologies to all who found my words objectionable, and I'm not trying to Present the English solution as somehow better; for them every slave was pure profit; they didn't care if they lived or died, as long as they couldn't escape then enough of them survived, to pay for the trip + fund's for the next trip + bonus, many steps down the moral ladder than anything America could claim; in the end we had made enough, before the noise of moral objection came into focus, America didn't have that luxury. Civil War, 1861-1865 | Slavery, Abolition, Emancipation and Freedom - CURIOSity Digital Collections (harvard.edu)

! Moderator Note This thread has been a good example of why we insist on quantifying things in physics. Hand-waving doesn’t remove the danger that you’re fooling yourself, but numbers don’t lie. If you don’t have a testable model, it’s just a WAG. We’re done here. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Somebody has to dance on stage at Chippendales. Some folks just don’t feel embarrassed, or don’t care, in certain situations. When I was young, I wasn’t convinced that embarrassment wasn’t fatal. As I got older I got more comfortable with myself, and cared a lot less - I could laugh at myself if I did something stupid or klutzy, or had a joke played on me, instead of shrinking away if others got a chuckle out of it. I recall an interview Robin Williams gave in which he described the gland that caused inhibitions/embarrassment being burned out in him, and others who could act outrageously on stage.

It does not matter. You are simply wrong, and it is known for 300 years by now. You have nothing to show for and there is a pile of arguments against your guess. It does not fit a definition of Speculation by the rules of these forums. IMO, this thread is to be closed.

Wrong guess. Mathematics does not seem to be your thing, lets look for something else that may suit your style of conversation. Ok, Lets use emojis. 🍏🌐🎯 🌐🍏❌

The attraction of CBH1 on S2 is minor that the attraction of CBH2 on S2. The attraction of CBH2 on S1 is minor that the attraction of CBH1 on S1. I think that the above affirmation is not applicable if the observed universe (that is the part of the observable universe that we actually observe with our telescopes) is a little part of a turn of the spiral in the video in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve. I think that the above affirmation is also not applicable to the cases shown in the following figures (where A1, A2, A3 and A4 are attractors): I quote the Wikipedia page Expansion of the universe: "Negative-pressure fluids, like dark energy, are not experimentally confirmed, but the existence of dark energy is inferred from astronomical observations". Dark energy is inferred from astronomical observations. But we can't observe the part of the observable universe that is outside the range of our current telescopes.

You've brought up a fascinating point about the complexity of ecosystems! You're absolutely right that traditionally, plants are considered producers and animals are considered consumers in the food chain. However, there are indeed instances where certain organisms blur these lines by exhibiting both producer and consumer behaviors. Plants like the Venus Fly Trap and other carnivorous plants are excellent examples of this phenomenon. While they primarily generate energy through photosynthesis like typical producers, they also supplement their nutrient intake by consuming insects. This unique adaptation allows them to thrive in environments where nutrient availability might be limited. In such cases, these plants can indeed be considered both producers and consumers. Their ability to generate energy through photosynthesis while also directly obtaining nutrients from other organisms challenges our traditional understanding of ecosystem dynamics, highlighting the intricate relationships between different life forms. It's moments like these that remind us of the richness and diversity of life on our planet, and how nature continually surprises us with its ingenuity. Thanks for sparking such an interesting discussion!

If an undone fly was enough to let my junk burst out of my underwear and hang there in front of everybody, I think I'd be proud as opposed to embarrassed.

Cosmological Principle implies \[d\tau^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu=dt^2-a^2t{\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\theta^2+r^2\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2}\] the Freidmann equations read \[(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho\] for \[\rho=\sum^i\rho_i=\rho_m+\rho_{rad}+\rho_\Lambda\] \[2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=-8\pi Gp\] for \[p=\sum^ip_i=P_{rad}+p_\Lambda\] with conservation of the energy momentum stress tensor \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] \[\dot{p}a^3=\frac{d}{dt}[a^3(\rho+p)]\Rightarrow \frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)=-p\frac{d}{dt}a^3\] \[p=\omega\rho\] given w=0 \(\rho\propto a^{-3}\) for matter, radiation P=1/3 \(\rho\propto{-3}\), Lambda w=-1.\(p=-\rho\) for k=0 \[H_o^2=\frac{k}a^2_O=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho^0+\rho_{rad}^0\\rho_\Lambda)\] dividing by \(H^2_0\) and \(P^0_{crit}=\frac{3H^2_0}{8\pi G}\) gives \[1=-\frac{k}{h_0^2a^2_0}+\Omega^o_m+\Omega^0_{rad}=\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[\Omega_k^0=-\frac{k}{h^2_0a^2_0}\Rightarrow 1=\Omega_k^0+\Omega^0_{rad}+\Omega^0_\Lambda\] densities can be written as \[\rho_{rad}=\rho^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^4=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^4\] \[\Omega_m=\rho^0_m(\frac{a_o}{a})^3=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a})^3\] \[\rho_\Lambda=\rho_\Lambda^0=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_o^2\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[-\frac{k}{a^2}=\overbrace{-\frac{k}{a^2_0H_o^2}}^{\Omega^0_k}H^2_0(\frac{a_o}{a})^2\] with \(1+z=\frac{a_0}{a}\) densities according to scale factor as functions of redshift. \[\rho_{rad}=\frac{3}{8\pi g}H^2_o\Omega^0_{rad}(\frac{a_o}{a}^4=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H^2_0\Omega^0_{rad}(1+z)^4\] \[\rho_m=\frac{3}{8\pi g}H^2_o\Omega^0_m(\frac{a_o}{a}^3=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H^2_0\Omega^0_m(1+z)^3\] \[\rho_\Lambda=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H_0^2\Omega^0_\Lambda\] \[H^2=H_o^2[\Omega^2_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_m^0(1+z)^3+\Omega_k^0(1+z)^2+\Omega_\Lambda^0]\] the Hubble parameter can be written as \[H=\frac{d}{dt}ln(\frac{a(t)}{a_0}=\frac{d}{dt}ln(\frac{1}{1+z})=\frac{-1}{1+z}\frac{dz}{dt}\] look back time given as \[t=\int^{t(a)}_0\frac{d\acute{a}}{\acute{\dot{a}}}\] \[\frac{dt}{dz}=H_0^{-1}\frac{-1}{1+z}\frac{1}{[\Omega_{rad}(1+z^4)+\Omega^0_m(1=z0^3+\Omega^0_k(1+z)^2+\Omega_\Lambda^0]^{1/2}}\] \[t_0-t=h_1\int^z_0\frac{\acute{dz}}{(1+\acute{z})[\Omega^0_{rad}(1+\acute{z})^4+\Omega^0_m(1+\acute{z})^3=\Omega^0_k(1+\acute{z})^2+\Omega^0_\Lambda]^{1/2}}\]

Soooo ... You don't feel embarrassed, or awkward, at all, if your fly is undone, and your junk is hanging out, in a social situation ? Pretty 'ballsy' !

It seems that while everyone in your ideal democracy is equal, some seem to be more equal than others. Unfortunately you are moving us back to the democracy of the 1700s, when democracy was more democratic if you happened to be a white, rich, male landowner. With your model you can be a female of color but you'd better have enough money for a computer and internet access.

No that's not what I'm stating. The time reversal for anti particles results from the negative frequency modes. It doesn't mean the antiparticle travels back in time. That particular model suggested it did. One detail though electroweak symmetry breaking isn't really about CPT. That's more relation to baryogenesis and leptogenesis. Electroweak symmetry breaking describes when particles acquire mass and lose symmetry with other particles aka drops out of thermo equilibrium. This corresponds to the relevant force couplings. Strong, weak and EM force couplings. ( yes this includes Higgs Dirac and Yukawa couplings of the SM model). There's two very similar named processes that can get confused (Electroweak Baryogenesis) and (electroweak phase transition). The latter is the thermal equilibrium dropout. The former is suggested to occur during the EWPT (electroweak phase transition) happens. The (EWBG) electroweak baryogenesis is where the CPT relations are involved. Leptogenesis would occur just prior to EWBG. Once again involves CPT.

Strange? In that it didn’t fit your preconceptions? It’s why we try and deal in facts, and want sources of information, rather than assertions about what one “feels” is the case.

The possibility to initiate a referendum is not a "power" in common sense. For initiating a referendum, simply a sufficient number of "likes" must be gathered (and not too many "dislikes"), so many people like celebs or bloggers will be able to use that. Ok, I didn't know that. But strange.

I'm struggling a little to recollect beer mediated musings from 30-odd years ago, so please bear with me. Am I correct in understanding your last point as CPT symmetry reversal is not a physically realisable phase change in contrast to say electroweak symmetry breaking or recombination?

Yes it's plausible the model I just mentioned had the same BB origin point. Matter and forward time in one universe. Antimatter and reverse time in the other universe. Both resulting from the same BB event. However as stated that model essentially died though you do come across attempts to renew the model. Here is a brief description of the model https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/

1s it considered at all plausible that two ( more?) universes could be created from a shared event? Or is that just "intellectual incontinence"

Rather meaningless to describe time as diluting. How one measures time is observer dependant. However you do not get time dilation due to expansion.

I wonder ,does the Planck unit of time also dilate along with spacetime curvature(under extreme conditions, of course)?

There was an older multiverse model that has matter in one universe with antimatter and time reversal in the other universe. It long ago fell out of any research interest. ( due to better understanding of anti-matter in that the time reversal is a mathematical treatment for symmetry purposes and not actuality)

Probably the wrong word to choose. 'Pointlike' may be better. Suggesting that an instantaneous 'now' of zero duration doesn't exist. So a unit of Planck time, say, wouldn't have any clearly definable start or endpoint.

Assumption from another thread that you aim for computational models running on currently available computer hardware; Any thoughts on how to get the resources needed to develop and run? Current state of the art machine learning requires quite a lot. Some old numbers from 2020; note that this supercomputer has not resulted in anything resembling AGI as far as I can tell: Reference https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ai/openai-azure-supercomputer/#:~:text=The supercomputer developed for OpenAI,the top five%2C Microsoft says. That said, running a simple generative AI based software that generates text can be done on a consumer computer. It has nothing to do with developing intelligence but is useful in some contexts.

😕