Leaderboard

http://www.hri.res.in/~debsadhukhan/HRI web/pdf/Units & Vectors . the above is part of it, here go through this then think back to Dubbelsix mentioning of dimensionality. which he was quite correct to do so Those three unit vectors only ever have 1 value (hint unity) https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/vectors-precalc/unit-vectors/v/intro-unit-vector-notation for those that don't like reading math lol

here is an example the image on the left is a global vector field, the right is a local vector field. You want a set of equations to get from image left to image right. This is just U(1) image from Quantum Field theory Demystified, page number on image

You have absolutely no clue what your talking about. OK simple programming question. How many possible answers do you get when you add two 8 bit registers? (ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS). that is tensor products.... ie [math]E_8\otimes E_8[/math]

Not fully understanding is also known as 'we don't know'. Why are you so worried by not knowing to the point you will invent something called god to pretend you do know? But it doesn't explain why or how god exists - has he been forever, or did he pop out of nothing? These questions still exist only we apply them to something called god instead of the universe. Nothing has been answered, but an illusion of knowing has been conjured.

I really enjoyed the articles. I like how Cornell ranks theirs beginner, intermediate and advanced. But how could you forget xkcd? https://what-if.xkcd.com/49/ He mostly focused on the positives. Maybe you learned that from Phil Plait. He has a really good article on "stars that you see that don't exist anymore." http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/08/13/are_the_stars_you_see_in_the_sky_already_dead.html

More here: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/if-sun-went-out-how-long-could-life-earth-survive http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/39-our-solar-system/the-earth/other-catastrophes/61-how-long-could-life-on-earth-survive-if-the-sun-stopped-shining-beginner http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1048

It doesn't say anything. It isn't using evolution. The universe doesn't gain anything. Why insist the universe has such human tendencies? So what's the point of it all? Well why does does there need to be one? Just to satisfy people who crave purpose to the universe it seems. Which is no reason at all. You have presupposed purpose and then used that to prove to yourself there is purpose - can you see how this reasoning is flawed? These processes are part of the dance of the universe which maybe we'll explain to our satisfaction and maybe we won't. But it's OK to say we don't know - far better than saying, 'erm, yeah, something called god did it - that's all that explained then'. Even if we say god did it what has that explained? The universe is complicated because he wanted it that way. But why? Nothing has been gained or explained. Except for people afraid of the bizarre nature of the universe, who want to explain things in familiar terms - desire, purpose, will. A being with desires? i can understand that - but this quantum fluctuation stuff - far too abstract. It's often said scientists lack imagination because they deny cool stuff like the supernatural, but when we really look at it we see it's theists who really lack imagination as they need to couch everything in terms of a being with motives and desires - just like them. Play Conway's game of life, watch a Mandelbrot zoom (or better yet, create them yourself). Observe how extremely complex patterns emerge from the iteration of some ridiculously simple rules for yourself. Then actually learn some basic sciences and observe how complexity arises, You not being aware of hypotheses is not the same as them not existing. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about all the scientific hypotheses about consciousness, but why would you remain so wilfully ignorant when it's obviously a subject you're interested in and why would you argue from this position of ignorance so strongly? After about 10 seconds on google i found three: the Perceptronium, the Orchestrated Objective Reduction hypothesis and the Astonishing hypothesis. If you are being consistent then you should also not accept other humans beings are conscious. After all, how do you prove they are conscious? By the way - are you ever going to answer Studiot's questions about the Incompleteness theorem?

Very cool. Thanks Strange! I shall now attempt to embed a youtube video. It has some animations of Oumuamua plus a few words from Paul Choda who is manager for NASA's center for NEO studies and Kelly Fast (nice name for an astrophysicist) who is program manager. Paul says "we have been waiting for the discovery of an interstellar object for decades." Ok that was a lot easier than I thought it would be.

Tony Dunn has created some cool animations of the path: More here: https://twitter.com/tony873004/status/933425190234611712

Not me but... ...somebody did http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/11/interstellar-asteroid-is-a-quarter-mile-long-red-beast

They say the same thing about the supporters of Pauline Hanson in Australia but they obviously haven't looked into why she has been popular with poor people regardless of where they came from. If you want some hints (a) the left wing politician who took up her Ipswich City.Council seat in the late 90's has been charged with massive corruption (2) The state politician of the same left wing political party whose state electorate covered Pauline Hanson's federal electorate was convicted of molesting 3-6 primary school children between the ages of 9 and 11 who were in the school class he taught and (3) the state premier called a 'media tart' said after the convicted child molester was jailed that he "was still a mate of mine because he did all of that (child molesting) before he became a politician". That left wing political party has employed this ex state premier in $200K p.a. jobs for the past 10 years and the person who he handed the premiership reigns over to became the CEO of the Australian Bankers Association, go figure. The 'media tart' state premier introduced clause 8 of the Imperial Bill of Rights 1688 into our state constitution (unlike our federal constitution) that ensured that any state politician could not be prosecuted in any court outside parliament and introduced state legislation so that none of his MP's could be convicted inside parliament. It was called the 'Nuttal" law and was scrapped after the corrupt politician lost his seat and was charged and jailed for corruptly accepting $300,000 from a developer. But due to old mates in the pseudo left wing political party the corrupt politician was paid his entire superannuation of around $1.5 million and his mates only got back the $300,000 that he'd been paid corruptly, GO FIGURE???????? And if you want to get more constitutional the same right wing political party masquerading as a left wing political party brought the status of constitutional arrangements between the commonwealth and the states into conformity with the commonwealth of Australia being an independent, sovereign and federal nation, in their own legislation, without seeking constitutional approval from the people, and then proceeded to sell off most of our nations public assets. So being called a deplorable is much preferable to actually being a witless supporter of a right wing political party that prefers to BULLY the people who no longer support it because they won't get rid of the slimy filth that has corrupted the party to its very essence. If you can't get your head around why a left wing person would support someone who the majority of the media thinks is the devil you aren't looking close enough.

Actually that wasn't obvious from the bit where you wrote "Significant majority of stars that you see don't exist anymore" (given the context of the OP (the post and the poster), naked eye visibility seemed implied to me), and (given that implication) the "billions" bit was exactly what I was gently correcting.

I thought most unaided-human-eye-visible stars were not actually all that far away. As in ... https://xkcd.com/1342/ (Edit: I once read, but can't quickly find a reference, that any star unaided-visible is pretty much within the milky way, which is only about 100,000 light years across.) (I'm also discounting galaxies that are visible.)

These are not inconsistent. The big bounce is one possible variation of the big bang model. Unfortunately, the apparent acceleration of expansion seems to make it implausible. Theory says it will continue cooling, as it has done so far. The big bang model just says that space is expanding, so I'm not sure what the expansion without the big bang means. And there are versions of the big bang where the expansion has been going on forever. The mass of the black hole will be the same whether it is in the form of particles, radiation or something else. On the other hand we don't know what happens as matter falls towards the centre of the black hole - or what, if anything, stops it doing so. We will need a theory of quantum gravity to answer that. I'm not sure if any of the ideas out there (other than string theory) have any sort of explanation for this.

There is lots of evidence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

It is one thing to deny science, but it is a bt silly to lie about it: "Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe. Uniform cooling of the CMB over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion" Or are you just incapable of understanding? It is not red-shifted due to dark energy, but due to expansion and cooling (red shift means lower energy = cooler). It is all at the same temperature now, but it was much, much hotter then.

the problem is that blind people do not see shadows. We need vision to see them. take two lights in a dark space, some distance from each other. The only way to keep both lights apart, is to register the dark space between them. We have, as it were, "to see darkness". If we did not, the dark space between the light would disappear, and we would see only one (bigger) light. Darkness is different from the absence of light. Closing your eyes is different from looking at darkness, Those are two different sensations. Also, the mind can create all kind of images when our eyes are closed, as in dreams, hallucinations and so on. I would certainly not deny that the absence of sunlight leads to darkness. I would like to point to the fact that light in physics, can be "invisible" to the naked eye. The absence of light, strictly speaking, would mean the absence of all wavelengths of light, visible and invisible. We do not know what that is. It would mean absolute vacuum. The idea that light can disappear and still leave a visual impression is somehow contradictory.

Yes, but the Europeans had to build it larger to do that I know but it has not been built yet, when it finally comes online you may find "Technical Difficulties" that were unexpected you know how that goes.

It’s perfectly ok to just say you don’t know. I didn’t expect you would and that’s why I was asking if anyone is studying this. I stand corrected. Only Albert Einstein and I agree that, “ I won’t include you next time. Thanks anyway

I’m quite sure that I understand what you’re getting at, and I think I understand the way that this should be properly explained (mathematically.) We consider the basis of the sine to be a ratio (mathematically) when in real fact it is based on an actual quantity (mathematically.) Work is currently being done on this front. The distinction is very subtle, hence your inability to pin it down any better. I just want to validate that what you say is correct, despite the reactions from the skeptics. The new geometry which includes the turn as a base quantity is called synchronous geometry. If anyone fails to understand the mathematical proof of the existence of a turn as a quantity, please feel free to ask questions. If anything that I’ve said here (or elsewhere) can be falsified by any method whatsoever, I’d sure be interested to hear about it.

(Silly huh who is misinterpreting the the observed facts) Oh my god you were there at the big bang and have measured the temperature falling to its CONSTANT value of 2.75 Kelvin today which it has been and will be for the next billion years plus or minus a millisecond. I was so stupid to doubt anything you write. I suspect which in no way is intended to be offensive that you maybe a MORON, red shift indicates things are moving away from us and blue shift towards us it does not indicate temperature change unless you are a xxxxing xxxxx PS My math ability is above average strange get a life