Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/02/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    And I thought it was something to do with corona
  2. 1 point
    It doesn’t. The state is undetermined until it is measured. This is not changed by magically invoking AI Yeah, this is the speculations forum, not the WAG forum. No, we don’t “know” this, and you have not presented anything in support of this. I approvd the thread to answer your physics question, but you’ve posted nothing to recommend keeping it open.
  3. 1 point
    I think we here should be above deriding a person's appearance and stick to discussing their behaviour.
  4. 1 point
    Ann Coulter is neither a comedian, nor had her own show, ever. For decades, Bill Maher has. He hosts liberals and conservatives and they discuss things like adults and in almost every case from the middle ground. He's no fan of snowflakes on either side of the coin and often derides liberals for not being ballsy enough to properly deal with the scandalous antics of today's conservatives. Coulter speaks in extremes for the purpose of shock value and division and little else. She has no skill sets other than appealing to the lowest common denominator among conservatives.
  5. 1 point
    Thank you for attempting that clarity, you have perhaps identified and picked out the major fallacy in the OP. +1 By definition one dimension does not overlay another ever. Dimensions are representations of independent variables. The rest of the OP is just an unsuccessful attempt to break this independence. Pixels references, for instance, are a red herring.
  6. 1 point
    Today I learned that (in newer cars, at least) there is a little arrow next to the fuel gauge to let you know which side the tank is:
  7. 1 point
    Alright I'm new to this forum and would love to learn more, to answer the question if its philosophical to ask what gravity actually is. I meant what causes gravitational pull. Secondly, what I meant us living inside of a black hole. The only logical thing that would cause a big bang is a singularity, and since in theoretics black holes have a singularity since the amount of matter being sucked in is in relation to matter opting from high pressure to low pressure (seen in nature countless times) because black holes are initially negative space caused by the star dispersing the rest of its matter leaving a void of low pressure waves. Thirdly. I defend your definition of logical. It's a sound definition, because in this case it works. And cant fault you on that. I created these ideas based on the knowledge I've acquired from small sources of science. Lastly. Thank you for the quick response. And the kindness. I'm not afraid to be wrong. I'm just new. I'm gauging my audience right now. Thank you for the input. I'll be sure to go to speculations when I have enough information to go on with my hypothesis.
  8. 1 point
    Alright I couldn't get it down to two lines. But I think this is Argo's hypothesis. That's as short as I could as I could make it. So my questions are directed not only towards Argo but all the thread participants. 1. Would it be better to say space-time overlays the other 3 spatial dimensions? 2. Assuming Argo's hypothesis is correct would it really change anything? Argo Could you please provide a peer reviewed paper claiming that "time flows" or drop your claim that the scientific community maintains that it does? Or better yet focus on supporting your idea!
  9. 1 point
    We have two theories of gravity already. What is wrong with those? Also, the question of "what it actually is" sounds more like a philosophical question, than a physics one. Science builds models based on what we can measure. That is not necessarily "reality" (whatever that is). There are lots of reasons to think we are not in a black hole. One I really like is that the singularity in a black hole is in the future (once you pass the event horizon, the radial direction becomes time, rather than space) while in the universe the singularity is in the past. (Note that in both cases, the singularity does not represent anything physical.) I wonder what you mean by "logical"? Too many people use it to mean "it makes sense to me" (which any idea you invent will do, because you have invented it based on your own level of understanding).
  10. 1 point
    To be fair L Susskind has changed his views also. IIRC originally he favored the hot firewall hypothesis arising from entanglement break between interior ( to the EH ) and exterior regions of space. It was only later that he changed his views to the information being encoded in the radiation, thereby preserving the 'monogamous' entanglement. Keep in mind also, that spatial entanglement and information conservation ( as well as Entropy and Hawking radiation ), as related to Black Holes, are 'hodge-podge' marriages between GR and QM, where their areas of applicability slightly overlap. Any conclusions we may draw as to wider questions may be overturned by an actual Quantum Gravity theory
  11. 1 point
    My own view is that offensive warfare is morally wrong but defensive warfare - depending on how it is conducted - may not be. For war to occur a moral and ethical breakdown of some sort is almost always involved - and when there is deliberate cultivation of resentments and hatred then even defensive warfare can turn unethical fast. One of humankind's most problematic behavioural issues is that, if we think someone is bad then we can get a powerful kick out of treating them cruelly - and thinking someone is bad and deserves harsh treatment doesn't require us to carefully weigh evidence; just being told they are bad can be good enough. Or that their nation is bad or their religion or their ethnicity is bad. And, having our friends and relatives and others we sympathise with treated cruelly - by people who, by the same measures, think we are bad, or our nation is or our religion or our race - will encourage us to dish out harsh treatment in turn. Beware the righteous, for they can be extremely cruel - and enjoy it, without shame or guilt. I think that independent courts, that at least try to base their judgements on the evidence, without fear or favour - irrespective of ethnicity or allegiences or social class - have been pivotal institutions within 'free' democracies. I do wonder if we could even have achieved the (still flawed) successful democracies we know and benefit from without the rise of Common Law or other traditions of independent courts. Until international courts are given the resources and authority - and there is willingness of nations to defer to them - we will likely continue to see nations and other groupings turning on each other and intefering in each other's affairs in unethical ways.
  12. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Doug Fisher, making this particular extraordinary claim without adequate support, especially in the face of all the evidence against it, is soapboxing, and we don't allow it since it's very frustrating for those trying to help, and it doesn't help you persuade a skeptical discussion group. You need to address the offered criticisms of an expanding Earth before making the conclusions you're making. This is the third page of preaching. If you have no evidence for your claims, by the rules of this section I need to close the topic.
  13. 1 point
    For the record: Newton defined mass as "the amount of matter which is determined by its volume and density". Isn't that great? Try to define 'density' without referring to mass...
  14. 1 point
    Sorry, but in my opinion any theory that is entirely dependent on the existence of invisible flying unicorns is not worth discussing on a science forum.
  15. 1 point
    Water is a physical object that can be touched, manipulated, created, destroyed, etc. Time, is an abstract concept of measurement. We cannot create it, touch it, manipulate it, create it, or destroy it. It's something we perceive, not something that exists. Take an inch for example. It's definition is "a unit of linear measure equal to one twelfth of a foot." And a foot is "a unit of linear measure equal to 12 inches." Both of them define each other. They're not in a physical or mechanical context. Yet we know what they are. It's the same thing. An inch can be measured by the amount of time it takes a laser to reflect off of a mirror and return to the emitter. An inch will be measured because we know the speed of light, and we know how long it should take for the laser to travel that far and come back. So, once the laser returns in that amount of time, you know you have an inch. A foot can be measured by 12 times that long. I'm assuming you'd agree that this is an "unmistakable" definition in a "physical or mechanical context." A second can be measured by 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two levels of the caesium atom. As a result, we have a physical definition of a second. It's a measurement.
  16. 1 point
    I couldn't help myself... I made a parody of Trump. Feel free to share! Enjoy!!!
  17. 1 point
    That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change and compare different rates of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. Another common misconception is thinking time controls rate of change. Time isn't a force or substance that can directly influence anything.
  18. 1 point
    Another article on this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/two-independent-analyses-confirm-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
  19. 1 point
    Here's a couple of nice aLIGO video [around 15 minutes long] on GW's, there discoveries, and the potential consequences......... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQMKODLyeS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_puOPsuR4Q
  20. 1 point
    The doctor compared my x-rays from the day I had my hip replacement to today and said that the socket has shifted, which may be the reason I'm having so much pain. He is ordering an MRI and another test, but said we can fix this so that I'm no longer hurting once we are certain what the problem is.
  21. -1 points
    players who are too lucky in the game of luck.can be their neuron network of luck is well developed.