Leaderboard

Other then getting a room, you blokes are correct. My argument is simply as per the title of this thread, that GR and of course GR type BH's have over the last few years, gained much more certainty. If any anti GR/BH buff disagrees with that, perhaps they should take their arguments to speculations and put up a case there. I'm simply stating the mainstream position and showing the attempts to discredit GR as stupidity and baseless conspiracy nonsense.

Why don't you guys PM each other instead of posting your incessant arguing, it is boring.

You seem to have a problem with Beecee and words and phrases he has used ( fact, hope that helps, facts may aspire ), yet you have not posted any meaningful contribution to this topic. What you are doing is not discussion. Grow up, before someone decides to report you.

Hi all, I came across a very interesting publication about Free Will: In short: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-we%E2%80%99re-even-aware-them-study and the publication itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y Just one thing I didn't understand from what written there, what was the accuracy of the prediction? They say that they could predict what people will consciously chose about 11 seconds before they choose it (which sounds amazing!) but in what accuracy? 70% of the times? 85% of the times? Please let me know if you find this information, Thanks!

Even if you consider just low energy virtual photons, you still need to satisfy conservation laws. You cannot simply have one heading towards the EH. Conservation of momentum dictates its opposing virtual photon is headed away from the EH. And once one of the virtual pair is removed by the BH's EH, the other of the pair becomes a real low energy photon or Hawking Radiation. But those pesky conservation laws again dictate that the energy debt must be repaid, as virtual particles live on borrowed time, and so, the BH gives up that amount of mass/energy to make the re-payment. I don't see the problem Q-reeus, maybe you can elaborate.

It's absurd and surreally funny to me as opposed to say, Russian troll and bot systems which I don't treat litely. You gotta be kidding. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trolling me with a strawman...ofcourse I don't think that. And I pointed out an excerpt from the article you linked and made sacrastic passes at it. Thats all "Yakuza Mike" deserves...unless he's a payed troll on Putin's payroll that is but then he wouldn't be in that ridiculous interview now would he. You are somewhat right, I'm sure I am determined to a degree with my prior experiences. Not necessarily to the direction you assume but I'm sure we all are determined by our life experiences. I'll give you a hint... in the first few months when I was alienated from my twins 10 years ago I ended up in some local Father organization that claimed to help out. I lasted 20 minutes at their get along - a bunch of trully mysoginistic, agressive guys with whom I didn't want anything to do with even (or especially) when I was in by far the most pain I ever experienced in my life. Even when I was in the deepest holes years ago and my hate towards my ex wife ruled my world, I never tended to project that at other women, I always seemed to understand that all the women out there are not my ex wife - something that many people would benefit from understanding. As for my feeling towards my ex-wife you need to be more subtle man, Emily might read this and you'll get me in trouble

Either way, I'm annoyed it was turned into a ''gender opportunity' by all sides. The BBC is a PITA for it. I think the anti-feminist element kicked off when the feminist element held it up as a pro-women achievement. We will see a lot more of this politicisation. Gender should have nothing to do with this.

Why do you use 'predetermined'? Is determined not enough? Or what would be the difference according to you? Well, without the 'pre': yes of course. 'Free' does not mean not-determined (or not predictable...). It means that you can act according your own motives and world view. When you are forced to act against them you are not free. If an organism or object has, cannot have, motives and a world view, then the concepts 'free' or 'not-free' simply do not apply.

So the "pair production" is a very simplified analogy. I have seen a better description terms of positive and negative energy (which, I believe, more accurately represents what the math says) but I haven't been able to find it again. But if we stick with the virtual pair explanation, one way of thinking about this is the energy bookkeeping required. For the two particles to be separated, they have to be given energy equivalent to the mass of the two particles in order to convert them to "real" particles. One of the particles falls into the black hole, returning that mass-energy to the black hole. The other ne escapes taking that mass-energy with it. That just moves the question to: "where does the energy come from to make the particles real?" From the black hole's gravitational field. As far as I know, the only way of understanding the details of that is to get into the (very complex) math involved. Another way of thinking about it: the virtual particle pair have net zero energy, so you can think of one having positive energy and one having negative energy. As particles with negative energy don't exist, the one that escapes must have positive energy and the one that falls in subtracts energy (mass) from the BH. There are also explanations in terms of particles escaping the event horizon by quantum tunnelling.

It's a very very sad day. Especially sad for the French people. It appears so renovations are typically unintended route to destruction of such historic buildings. It's not the first time to start fire during renovation. So worldwide people should learn from it, and revise renovation procedures and take French lesson, to not repeat it again, in their homeland. Usage of fast electric devices to cut wood or metal on the site (instead of bringing ready element).. ? Created in the cutting process highly flammable gases could gather on the top of roof, just waiting for single spark.. Lack of fire extinguisher for every worker.. ? Better to take more fire extinguishers and not having to use them, rather than have less and need them urgently.. As long as price of renovation is the main reason for choosing an offer from private renovation company, such accidents are practicably inevitable.

Thanks to you. Still, I think you make it a bit too simple. I know you have a naturalist world view, just as I do. It would quite be possible, that if we would extendedly discuss our world views, we would come very close. We might agree on which capabilities humans (or human brains) have, but still... I would say we have free will, and you say we don't. So I think it is essential when you write such things as above that you add what you understand under free will. Just as a stupid example: say somebody says he believes in God. When you ask him, he explains that all the laws of nature he calls 'God' (So God for him is not the 'historical' Yahweh or Shiva, it is an abstract concept.) You can oppose him that he uses the word 'God' in this way, you might even say you do not believe in God (but then you must say you mean 'entities' like traditional gods), but that doesn't make you a disbeliever in laws of nature. So in my opinion you should explicitly define the kind of free will is that you deny. I think you would discover that it is not the same concept as most people use in daily life, or in political discourse. PS The first one who tries to stop the discussion with 'it is just semantics' gets a negative reputation point from me...

The ISS is mainly a place for space research. If they added artificial gravity, they could not do it. It would be pointless. Artificial gravity would only be beneficial for long term space travel.

And in closing one gap, we may open five more that we never knew existed, bringing more questions and newer ideas. The more we learn, the wider the gap becomes. Science is an ongoing endeavor in an ever expanding universe.

Digging yourself deeper. Maybe you should have began your statement : According to Theory, or my interpretation of the Theory of what one might see BTW : the Link you provided : https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html , contains this disclaimer " The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity." re, your : "Hope that helps." , "facts may aspire" means exactly what?

ad hominem , much? " facts may aspire ", So, are you trying to attribute a human trait, the conscious ability to aspire, to a fact? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspire

Are you a GR buff? If not, instead of boredom you should be able to learn something useful or at least be stimulated to check further, from my posts at least.