Leaderboard

Came here for a meal. Got no meat, only salad. Word ( and number ) salad. Explain what you are doing first. No one has any idea what you're trying to accomplish with this mish-mash of numbers. And don't just throw numbers around without telling us what they refer to.

When I heard that Kamala Harris was selected for VP my feeling was profound satisfaction. I think she is a good choice. I voted for her as AG for California and also for Senator. When I watched Biden and Harris last night giving their speeches I was very happy with the performance of both. Harris had a good mix of smiles (not the extreme gaping smiles of H Clinton) and also the sober, severity of a prosecutor, which is exactly what Dems need to back up Biden. Interesting Trump called Harris "nasty" 4 times yesterday, even called her "extremely nasty." According to my dictionary nasty means "unpleasant or disgusting; spiteful , violent, or bad-tempered; dangerous or serious." He also called H Clinton nasty. Did he ever call a man nasty? From Merriam-Webster NASTY: "disgustingly filthy, physically repugnant; indecent, obscene..." I don't really see ANY of that in Kamala Harris. That looks like blatant projection by Trump.

Well, GR is a purely classical theory, so it doesn't support the idea of 'multiple realities'. There are of course lots of observable quantities which do depend on the observer (they are not invariant/covariant), but observer-dependence does not imply multiple realities. Indeed - but it isn't so much the finer details of how exactly the observer moves, but rather the very fact itself that the observed vacuum depends on the motion of the observer at all. You travel in an accelerating rocket and see a sea of particles around you; then you stop, and pop! - they are all gone, though you are still in the same region of spacetime. If you really think about this, it poses very serious questions about what is really fundamental, and what is not. The result has already been replicated for deSitter space (dS/CFT correspondence), and even Kerr spacetimes (Kerr/CFT correspondence). It suggests that the duality itself is an expression of some deeper connection between bulk and boundary - I bet there is some form of underlying duality that relates the two for any kind of spacetime, independent of its specific geometry (or perhaps for some physically significant subset of geometries). Finding this would be a major breakthrough. Good point +1 Never looked at it this way.

Oh, my, you're sharp, Hanke! I may be going nowhere, but you understand exactly what I mean. +1 You're worth 10 points here. In fact, there is a kind of non-locality in my view, but it has nothing to do either with space nor with time. It's abstract, internal-space. The functions you're trying to measure are not point-to-point (eigenvalue-to-eigenvalue) functions of one another. What some analysts call "non-local operators". Maybe the expression filtered out from there. Same way x is non-local operator in p-eigenstates (it depends on all the spectrum) and vice-versa.

Ok, that's a good point, and I think I get what you mean. I looked at the situation only spatially, but not along the time line. So in that sense, as you explained it, it is indeed local - later measurement outcomes do not depend on distant parts of the system, since the statistical correlation has already been there from the beginning, and thus remains local at each branch of the experiment. So the situation does not in fact fulfil the non-locality definition you gave. That's a pretty self-consistent view on this, as it avoids any clashes with SR. This would seem to imply then that we have to let go of realism; it also implies that the spatiotemporal embedding of the underlying wavefunction that describes the system is non-trivial - it cannot be located anywhere in spacetime in any self-consistent way. This is consistent with my own view which I keep exploring - that the underlying structure of reality is not in any way spatiotemporal in nature.

Yes you seem to have understood exactly what I am thinking. The gas in the tunnel gains internal energy from the pressure of the gas above it (at r greater than its own). You cannot change the internal energy of a gas without changing its temperature so it also heats up. Heating up is a very important point since the air entering at the surface is already nealy 100o above critical. From then on the compressibility v pressure is fairly linear. Adiabatic, semiadiabatic insulating non insulating walls, the gas will also gain some heat from its surroundings -- more heating up. I was not thinking virial or VDW when I mentioned power series solutions. I was thinking about the aerostatic differential equation with a differential radial element dr. I was thinking of a power series solution to this equation. It is this element which is confined round the tunnel perimeter, but subject to compressibility radially. We thus have to consider the radial compressibility and have a choice isothermic or adiabatic ? I choose isothermic because I consider this differential element to be all at one temperature.

I'm pretty sure they are aware, especially ones who have gotten to the level of being elected to congress. Gender discrimination is a subset of sexism. The former is against the law in some settings, but the latter, while many rightfully frown upon it, is not.

IDoNotCare has been suspended for two weeks for hijacking threads with nonsensical posts and then arguing about it. And if they choose not to come back? I do not care

I think the question is pressure for a lined borehole, a tunnel with walls that hold back the pressure. Or else the question reverts to what is the pressure at Earth's core, sans borehole.

Or for just any acceleration. It is not a crazy idea at all that non-locality/non-causality are present at a very small scale that cannot have consequences farther away than a certain tiny range. So you could have both pre-images and post-images of your local universe that your mind integrates in a "solid picture", so to speak. I think that's possible. But the priority, I think, is to understand where temperature comes from in GR (what degrees of freedom it's talking us about) and obtaining a generalisation of QFT workable for general coordinate systems (what's called in the lingo diffeomorphism-invariant). See how temperature arises in both contexts, then understand what both temperatures mean and relate them. Easier said than done... Keep in mind that whenever you have a temperature, it means that there are dynamical degrees of freedom that are not in your description, so your description is averaging over them. Then you've got Maldacena's mind-blowing mathematical result that gravity inside a ball is describing classical gauge field theory on the surface of that ball, but at the price of having the metric be anti-DeSitter (something like an anti-universe or exponentially-contracting universe). This strongly suggests that any new physics should be capable of relating inside-outside quantities for any observers (that naturally perceive some kind of inside-outside distinction), which is what I was trying to connect with before. More tame speculations later...

The Planck length is [math]\ell_\mathrm{P} =\sqrt\frac{\hbar G}{c^3} [/math]. Your "lp" appears to be the Planck length squared. 5th power of what? Where does this number (approx 5 * 1026) come from? It would be much easier to understand if you wrote that using standard notation. I am not going to try and make sense of that, especially when at least one of the "it"s is ambiguous/undefined. As the Planck units are all based on the same set of fundamental constants, it is not surprising that if you combine them in arbitrary ways you will get something that equates another Planck unit. I can't make much sense of the rest of your post. I'm tempted to quote the sage advice: "don't post stoned".

Looks to me that the point of this thread is for you to play around with numerology. Anyone can put random numbers together to get a result they want, it doesn't mean anything.

Quite often you choose to paint me with the dastardly evil brush, when there are other options available, Phi. I'm not saying its ok to be unfair to women, but women should be aware that there are those who are ( unfair to women ). And, sometimes, mitigating those instances, involves not giving those people the opportunity to be unfair. It's not OK to steal either, but there are those who do, and I'm sure you don't leave your wallet in plain sight, in your parked vehicle. If I asked you to put your wallet in your glove-box, or your back pocket, are you going to assume that I think it's OK to steal ?

I admit this one does have me scratching my head. I wouldn't expect heat to change the pressure once temperature equilibrium is reached but I'm not sure of it. But if you have an imaginary borehole you can imagine it being insulated and then consider the heat separately. On reflection it is likely the heat does matter - by changing the density of the air (or plasma), which changes the weight of the air column. My first impressions left me thinking the pressure would be the same as surface air pressure but on reflection it would be SAP plus the pressure from the weight of the air column within the Earth from core to surface - and that weight will vary along that column according to changed gravity gradient - and would be less than a gravity gradient based on a point mass at the core. Maths for that is beyond me.

! Moderator Note Unfortunately, your posts inherently fun afoul of our rules requiring clarity and reasonableness. You seem more interested in asking questions about impossibilities than in having a discussion about science. Perhaps another forum would be best for you?

! Moderator Note Enough! You can't just throw wild-ass guesses around and call it science. fredreoad, you aren't reading what's being shown to you, you ignore established science in favor of your hand-waving, and you don't seem interested in fixing your ignorant misunderstandings. You push back against people who are trying to help, and that's not the way discussion works. I think you need a less rigorous science forum for your posts. We have rules requiring members to focus on mainstream application of science knowledge, and the last thing we need is your pushback on the basics. Take a vacation for a couple of weeks, and search around for some sites that don't mind your approach to knowledge.

Numerous people from Trump's 16" campaign are felons today Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc. Trump was named by the guilt parties as a co-conspirator on some of those charges. National Intelligence, even the people Trump appointed, have confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump in 16' and is doing it again now. Courts have tossed election rules in place back in 16" in several states which were key to Trump. All of that went down in 2016. I am not even venturing into the more subjective stuff like Comey's last minute decision, Cambridge Analyticia's involvement, etc or standard campaign gaffes. All of that made the difference not Hillary Clinton's smile. Currently Trump is publicly work to interfere with mail in voting, has openly floated moving the election, FL is still in court trying to keep a million people from voting, National Intelligence has conformed foreign interfere, COVID19 is killing a thousand people a day, etc, etc matter more than Kamala Harris's smile. I would argue she didn't lose and the election was manipulated.

Very good point. +1 (Sorry, can't give more rep-points today, I owe you one). "Local" and "non-local" are used with at least somewhat different meanings in different contexts. One of them, as you point out, is "local" as opposed to "global". This "local" as opposed to "global" has to do with properties at a point or at the vicinity, as opposed to properties of the whole tapestry, so to speak. In field theories the latter always (AFAIK) are integrals of the field variables. For example, in GR a very famous one is the genus of the manifold (the number of holes). It's to do with the integral of the Ricci scalar to the whole manifold. The value of R itself at a point would be a local property. But they're related. A local PDE would be one in which all the variables involved are expressed in terms of their values at one point. It's a point by point statement. If you force to be involved arbitrarily high order of the spacial derivatives, that's another way of invoking very far away phenomena at point x. A useful way of understanding it, I think, is this "grading of the concept of locality". Imagine a world so local that's even more local than ours: nothing can propagate: \[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\varphi\left(x,t\right)=f\left(x,t\right)\] Your evolution eq. does not involve any spacial derivatives at all. In that case, the configuration at point x and at point x' are not connected. Physical quantities evolve at every point independently. Next step is propagating: the time derivative is involved with the spacial derivatives. You can assume first order, second, etc. in spacial derivatives. Everybody calls this local, but it's "less local" only in the sense that field variables get affected in far-away points if you wait long enough. You could always call a theory in finite order of spacial derivatives "local". You would only have to extend the set of initial data to higher and higher order spacial derivatives. Your field variables would be now phi, phi', phi'', etc. The problem is when the order of spacial derivatives is unbounded. Then there is no way that you can re-define your state as local in any reasonable sense. Your field variables are sensitive to arbitrarily-high-order inhomogeneities in the spacial variables. You would have to provide all the derivatives, which amounts to providing the function in all space. This graded explanation of locality is not standard, but I think it clarifies (or could clarify) how the relation between spacial inhomogeneity and time evolution is related to the intuitive concept of what local evolution must be. I made a mistake here. There are no dtn terms in the expansion. The arbitrarily high speed is implied somewhere else. But I'm sure you're right. I'll think about it later. Maybe somebody comes up with the right idea.

Digital immortalization, without uploading which doesn't preserve the subjects continuity of consciousness because it's not the same electrical activity involved in said live subject's neurochemical interactions

I have had a few demonstrations against their law enforcement, your turn We aren't going to get the land with peaceful shouting lol Don't just physically stand up against taxation and enforcement of petty majority census using posturing or violence. There are all kinds of ways we can do what Karesh couldn't and get some land and flesh back from the populace. These last few days it's been insomnia from lack of stimulus and worry and anxiety, coupled with when I do get to sleep there's zero incentive for me to even get up other than the fact that I can't sleep. Right to pursuit of happiness my dick. And why aren't sexual services a requirement if other forms of public service are? Instead of starving a carved figure out and requiring our youth the get themselves out there we are basically making it illegal or not something to profit from (quite the contrary) sending the message of repression in brain training there's a hostile reaction to that sort of disenforcement. Instead we are encouraging our youth to get fat and be inert, we are that is a big portion of public service is force feeding and advertising food Is that really the majority census Get real This census enforced by cowardly killers with tech, is about as fun as a dried up bag of Biden dicks

I'm just saying what everyone is thinking

I didn't say I wanted anarchy I said I wanted a more openly sexualized and nudist and free public service and a resource based moneyless society where basic needs are provided and we're not misguided into fat virgins by dollar bills that are inflating into infinity worthlessness and people are being thrown on the streets by armed thugs called the feds for not supporting some abstract commune of old elephant riders