Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/14/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    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.
  2. 2 points
    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!
  3. 2 points
    Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter. Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.
  4. 2 points
    Yea - dam those architects from 1163!... always cutting corners on the latest fire tech and health and safety procedures in place of budget constraints. They had enough money for a giant golden cross though didn't they! ;-) At the end of the day - no-one died... in that respect it was a 'good' fire. I was a little sickened by the very pious sounding man on the radio who was quick to donate 100 million dollars for refurb. So far 600 million dollars have been raised... where were these people when the families of Grenfield tower lost their homes and loved ones? Lets get some perspective - it is a building and no-one was killed. Move on and be thankful there was no loss of life... it isn't half as tragic as some are making out.
  5. 2 points
    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.
  6. 2 points
    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.
  7. 2 points
    Why don't you guys PM each other instead of posting your incessant arguing, it is boring.
  8. 1 point
    Theranos started was started in 2003, by a 19 yr old Standford freshman named Elizabeth Holmes. Apparently, using research from her college professor, she claimed to have an idea or theory of revolutionizing blood tests. Now in 2016, she's a billionaire, with a company that has virtually no results and no product. My question is, how did this company ever get off the ground, by a 19 yr old college freshman, that had no answers, no solution and no product? I know right now, the company is going through some major scrutiny, and maybe fraud. ~ee
  9. 1 point
    I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus... "Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist" Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance. But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong. If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding. If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition. What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ? How substantive do they need to be before they exist ? How about where there are consequences of their existence ???
  10. 1 point
    Then you should become aware of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which give rise to virtual particle pairs. Which symmetry is broken here? I was providing supporting information for my statement, to show that this is not just a hypothetical process. It has been answered. You have complained about the level of detail of the answers. If your understanding is that extensive, you should have no trouble following the journal articles. So why are you asking us? Unless your “complete confidence” is the confidence of ignorance. That’s another story altogether Again, read the paper itself. Go to the source.
  11. 1 point
    In principle, yes. But I'm not sure how practical it is. You would need to find out what the resonant frequency of the crystal is between two surfaces. You would need to make two electrons on those surfaces (vacuum deposition or electroplating, perhaps) Then build an oscillator circuit suitable for use with the crystal as a resonant element. From what I remember of oscillator design this would require capacitors to match the capacitance of the crystal (which might be tricky). Getting an oscillator to operate stably at the very low frequency of the crystal might be tricky.
  12. 1 point
    When Woody Allen was asked if he thought sex was dirty, he replied, "it is if you are doing it right."
  13. 1 point
    Does it matter if they are particles, or quanta, as you seem to think there is a difference ??? These virtual pairs exist on energy borrowed from the universe, for a brief period of time according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And once that time is up the debt must be re-paid to the universe according to stdev(E)*stdev(t) >= hbar/2. If one of the virtual particles ( or quanta ) is no longer available to annihilate with the other, it must become a real ( Hawking ) particle or quanta. That means the universe is owed the equivalent of TWO particle's mass/energy by the Black Hole which has caused this debt. The Black Hole, however, has swallowed ONE particle's mass/energy, so the net effect is that it loses the equivalent of ONE particle's mass/energy. Where is this negative you speak of ??? If I owe you money, does it mean I give you negative currency ???
  14. 1 point
    When that time comes, if it comes, after all they have been at it for a while now [QGT] I'll take it with a smidgin of salt [careful about my salt intake, reason why I'm fit, taut, and tenacious] and pepper... Then rejoice again, at the inevitable progress of science!
  15. 1 point
    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.
  16. 1 point
    Yes, I misread your post as talking about a circular orbit centered on the observer's viewpoint, which is possible for larger orbits. It should be possible to completely negate the relativistic Doppler effect with such an orbit, leaving only negligible(?) gravitational Doppler shift including due to the observer's acceleration as the Earth rotates. In the case you're speaking of, where the orbit is not centered on the viewpoint, the spaceship approaches then recedes as it passes nearest the observer, and the Doppler shift from that would be much much greater than the shift due to the Earth's rotation. This is true even at normal "slow" satellite speeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Satellite_communication --- Partial info and does not handle satellite at relativistic speeds.
  17. 1 point
    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.
  18. 1 point
    Apparently Andrew is defending Katie so I say Kudos to Andrew. Well maybe something like an excerpt from your link: "It’s so easy to be excited about Katie Bouman. She’s the 29-year-old computer scientist whose utter glee at seeing a black hole for the first time was captured in a picture that warmed hearts around the world" Strikes some primitive souls as a good target for making fun and having some not necessarily civil comments in places like redit. I will only go as far as please provide the "disgusting reactions by arseholes" again so we can investigate. Nah, I take it back, it's too petty to try to get into the details of who/how much had most input (god that is petty isn't it?) into the project. It's pathetic that a wonderful advancement in science has to be entangled into a gender/pollitical discussion. In fact this makes me more sick than any dumb comments towards her photo. We should be ashamed as a species. "It’s the internet; things got worse. In what can only be described as a sexist scavenger hunt, people began going over her work to see how much she’d really contributed to the project that skyrocketed her to unasked-for fame. The trolls focused in on one of her colleagues, Andrew Chael, who was listed on GitHub as the primary developer for one of the algorithms that revealed the black hole, and started circulating his picture instead. Chael was having none of it." If in those circumstances finding out who did what in the BH project is the "disgusting reactions by arseholes" then boo hoo, I prasie the kids on redit for being "disgusting" I actually think this is a great thing that the younger generation doesn't give into the ridiculous gender war that we adults are feeding them. Whoever wrote the above quote is a venomous twat with an agenda. Yes, I will get downvotes for this as usual in these situations but screw it. PS. Still can’t see the „disgusting reactions by arseholes” where are they? I will be the first to condemn if I see any. I think people (including kids on redit) are tired of media force feeding feminine images/agendas wherever possible because its fashionable/trendy right now and thats why were getting these reactions. And its a very good thing...I don’t know whats worse, the artificial gender agendas being pushed all over media or the right wing freaks with their heads filled with nothingness or the botox filled lips I see every morning when I leave my kid in kindergarden.
  19. 1 point
    You said that "Infinity is unreachable : in time in distance in spreading in mass by mathematics it is clear So how there should be gravity available at infinity if it is unreachable?" I replied that gravity is spacetime...spacetime geometry in fact. If the universe is infinite, then spacetime is also infinite...if spacetime is infinite, then so to is gravity. Another point just occurred to me...gravity is also said to be non linear, that is gravity makes gravity. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity.html "One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamics is a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts'" '
  20. 1 point
    Retrospectively interpreting vague writings to fit later knowledge. Weak. Wake me up when your "god" gets a cellphone and learns to communicate better than with an oil stain that looks like St. Barnabus, or burnt cheese on toast.
  21. 1 point
    The corollary of that is that the tidal forces near the event horizon are much smaller for a large black hole than a small one. So, popular science articles always seem to say that you would be torn apart as you fell into a black hole. But in the case of a supermassive black hole you wouldn't notice anything at all as you fell through the event horizon. (Other than a slight sense of regret, maybe.)
  22. 1 point
    If c weren’t invariant, the speed of light that was transmitted would be different than the light that was reflected, giving rise to a phase difference. Which was not observed.
  23. 1 point
    The other part of my OP was to thank you for all the Science announcements you have alerted us to lately.
  24. 1 point
    Hmm, so to be sure I am not misunderstanding your question, but you wonder how the initial eye development (for instance) would start? I will give an example (which most likely isn't true, but I feel like it should give a conceptual idea of progression from 0% to 0.0000001%): Let's say we have, through random variation, the first production of a protein which imports calcium through the membrane of the cell. After a while, through more variation this protein is changed ever so slightly and now reacts to light; only letting calcium through after it has been hit by light, this change does not provide any benefit yet but let's now say that high concentrations of calcium lead to inhibition of the movement apparatus, now this organism will move towards light as the movement apparatus on the "dark" side will be more active due to lower amounts of calcium. Maybe places with light have a larger amount of food and this organism will be fitter than its peers. That could be a conceptual beginning of the eye, slight changes which lead to more and more complex mechanisms that react to light, with each step of the way increasing the fitness or maintaining the fitness of the organism. Slowly over time this organism may be able to evade predators more easily due to its eye or find food better than without an eye. Does that answer your question or did I completely miss the mark here? -Dagl Edit: fixed sentence
  25. 1 point
    There is nothing inherently "unclean" about sex as an expression of love-- sex is simply one valuable facet of a successfully intimate relationship.