J.C.MacSwell

14 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

So you accept science without evidence, just like you accepted that nothing could escape a black hole, until this was declared wrong.  So which is it, can nothing escape or does everything escape via radiation.  Then science said that the universe was static, until more science said that it was all in motion.  So, it seems that reality in science, as you call it is more determined upon the time frame in which we live than in science itself.  

Nothing can pass back across the event horizon, yet if small enough and thus hotter than the CMBR it can lose mass from "effectively" radiating from outside the event horizon.

This might seem like a contradiction to you. Quantum effects are not the most intuitive.

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I remember reading that the root of the word pagan was essentially equal to peasant/not of the city. Apparently, now it is said to be the term that Christian Romans etc. used to allude to anyone not of the Abrahamic religions generally as a slur. My observation is that pagans seem to prefer the peasant/not of the city referral. Was it the video thumbnail that prompted the question.

 

Naked girls dancing around the fire made me think of Woodstock for some reason.

On 1/10/2024 at 9:33 PM, StringJunky said:

Your explanations on time over the years has always been internally consistent, in my opinion.

 

Like clockwork...

On 1/13/2024 at 12:30 PM, iNow said:

No one has distance in a bottle, either. So what?

”Hey barkeep! Give me a pint of centimeters and a plate full of inches, please.”

Pint of centipedes and plate of inchworms coming right up!

3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

Well they do not do this, never did.  So why when this was said didn't the physicist who designed the ovens put a stop to the rumor?

Never?

The microwave wavelengths are chosen for good penetration into the food. Although the food nearest the surface does tend to absorb more than food further, the food further can actually get hotter as the thermal energy has further to go to escape and may also, depending on the microwave design, and the geometry and any lack of homogeneity of the food, actually absorb more than a similar volume near the surface. So the temperature can build up more toward the middle depending on quite a number of factors..

So sometimes the food does actually cook from the inside out, even if this wasn't the explanation given to you as a non scientist, by an advertiser non scientist.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

When the name brand Oreos are the same price as the storebrand knockoff “cream filled cookies,” you get the real thing.

 

Gotta get that sugar fix...even though you know it's bad for you both short and long term?

Though I would say the price of the Oreos seems potentially much greater.

A lot of motivation for both Haley and Desantis camps to come second, I would expect. No idea with regard to the Tump followers...I can't really understand them at this point as the cheap and easy backlash rhetoric against the extreme left rhetoric that tends to go unchallenged by the more moderate left seems well represented by Desantis.

Maybe Desantis just doesn't seem dictator enough for them?

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Again, your idea of what’s going on isn’t how the experiment is run.

It’s done under controlled conditions so there’s virtually no other candidate photons, and you do coincidence measurement to screen out extraneous signals. If you do e.g. spontaneous parametric down-conversion, the entangled pairs are emitted in a particular direction.

The bottom line is the folks doing these experiments understand what’s going on, as opposed to some hecklers in the peanut gallery. Declaring that “this can’t work” and the insinuation that you know more than the scientist who have performed the experiments isn’t a good look in light of the fact that this does work.

LOL. I pictured you in a theatre doing your work. I hope at least the hecklers had to buy tickets...

I would also like to add that some people thought Einstein was a lazy dog, and I have a relative that works very very hard.

ADD and ADHD may have been previously underdiagnosed. Fortunately Big Pharm has been able to come up with the drugs necessary...

...to make themselves more money.

7 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

I just found this on the net for the longest entanglement yet, but this at least was contained to optical fiber.

Physicists from the Austrian Academy of Sciences have succeeded for the first time in entangling photons over 248 kilometers of optical fiber. For quantum communication, this is a new long-distance record and a significant step on the way to the quantum internet. Previously, the maximum distance was 100 kilometers.  

The last time that I looked over this I predicted that entanglement would be used for communication but all the predictions said that entanglement could not be used for communication for several reasons.  So did that change or was I watching all Dis info because this involves military codes and the Chinese appear to have the lead here.  I also found another article where China demonstrated entanglement with a satellite at a 1000 kilometer range.  

Good find. I wonder what the actual distance was (say maximal distance of any two points of the optical fibre) and how that might affect the results.

15 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

You are looking at photons right now in reading this.  Now just take it for granted that I entangled one of them.  How would you tell it apart from the other trillions of photons, and then to prove entanglement you need to measure it which first means isolating the entangled proton, then measuring it, which would invoke Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle making an accurate measurement if not impossible, at least always suspect.  Note, I am not arguing that entanglement happens, just wondering how one would find a proton that is entangled say a million miles away?

First of all good questions for the most part. +1

I'll answer the easy one I bolded. No one would have any practical ideas on how this could be done. The theory is based on much more local experimentation and results.

I think there have been experiments done that limit the number of photons, and I think it is somewhat done statistically but others here should give a more accurate answer.

`

49 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

AFAIK they never controlled a Navy, so I guess so.

Control no, but at times the Hippie Dippy Marine Weatherman would have had some influence....

10 hours ago, MigL said:

There is no 'ground zero' for the Big Bang.
It happened everywhere because it is an expansion of everything, not an explosion that blasted stuff out into a void.

I  guess we were both right.
Wikipedia links are above your level of understanding, and your understanding does seem to be at a grade 3 level.

LOL, I said the exact opposite but I think it's just about how one would define it.

It's either nowhere and does not exist or it's everywhere with no favoured position.

..and of course no centre of the Universe.

Not that I'm 100% on the Big Bang theory but it's currently the best we have and nothing else is remotely close.

In any case Paulsrocket has significant errors in even the most basic understanding of the theory. It really isn't necessary to believe it to understand it better than displayed in his posts unless he has some mental block or is intentionally misrepresenting it.

If he could grasp the basics, he would see that it fits the data, rather than claim it can't be true because we would see this huge void.

Would the 1960s hippies be considered Pagans?

2 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

Or in a simulation very little, almost no mass would be needed and logical laws need not apply. 

You can argue for a different set of assumptions, but if you also don't want logic applied to them then you're well outside of science. But Fantasyland has it's merits...I guess.

10 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

Statistically there is exactly a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the Earth is not ground zero of the big bang.  In fact, the Earth being the center of the universe is what the Catholic Church believed before Galileo proved them wrong.  

Only if you assume your model (your understanding) is correct.

If as I claimed ground zero is everywhere, you need to struggle with logic or math not to realize that under that assumption there is 100% chance the Earth (like everywhere else) is at ground zero.

19 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

  That said a 13 billion year wide void should be visible

But it isn't.

Kind of throws your model (your understanding) out the window, does it not?

53 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

 

Where is ground zero of the big bang?  Shouldn't there be a void 13 or more billion years wide void with an outward moving ring of mass?  and why would the CMB be coming from every direction and not all moving away from the source?

We are at ground zero...not uniquely...but just like everywhere and everyone else.

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I condensed my thoughts as a series of questions I would like to ask the court:

 

Trump's thought process:

"Sure but...what does that have to do with me?"

5 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

There are no equations that explain the expansion of the universe until 85% more mass is found.  Einsteins equations actually predicted a static universe, and Einstein maintained this until Hubble proved him wrong

Among other things, you seem to be conflating the need for Dark Energy and the need for Dark Matter.

On 1/5/2024 at 11:05 PM, iNow said:

He may have locked up the primary before then depending on how things go in the next 3-4 weeks in pre-Super Tuesday voting 

If there is any argument that condemns the current Republican Party more than this does it is certainly not obvious, at least to me.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

True.
But we know of no mechanism for producing such Black Holes.
Stellar gravitational collapse produces BHs that are an order of magnitude more massive than our Sun; and they are much colder than the CMB.

Extremely small BHs of the size you mention, could only have been produced by primordial density fluctuations of the hot dense plasma of the very early universe, and they would have, and be, evaporating.
Yet we look around the universe, and back in time, and we don't see the tell-tale gamma ray bursts indicative of the final moments of these primordial BHs.
There may just not be any.

I guess that means that with regard to black holes "there's nothing new under the Sun" 😄

12 hours ago, MigL said:

No paradox; classical and quantum mechanics don't mix.
Black holes do not allow for the emission of anything, under classical considerations.

Black Holes do have entropy, however, and so, an associated temperature.
This temperature is barely above 0^oK, and since the universe is currently at 2.7^oK, BHs are actually net absorbers of mass/energy.
It is only in the far future, when the universe has cooled below a BH's temperature that it will experience net evaporation due to Hawking radiation.

Both Hawking radiation and the information paradox ( due to unitarity requirements ) are quantum mechanical considerations, and cannot be explained classically.

Theoretically a small enough BH, one about 0.75% of the mass of the Earth or smaller, should radiate above 2.7 and if not "fed" by more than the CMBR should evaporate and disappear.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Just very quickly and generally (not really specific to the trait in question). We can start at the locus (site) of the mutation that provides the trait of interest and then look at the surrounding regions, which presumably are not under the same selective pressures. If the mutation arose in different persons independently, we would expect to see some variations in those surrounding areas (think of it as different persons providing different backgrounds for the mutation).

Blue eyes arose likely not due to a mutation in a  gene associated with eye color (OCA2)  but in an upstream regulatory element. The interesting bit is that the surrounding area is also conserved in all (tested) folks with blue eyes suggesting that they all share a common ancestor providing this mutation. However, as this analysis relies on testing of folks who are still alive, it obviously cannot tell us if there had been other mutations with the same phenotype or even independent cases of the same mutations.

I.e. we can say all currently living folks with blue eyes (who have been tested) have the same common ancestor, we we cannot say that there were no other cases of blue eyes in the past.

Thanks

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I can't remember what specifically prompted my response and don't consider it important enough to search for.

 

Okay. I thought you might have been replying to my post since you quoted it, and in the context of my post it was pretty ambiguous to say the least.

52 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It does not have to be. It is possible that other variants existed, but they vanished with this specific haplotype being the sole survivor.

I was only assuming a single common ancestor based on the claim in the link, I was going to later ask how that was known.

Is it determined that that specific haplotype can only have come from a single mutation event and not been duplicated by some other identical mutation rather than only from being passed on?

11 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They have survived. No filter sieved them out.

Hadn't realized they had all survived. They should interview that single common ancestor...

Or did you mean they all successfully reproduced....which is not quite as unlikely....

Or did you mean any that didn't...failed for some other reason...which is slightly plausible but impossible for you to know...

If you simply meant te relevant gene or genes survived, what in any of my posts might suggest it didn't?

There is certainly no evidence that the gene/s proliferated fully or equally everywhere.

Simply put, no evidence of any disadvantage is not evidence there is none.

On 12/23/2023 at 4:05 PM, iNow said:

Or simply living beneath it 

I literally laughed out loud...