DanTrentfield

Thanks Strange! 

Also, I must beg the question, even though as you said it is a 'given', what causes the universe to expand in the first place, not to mention the accelerating expansion that I forgot to mention. 

I personally think that it could be that the expansion isn't really "expansion" per-se in the way that most people think of it, yes the universe is expanding but it's really more of the shockwave of the big bang is continuing to go outwards and space is duplicating itself and more visible light is appearing to us, and this can happen in a variety of ways ranging from thinly supported hypothesis above to extremely exotic methods such as it being a side effect of gravity or another force which has a strange and currently unrecognized side affect. (Because if Newtons third law is universally correct then there should be something weird going on due to gravity existing as each force should have it's equal and opposite according to the law). Also: To support the big rip theory, could it be that the great void in the cosmos (The area where there is nothing, no light, no stars, no radiation, nothing) is a piece of rips beginning to appear and expanding slowly over billions if not trillions of years from continual duplication of space? And that the universe is actually a lot more fragmented than we think? Because light from that far away takes hundreds of millions to billions of years to reach us, then that means the universe could literally be in like six pieces and we would not know it, if the big rip theory is correct. 

So I had an interesting thought, what if instead of the universe expanding due to an unknown cause it is expanding due to something right under our noses? What if the universe is one constant size but the things beyond it's 'boundary' are invisible to us because their light has not reached us yet? There could be a way to account for redshift in ways other than straight expansion due to an unknown cause,. This sounds absolutely preposterous and most likely is, but what if photons produced a warping effect on space? Tiny wakes for each photon, this could explain why Dark energy causes 'expansion' and how such an amazing amount of energy exists at all, because imagine that each and every photon produced a tiny wake and lump that combine energy together. If this proves to be true it could be that the universe is not expanding at all is expanding due to photon wakes and that these tiny photon wakes are warping and increasing the distance between say us and the moon or any points by stretching space a tiny bit. Imagine when you fill the balloon up with water that this represents the effect of the photon wakes despite the fact that the balloon, and that could account for redshift. 

Now I must ask a series of questions regarding that thought, please answer to the best of your ability:

A. What do you think of the thought? It's just a shower thought really but I found it interesting.

B. Given each photon produces a wake, then there must be a way to physically measure that amount of energy based on displacement at the speed of light.

C. Is there a way to hypothetically calculate the number of photons in the universe?

D. Given each photon produces a wake, and the amount of displacement at the speed of light equals the quantity of dark energy in the observable universe, what would this mean?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

So the effects of (special) relativity can be described as a rotation between one of the spatial dimensions and the time dimension. So you "swap" some length for time. Don't know if that helps... 

Hm. Interesting. Any good links to describe this?

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hmmmm Not sure I see your point. On the other hand, we do live in the four-dimensions of space-time. 

My point is this: If time is relative and the rate of the passage of time can be changed via a change in velocity then would we not exist in a fourth dimensional space as it is traditionally described? I may just be confusing how GR works with things with my own understanding of time, but I am trying to discern the nature of how time passage is affected by speed. It is an interesting thought to me. 

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

There are good reasons to thinks we don't

The lack of observable shadows is one such.

Poincare had another topological one.

Yes indeed the lack of observable shadows is an excellent counter argument. But I guess I should have explained my thought a bit better. Say we exist in a giant three dimensional sphere that is expanding in accordance with Hubble's Law, and say that this entire sphere was contained within a four dimensional sphere that is different from an n-sphere in the fact that it is non-Euclidian, would this not be the fourth dimension which we exist in by consequence of existing in the third dimension which exists in the fourth? And I do not imply that dimensions are like universes, more like empty boxes which have dimensions by which everything exists (E.g. two dimensions has x and y, three dimensions has x, y, z). Where we are represented as a three dimensional object in four dimensions because we exist by X, Y, and Z, and cannot change our place in T (Time I guess?) because we have mass, we can change the rate at which T progresses around us, but we cannot change T itself because T is a property of the fourth dimensional space which our three dimensional universe exists in, and our universe is described in X, Y, Z, and T, but it remains three dimensional in the physical sense. 

On 11/15/2016 at 9:30 AM, Butch said:

Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time.

 

Would you refer to this space as flat or curved?

And for our next trick I present to you, Door number three! (AKA Hubble's law). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html 

A successful science paper often contains 1% idea and 99% evidence. Please cite some evidence besides a statement Einstein made, like at least some math or genuine scientific papers investigating the phenomenon you are describing. 

1 hour ago, Butch said:

The evidence for those postulates is confined by the relative universe.

They are postulates, because nothing in science is fact.

It perhaps is time for you to think on those charts and try to understand so that we can move on. I am pretty sure that you are the rare breed that does not confine themselves to learning, teaching and verifying... You want to explore.

If nothing in science is fact then nothing is fact. Which means I'm a super rich dude with a mansion an a garage full of cars that cost five million a piece, which I am clearly not. 

Physical laws and scientific theories can never be 100% confirmed because you could never observe 100% of the scenarios where it could be observed. To doubt the fact that is in science is like doubting you have a hand. 

On 10/17/2017 at 8:12 PM, Schizo@play said:

 I was talking about the pain of living and suriving which is endured in a lifetime. What I call toxic happiness.   

Good is subjective term by the way. 

Also if you have issue with a persons writing or typing p.m. them the grievance please.

 

Good is a subjective term just as is suffering. Suffering can be quantifiable in hundreds of unique forms. Pain is also subjective because it is again, quantifiable in hundreds of different unique forms. If you play the game of "Let's take what I said out of context" then the birds will turn on you fast. 

Keeping what I said in context: Good as definable by a positive influence which humans have had on animals in the fact that hundreds if not thousands of species are carefully preserved pampered and given treatment they'd never receive in the wild. Suffering cannot be stopped, cruelty will always endure as long as kindness does, this is because the world is a giant contrast to itself. 

Also, morality is relative, that's why some people think murder is perfectly acceptable and that's also why we put those blokes in prison. Morality is also personal.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But they can each be represented in one and two dimensions respectively. So,although they can be represented in 3 dimensions, they don't need to be.

Doesn't that imply, by induction, that three dimensional motion can be represented by 1,000,000 dimensions?

Yes, but I was establishing the base dimensional thought which supports the idea that we may exist in four dimensions. Which is the second dimension is composed of the first, and so first dimensional motion can be represented in two dimensions though, like you said it does not need to be. 

An interesting thought, since one dimensional motion and two dimensional motion can be represented in three dimensions, can three dimensional motion not be represented in four since a fourth dimensional object is always going to be composed of three dimensional components? An interesting thought is that if we  exist in four dimensions is that once we exceed the speed of light time will move backwards, (Because citation counts: according to wikipedia: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. But the geometry of spacetime, being non-Euclidean, is profoundly different from that popularised by Hinton.) but we would never observe time moving backwards because objects with mass cannot exceed C. An interesting notion on this thought would be the strange nature of black holes, and how nothing can escape them, this could be an example of fourth dimensional objects existing in three dimensional space, as time itself seems to stop at the event horizon (Though we do not know what the hell happens past that). Finally time dilation could be an example of fourth dimensional motion in a supposed three dimensional space, as speed has an inverse effect on time, with the speed of light most likely being the tipping point where things move backwards. All in all since time itself seems relative to speed I'd say that it is a possibility that we may exist in four dimensions though we characterize ourselves in three dimensions. Much further research is needed to provide any conclusive evidence and I think that would be an excellent thing for myself to work out whenever I have time off from work.

That's enough crackpottery for me! See you all around.

Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What about believing something you've thoroughly researched and studied? If you knew everything humans currently know about X, wouldn't your beliefs about X be much more than assumption? At some point, doesn't a belief that's backed up by mountains of evidence become trustworthy?

Agh, *Phi for All uses literalism! It is very effective!*. Yes. 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure that there is really any evidence for or against it. It is a possible consequence of some big bang models.

One thing I agree with Dubbelosix about is that it is (currently) unfalsifiable. But I don't think that means it should be discounted or considered to be wrong. (I am actually not particularly interested in it for that reason, though.)

It might be that a quantum theory of gravity sheds more light on the early universe. That might make a multiverse model more or less plausible. I think it is one of those things we can never have direct evidence of, but it might seem be an inevitable consequence of some future theory. Or the reverse. (It is all too speculative for me to care much either way!)

I agree completely. 

In case you hadn't noticed by the number of internet rules and self proclaimed "trolls" there are, the internet brings out the absolute worst most perverse and downright awful side of humanity. 

Please note that this discussion is not to simply "diss" humanity, it is a legitimate intellectual discussion started by me to discuss thoughts on why this is using rational thought; in other words this is no place for politics or any hotheaded spewings about how you, like everyone else are treated quite poorly online. 

I personally think that it comes down to this: Anonymity basically turns off inhibitors that keep all that nasty irrational anger and perverse thoughts and allows us to express them while remaining, well anonymous. This is not an argument against internet anonymity, frankly I don't want someone snooping through my credentials and sizing me up to be robbed every time I post something, and I'm pretty sure you don't either, not to mention people looking through things about you. Which is why we have anonymity on the internet. But my thought stands. 

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn't that about the Many Worlds interpretation, not the multiverse?

You teach me much.

26 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You can believe what you want of course. No one can take that away from you.

"I don't believe in anything" Why? Belief is assumption with a fancy tag on it. Assumption is not bad when used correctly, but it can be quite misleading.

                                                                                                   ^

                                                                        Is often riddled with assumption

10 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I didn't say you were, and if you found me simplistic in my answer I am sorry, I am not here to offend anyone. 

There is no multiverse... scientists right now are now questioning things like inflation, only because it is leading to crazy megaverses, as Susskind calls them. Though it seems like Susskind is open to the idea, I have had him quote he tends to think the universe is a holograph, but he is a bold thinker anyway. The general feeling with some good scientists is something is definitely wrong with theories that cannot be falsified: Take to date, this is after the discovery of possible cosmic bruising... it just doesn't ring true and where do you go from there?

To me, defecse of multiverse will shade into the likes of those who defended anti-Darwinism, 

 

Offended? Hardly. I am a student, to be the butt of jokes and to make grievous mistakes is my job because it is how you learn.

Yes indeed. I agree with the notion that this is quite similar to defending anti-Darwinism. It is pointless. 

But, I want to preserve this notion of a multiverse as a possibility because there is insignificant information on both sides to support a conclusion of either case, and there is so much left to learn about the universe that we will probably never find this out. So it is best not dismiss the possibility of something you have little to no information on, because that, much like the mumbo jumbo of my sleepily written OP, is assumption.

8 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Lovely... If you didn't start the topic, I eventually would have started the topic against. I will add something as soon as I can, I take my time, not because I have it though lol

Ok just read some of it... oh dear...  

I read middle earth, had a mind-shock, saw the eye of Sauron only once.

I am not a raving frothing madman. I actually am a chemist. But if you follow my rather convoluted train of thought (This was written on little sleep) I basically say this:

Blah blah, the thought experiment of quantum immortality (assuming it is true) supports the multiverse theory in the circumstance of if you stop time you are left with all the possibilities left over from the last moment before you stopped time, forming a nearly limitless number of realities which may occur but have not. Which is the main thought of this. The rest of the post as I have found, is mumbo jumbo, as I had not slept in a while due to someone giving me a paper to write on War and Peace. 

My apologies, but no. And frankly you should work on your writing a little. 

Humans, much like the animals they consider themselves above have a deeply ingrained instinct of: Survive. 

This means that since animals consume resources which means there is less to go around for humans, and because humans have hunted and eaten animals for thousands of years that we will most likely never treat them that way. 

Besides who wants to give up tasty hamburgers after studying hard for your english lit class you hate but want to excel in? 

Finally, human nature, which can be broken down to: Reproduce, make better tools and better surroundings for the next generation, and fight potential threats off. Doesn't really allow for that. If you've ever played a game called Factorio https://factorio.com/ this game basically breaks down what humans do to a stupid simple level, minus reproduce for obvious reasons. Build, pave that forest floor after chopping it down, and crush those stupid bugs (Or animals) who get in my way. 

Yes, we suck, but look at all the good things humanity has done to counter this.

On 10/9/2017 at 1:49 PM, Area54 said:

In no particular order:

• Would you mind calling it a hypothesis, rather than a theory? I'm reasonably sure it is not a theory.
• Could you provide relevant citations for your first two bulleted points?
• On the third bullet point, are you trying to describe the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics?
• If you were meaning Many Worlds, then in what way do you think it has any bearing on a multiverse hypothesis? (Hint: it probably doesn't)

It is not mine to call a theory. I did not conceive the multiverse theory, or hypothesis, or whatever it is called officially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (I must have been mistaken, I thought the multiverse theory was an official theory.) I just wish there wasn't so much religious and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo surrounding this.

Yes indeed, this is the best I could find about Steven Hawking's prediction of the universe being originally a black hole, in which case my citation of that may be incorrect, if so, my apologies. http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

No, specifically this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality as each action produces a different reality according to this, or at least that is what my interpretation of this is. I may once again be incorrect, but that goes without saying as this notion of quantum immortality is a thought experiment. 

Once again, I did not mean the many worlds hypothesis or theory, I was just noting that since time is often thought of as a differential, that if you "magically" stopped time you would be left with a nearly limitless number of possibilities that coexist because the possibility of anything happening is still present, but nothing is occurring. This is merely my thought on the multiverse hypothesis because it seems that it is both under-documented and the times that it is documented there is very little rational thought backing it. Though this is taking into the assumption that the aforementioned thought experiment is true, which it most likely is not. 

All in all, I merely posted this because I believe it shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because while there is almost no evidence whatsoever to support this, there is an equal lack of convincing evidence against it. We just don't know at this point, which is why I initiated this dialogue.

On 10/9/2017 at 1:03 PM, DanTrentfield said:

So, I've heard this many times: "Those who believe in the multiverse theory either come from a non scientific background and are usually crackpots." But I want to say this: I don't believe in anything.

So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory.

 

• Steven Hawking has theorized if not nearly proven that the universe once existed as a black hole, this raises many questions on how this black hole came to be, namely where did it get all that mass from? Matter doesn't simply pop into existence and for as much matter as we have in our universe, that's a helleva beastly black hole. 
• There are some specks of evidence and theories out there that predict that a five dimensional star collapsed and spawned the universe or something along those lines, which suggest that our universe isn't alone (Fermi's Paradox also kinda suggests this if the universe can be considered a living being ).
• The theory of Quantum immortality predicts realities which are units much like ticks in a video game where one single action occurs which causes a new reality in which that change is applied, but at the same time all the possibilities for what that action could be exist as realities as well. 

Given this, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of a multiverse, but there are so many different things we have yet to learn about the universe that the true discovery of such a multiverse (If it exists) is probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. However an interesting point: Every single theory you can possibly come up with is true if Quantum immortality is true, because following the line of thought of one action creates a reality, then because of the nearly infinite (if not infinite) number of actions that are possible any such reality you can conceive exists, but you do not exist in it. However, that does not mean that any of those realities you think of exist, or that any theories of a multiverse you think of are true, because of one important fact: We live in our reality, not Tolkien's Middle Earth, or George Lucas' (He created it though he is dead to me) Star Wars, or your reality of whatever the hell it is. This is possible because existence and by consequence scientific fact  is only relevant to the reality it is in, therefore my theory of the universe being a multiverse would never be applicable to another universe because it is confined to my knowledge of this universe, and I would never have knowledge of the physical laws or the reality of the prospective "Other Universe". 

And I messed up on the wording "therefore my theory"

                                                                               ^

                                                                            The

So, I've heard this many times: "Those who believe in the multiverse theory either come from a non scientific background and are usually crackpots." But I want to say this: I don't believe in anything.

So yes, the multiverse theory has no where near as many points of evidence with it as against it, but I'd like you to look at a few points I think are relevant to the theory.

• Steven Hawking has theorized if not nearly proven that the universe once existed as a black hole, this raises many questions on how this black hole came to be, namely where did it get all that mass from? Matter doesn't simply pop into existence and for as much matter as we have in our universe, that's a helleva beastly black hole. 
• There are some specks of evidence and theories out there that predict that a five dimensional star collapsed and spawned the universe or something along those lines, which suggest that our universe isn't alone (Fermi's Paradox also kinda suggests this if the universe can be considered a living being ).
• The theory of Quantum immortality predicts realities which are units much like ticks in a video game where one single action occurs which causes a new reality in which that change is applied, but at the same time all the possibilities for what that action could be exist as realities as well. 

Given this, I think there is some evidence to support the existence of a multiverse, but there are so many different things we have yet to learn about the universe that the true discovery of such a multiverse (If it exists) is probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. However an interesting point: Every single theory you can possibly come up with is true if Quantum immortality is true, because following the line of thought of one action creates a reality, then because of the nearly infinite (if not infinite) number of actions that are possible any such reality you can conceive exists, but you do not exist in it. However, that does not mean that any of those realities you think of exist, or that any theories of a multiverse you think of are true, because of one important fact: We live in our reality, not Tolkien's Middle Earth, or George Lucas' (He created it though he is dead to me) Star Wars, or your reality of whatever the hell it is. This is possible because existence and by consequence scientific fact  is only relevant to the reality it is in, therefore my theory of the universe being a multiverse would never be applicable to another universe because it is confined to my knowledge of this universe, and I would never have knowledge of the physical laws or the reality of the prospective "Other Universe". 

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have the feeling that you are not complaining about the type of assignment per se. Rather, it seems the essence that you have to do something that is not fun to you. In that regard, it is a decent preparation for a life after a degree. 

Writing, btw., is an incredibly transferable skill and there is always room for improvement. It seems that your goal is "good enough", which is fair and it does not seem that you get the most out of it. However, I am certain there are many who write very well, but continue to improve by testing their ability for critical reading of dense literature and their ability to synthesize their thoughts into an enjoyable essay. 

Right you are. I am merely bruised and sore of having to write essays.

20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Are you complaining because of having to read book, or you are complaining because of having to write essay about it.. ?

This book has 1000-1300 pages (from what I can see on Amazon). It's 1000 pages/30 pages read per hour = 33+ hours of reading.. I feel your pain here..

(maybe schools should start from learning fast reading techniques first.. ?)

 

Well, every student has stronger and weaker areas. One of the role of schools is to enhance people in their weaker areas.

I think book to read should be known prior semester, so student will be able to read them during summer time, 2h per day multiplied by 60 days is 120h. Enough for reading 120h * 30pages/h = 3600 pages of books.

 

I'm complaining because I have to write another essay..... I love writing technical papers on science but when it comes to this..... Blah.... it frankly infuriates me to no end how no matter how well I write these same kinds of assignments keep showing up like ghosts in a nightmare, long thick book, equally taxing essay expectations, grammar Hitler professor (He is that bad...), all to fulfill credits for a degree that doesn't have anything to do with this. 

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I sincerely doubt that. Among my colleagues there are only a handful that can write really well. And those happen to be those that actually are doing a lot more writing than the rest of us (e.g. text books vs regular papers and grant applications). Even in more mundane and simple writing exercises (I mean lab protocols rather than actual papers) only a handful of students get things alright without significant amount of coaching. Those that did well often had creative writing or lit classes. So while you may not benefit from it,  there are others who do. 

I was attempting to prove the point that yes, I can write a paper just fine. "Perfect" is the incorrect term I agree, but I can write papers just as well as anyone else in my class, what begs the need for my writing to be unrealistically good? I can write well enough to make even the most technical of reports quite engaging, or so my chemistry professor says. I get the point of people benefit from this, but that's where the inability of schools to recognize the proficiencies and deficiencies of students in one area versus another comes in, for example I can write these things just fine, 85-95% grade average. But my reasoning is, why is education one size fits all? If we're spending so much money on sending people to college (I have a scholarship myself) then why don't we create a dynamic system that changes what courses you do and don't have to take to a reasonable degree? I think the whole reason why I posted this is because I'm pissed that this is my 17th year of education and I'm still writing the exact same kind of paper on just a larger denser book. And thinking how all these people in my class have to write this as well and among them there are only two or three people who honestly need this instruction. I am frankly overwhelmed because this cuts into my study time for other classes which means I have to get up at 3:30 to finish up work for chemistry that is due tomorrow. 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I agree that technical people are not usually philistines who need force feeding some culture and I thought that this hangover from the days of arts softening was dying out. +1

 

Do you get a choice of liberal studies and does it affect your marks or progress?

Yeah, I thought the residual force feeding of arts was dying out too. 

Well, to put my "choice" simply: I have to take a lit class because it gives me the credit hours I need. And it was this, or liberal arts because all the other classes for extra credits are full.

Today is the s***iest day of the semester. I got the assignment of writing an interpretative essay on War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. So raising the question: Why is this "necessary" for a chemistry degree? What do I learn from it? Better writing skills? No. I have no need to "perfect" my writing skills because I can write perfectly well already. The degree of "Writing perfection" that schools demand is preposterous and frankly whoever thought "Let's make students who don't give a flaming flying pigs**t about perfecting their writing write long essays that have been written millions of different ways for no intensive purpose whatsoever" should be drawn and quartered if they are still alive. This wastes my time, I could be researching kinds of cytokines and biochemistry applications to begin to fathom a way to carve out a living for myself. But no, you get War and Peace. Why do I need to "prove myself"? Why are people wasting my time by force feeding me laborious literature when I've proven I'm not a useless idiot? And to what end, what do they hope to accomplish? Education comes through curiosity about the world and how it works, that's why I was obsessed with radiation and nuclear weaponry and power applications at age 7, when I first picked up a book called Great disasters of history and saw the mushroom cloud from Castle Bravo and the terrible effects of the radiation wrought by Chernobyl. The inability of the educational system to recognize proficiency and deficiency in students will be the end of me, not everyone is equal intellectually, as not everyone has an IQ of 60 or an IQ of 230. I can see continual mathematics because it is a linear field, but there is excess writing, excess moral study, and not enough actual history, and not enough scientific exposure. 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There are some theoretical possibilities from a quark star to a preon star. It would appear there is a official possibility.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N6946-BH1

 

Most intriguing. It appears I may after all be partially correct in my assumption that this isn't something we have seen before. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it's mc^2

the mass of matter and its antimatter partner is, as far as we know, equal

Hah! Thought I didn't screw up. 

So say we have one atom of Helium, and one atom of anti-Helium, when they come into contact the total energy produced should be equal to this (If I didn't fudge on the calculations which is why I'm asking this): where mH is moles Helium, mAH is moles Anti-Helium, mMH is the molar mass of Helium, and mMAH is the molar mass of Anti-Helium. I just was bored so I decided to try to come up with a formula for calculating the total energy of an atom, and I chose helium for whatever reason. 

On 8/15/2017 at 4:14 AM, Area54 said:

Since all he did was ask a question, how do you arrive at the conclusion he was almost certainly wrong?

 

Meanwhile, back on topic, Dan said " I personally believe that this could have formed a body with density close to that of a neutron star but without the necessary density to initiate neutron formation, a failed neutron star if you will. "

Dan, do you have any quantitative data to support this belief?

Of course not. That is speculation upon my part because I find the idea intriguing and curiosity gets the better of me. If anything this is most likely possible however the actual outcome of being a "Failed neutron star" would be far different than I would ever predict. It would probably turn into a black dwarf or a very strange white dwarf with unstable outer layers. I rest my point as I have too little experience and information in terms of cosmology and astronomy to make an accurate hypothesis upon this at current, so please excuse my speculation.

Just now, swansont said:

Or perhaps the Hotel Hilbert in this particular case.

Hah. Damn you mods sure have good memory. I admire your fun poking.