YaDinghus

Since I'm in charge of music today at work, I put on the AC/DC collection

@Moontanman I'll concede that there were a few animals with a larger brain mass than we have now, and most Whales have larger Brains than we do now, too. Still, no Hands, so we haven't found anything in the fossil records that we would consider industry capable. What I was going at with the corpse preservation and the Darwin Award wasn't aimed at the point that there would be more human fossils, or of any other conjectured pre-human industrial society on earth, but that their intelligence wouldn't rule out them finding their way into the fossil record, because there are plenty of really stupid people. Plate tectonics sure would make detecting remnants of human society more difficult in the far future, but considering that we've discovered a rock that is older than 4 billion years, and we have found signs of life over 3.8 billion years old, I'm rather confident that a billion years from now, some evidence of our society should survive, and I'd even wager - if we could live that long to settle it - that you could still find ceramic shards or something leftover from LHC in Switzerland in 2 billion years. You know how many guns are at the grond of the Potomac? Btw Rivers are usually on continental plates, which aren't easily subducted tectonically. Plate tectonics isn't a magic eraser. The Sun turning into a red giant and enveloping the earth in it's upper strata, well that would do the trick.

Saw something about that on Scott Manley's yt channel

https://www.sciencealert.com/lightning-inside-ferocious-hurricane-blasted-beam-antimatter-earth-gamma-ray-flash-positrons/amp Hard core. They report having recorded gamma ray flashes with up to 20 MeV, which could have only been Matter-Antimatter annihilations. Since Positrons and Electron annihilate with 511 keV each, this is entirely possible. They're still unsure how exactly the positrons were created in the storm. My best guess would be that a few virtual electron-positron pairs were separated and the positrons were accelerated too fast toward the earth to interact with electrons in their vicinity. Well, just because it's my best guess doesn't mean it's a good one. I would love to read some input on my idea, and also some alternative ideas Edit: Scratch the virtual pair idea. I just thought of beta+ radiation, and according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen, 15O has a half life of 122.24s and is produced naturally when 'regular' high-energy lighning flashes knock a neutron out of the 16O nucleus

The fossil record to the best of my knowledge doesn't contain beings before H. Sapiens that have brain cavities large enough to have brains big enough to conceive machines, or hands with opposable thumbs to swing hammers. Now don't tell me industrial beings would be smart enough to avoid getting fossilized. First of all, we humans preserve our dead on purpose, and second of all, DARWIN AWARDS, ' nuff said. If human civilization on earth ceases to be a thing, and another race of intelligent beings look at our time on earth, it will be noticeable for a plethora of reasons. The rate of carbon emissions into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is unprecedented in the History of Life on Earth. We are in our own right a mass extinction event, driving animal and plant life that is not adapted to human cohabitation or parasitism to extinction - which will be evident in the fossil record as well as our waste and our machines. Even if only a hundredth of a percent make it into the fossil record, we would leave behind more 'machine fossils' than we've found dinosaur fossils... ever. I would expect something similar from any industrial civilization that might have preceeded us. Something that would definitely be found are all the murder weapons disposed in the rivers of our civilizations, because they are pretty much immediately covered by sediment - ideal conditions for preservation for anyone studying the Anthropocene in a few million years

public class Photon extends Particle{ Photon(double Wavelength, double Polarization){ super(0); //from Particle(double Mass) this.Wavelenght = Wavelength; this.Polarisation = Polarisation; } public double Wavelength; public double Polarisation; @Override public double Momentum(){ return Physics.Constants.h/Wavelength; } @Override public double Energy(){ return Momentum()*Physics.Constants.c; } } Bare bones class, doesn't contain interactions methods

I might buy the book just to see what it's all about. In principle, as others have stated, any code with regular expressions is crackeable. An infinity code would have to be an evolving code, where the key changes over time, but the instructions to create the key would have to be included in the code itself to be useful. Reminds me of DNA, btw, though it doesn't fulfill these requirements, either. If the key to the current transmission segment depended on the content of the previous transmission segment, that would certainly constitute an evolving code with a key included in the code. It would also seriously confuse code crackers, because the content of a message is pretty random, and cracking a 4096PGP encoded message is already sufficiently difficult to be considered secure communication. If you went even further and encoded every byte of information seeded with the previous unencoded byte, this would take it to an even higher level. But, in every case, you would still need to exchange the initial key somehow, because knowlege of the first transmission content would unravel the entire code, so no, this wouldn't satisfy an infinity code either. It's the closest my practical imagination can get right now

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor Excerpt 1: Occam's razor (also Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: lex parsimoniae "law of parsimony") is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions. Excerpt 2: In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models. Your Hypothesis: Photons carry energy (correct), have mass (incorrect), and therefore have electromagnetic properties and actions. Aside the fact that one of your facts are 50% wrong, I don't see how having energy and mass should infer that anything has electromagnetic properties and actions. Maybe this is some linguistic problem you're having, but if it isn't, there certainly is a logical problem. Now, Photons DO interact with matter via the electromagnetic interaction, heck, they are the transmitter bosons of the electromagnetic field, so again, you are partially right. Also, you're not saying anything that is new. "A photon is fundamentally very simple and can thus be described by a mechanical model." Photons don't have mass, yet they have momentum. This insight was worth a nobel prize (Albert Einstein's Photo Effect). Up until then, scientists believed light was only a wave. I'm being a little inaccurate here, because it was Einstein's introduction of the wave/particle dualism that earned him the Nobel Prize with his Photoeffect theory, not the insight that Photons have momentum without mass. Without wanting to be dogmatic, but overthrowing a principle that earned Albert Einstein a Nobel Prize is quite ambitious. "Photons are real and of course can thus be described in a realist manner, (rather than only mathematically or statistically)." Photons appear as real and as virtual particles. I don't know where you're going with this. "A photon has electromagnetic properties (i.e. electrical field and magnetic field), and has/is/carries energy. " Given the fact that Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field, yeah. Though they don't emit an electric or magnetic field of their own. Every particle has energy. That's fundamental. "These electromagnetic properties and their energy cause photons to interact with other photons in particular observable ways under certain circumstances. " The only photon-photon interaction that I know of is the interference of their waves. In 'A Brief History of Time", Hawking describes that Photons orbiting a black hole at the Schwarzschild Radius would 'interact' with eachother via the Pauli Exclusion principle. But because we know the speed of Photons with systematically 100% precision (invariance of the speed of light) their locations are extremely uncertain, and constricting them to a sphere around a singularity makes their location on the surface of this sphere even more uncertain - if I've understood Heisenberg correctly. What makes Photon-Photon mechanical interactions even more difficult is the fact that they don't have a diameter. There is no spatial crossection for a mechanical interaction. The simplicity of the photon that you mentioned before makes this literally impossible. "These electromagnetic properties also cause photons to interact with other particles/matter/fields in certain ways. " Yes, this is very well documented. Matter which interacts with photons is called visible or light matter, opposed to dark matter. "A description of photons as most likely being mechanically spinning dipole particles can fully explain the characteristics of light, including frequency, oscillation, wavelength, and polarization." But you run into Bohr's conundrum when he proposed the planetary model of the Atom. He had to axiomatically postulate that electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus don't radiate away their potential energy as light. You really need the complex math of Quantum Mechanics to get rid of this problem without just postulating stuff that otherwise contradicts classical mechanics. If you don't come up with some genius math, this hypothesis is basically dead in whatever medium it was trying to propagate through

Black holes are highly confusing even to the sharpest scientific minds, so I won't go and claim that I know all about them. I recently read an article in my google feed claiming that two mathematicians have disproved the cosmic censorship, but at the same time let GR and Penrose of the hook because SpaceTime inside a Black Hole was not continuous and therefore could not be described by GR (alone). As to what Black Holes are made of: How the hell should I know? Because of the unsmootheness of SpaceTime inside a Black Hole, it might very well be possible that fermions can't exist in a black hole. But there is no reason to assume that MUST be the case, because, well, we can't exactly reproduce unsmoothe Spacetime to observe it. We would have to be incredibly lucky to observe a naked singularity, which *might* exist somewhere in the universe. The reason why we believe that we need GUT to understand what goes on inside Black Holes is because the energy ought to be so densely packed - even if it's not a true singularity - that there would be a state of matter equivalent to the time before the first Planck Time of the universe elapsed, all forces joined in perfect symmetry. I think it's a pretty good approach, but Black Holes aren't symmetrical. They preserve Angular Momentum and Charge, so there's a chance that fermions do continue to exist beyond the Event Horizon, without the force merge. Black Holes clearly ARE objects, albeit very obscure objects. They even have a temperature: Hawking radiation is a radiation with a thermal distribution. The more massive a Black Hole is, the colder it gets (but their accretion disks tend to be hotter). I also read something about more massive Black Holes, while they have a larger Event Horizon, actually being smaller than less massive Black Holes. The more confined the mass inside them is, the more uncertain the momentum of the particles inside them, and because momentum has more degrees of freedom than location, this results in a higher energy on average per particle - hence more mass. This seems to contradict the prior statement of more massive Black Holes being cooler than less massive ones, but we can only measure the temperature at the Event Horizon, which still is bigger for more massive Black Holes, thus radiating over a much larger area. Also this at least would infer that there are particles inside the Black Hole with individual mass and momentum, though they could be purely virtual particles - emphasis on could. Now that I've condensed a few things of what we don't know about Black Holes, I think I'll go to bed. My head hurts...

Jack, on the one hand you say that a theory of everything would lead to the conclusion that a universe could be entirely simulated, on the other hand, you say the concept of a simulated universe is old as the hills. We don't know how far away we are from a theory of everything. But we've made plenty of universe simulations. The question in any simulation is always: how accurate can we make it? If the laws that we know are the only limits, then obviously, we could simulate the universe we inhabit with infallible accurracy if we had the theory of everything. In a different post, I argued that taking principles from one field of science and simply supplanting them to another field is amateurish and pseudoscientific, but the hell, we ARE in the speculation and pseudoscience section, so here goes: According to the equivalence principle from GR, a universe that is infallibly simulated IS a universe in its own right, and it would take a universe to simulate a universe infallibly. I don't know who here watches SFIA - Science and Futurism with Isaac Arthur - he uses a similar line of reasoning for simulated people and even civilizations. He also outlines some VERY GOOD reasoning for why anyone might simulate a universe, and more importantly why not, and I would like to refer you to his channel on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g). I particularly recommend Black Hole Farming from his supertopic Civilizations at the End of Time for this matter, but he gets back to this issue on many other episodes. What you will need to outline for me in more detail, Jack, is how exactly knowing 'everything' amounts to knowing 'nothing at all'.

I love twiddling and fiddling with calculations of this sort, and I've come up with all kinds of ways to make myself feel good about my body with math. One of the steps I took was the same as the one proposed by OP, but it wasn't quite satisfactory, because it still went out of scale. What I did next was examine some of the assumptions of the people who developed the BMI, and to me it seemed they were averaging men at 1.7m and women at 1.6m of height - the sizes at which the BMI tables for westerners apply best. So instead of just whopping up another .5 exponent on the size, I made it a factor of (1.7/h) For demonstration: Person weighing 107 kg at 193 cm Standard BMI: 28.73 Adjustment by OP: 20.68 My 'formula': 25.30 The deviation is not as extreme as with OP's formula, and let's face it: people with the size I used as an example have a healthy glow in their cheeks, and are definitely too heavyset for military service without being significantly overweight i.e. expecting health issues. Because 20.68 would mean they are in perfect shape to be shipped out to wherever the USA sends them these days. Though, as I've mentioned above, I did this to feel better about myself when I wasn't working out much and eating too much junk food, just to avoid breaking with my habits, and not to make a 'better' BMI formula. I neither have the resources nor the training to seriously make a better BMI formula...

I think you're getting a bit mixed up here. One of the biggest 'sins' of recent history was social darwinism, an amateurishly pseudoscientific justifucation to treat women and non-whites as slaves or even aim for their eradication (obviosly not women). Lending from theories on genetic evolution to moral discussions is, as aforementioned, dangerous and amateurish.

I have a feeling you don't exactly know where you want to go from here, yourself. That makes it kinda hard to strike a discussion, and a good one is also pretty hard to imagine from this point on. You could say, for this reason, that an 'agenda of the creator' is a necessity for a good discussion. Or ist it? I can't be sure, because a good discussion arising at this point would be proof against the necessity of the creators agency, whereas this good discussion NOT arising isn't automatic proof of the necessity. On the turn, a universe in which there are beings to question the nature of the universe is not evidence of the necessity of the agency of a creator. Just because an active creator would most certainly (assumingly) want to create a universe containing intelligent observers, doesn't mean it couldn't happen without a creators agency.

History is full of hidden variables, which is why we can recognize patterns and guess at trends, but the further ahead you want to tell or even control the future, and the grander the scale the more difficult it becomes. This is independent of physical determinism on any scale, though only the quantum scale is disputed, and also independent of free will. The reality of muy being is not dependent on determinism, and the ability of any conscious entity to do anything isn't, either (aside from physical limitations). One measure of power might be the ability to influence the future, but this can only be done in retrospect and with knowledge of the agent's intentions and how they line up with the events that transpired

I just imagined a 'square circle', but it's kind of a stretch of the term 'square'. Bear with me: squares and circles are two-dimensional geometric forms, naturally. A circle is a cornerless object with all points being the same distance from the centet. Cornerlessness means there is no continuity break in the direction of the line drawn, a circle graph has a continuous derivative, while a square, having corners, doesn't. This is a very big problem in making a square circle. In euclidian geometry. Even in non-euclidian space, the definitions of square and circle must hold. A circle remains a continuous loop with all points equidistant from the center, only the circumference-diameter ratio changes. A square remains four enclosing sides (straight lines) of equal length touching at their ends under the same angle. What changes in non-euclidian geometry is the angle under which the ends of these lines touch. To make the square a circle, we need to create a warped plane on which the sides of the square meet so they form a continuous loop instead of corners. One example of making a square a circle under these conditions is the equator of a sphere

By Volume, you definitely want to go up the periodic table for reducing agents. Period 7 Metals readily give up lots of electrons and they're extremely compact. But, well, they're heavy, and unlike Hydrogen (which will shed ALL of it's electrons), you need to put lots of Energy into getting all Electrons off any Lanthanide, and you can get much more energy out of them much easier with non-chemical methods (fission), and fissionable material is much more dangerous than most of their fission products - the problem with removing fission products i.e. nuclear waste is mainly a problem because the people profiting from it are not charged with responsibly removing it in the USA, THE BIGGEST USER AND PROVIDER OF FISSION ENERGY. But now we're getting political. As for oxidising power by volume, you're probaly looking at some kind of C-N polymer with hyposulfonic or phosphoric acid groups attached to it. It shuld be reasonable safe for use, too, until it gets close to an electron donator