joigus

You don't need LQG to prove BHs have entropy. The first historical proof was actually a mix between thermodynamic and quantum arguments. Also, you seem confused between the entropy of a BH and the entropy of "particles on their way into a BH." Those are different. You seem to identify "entropy" with "mistakes." Because a portal to another universe would require some control on the parameters of the spaceship going into it. How would we be able to control its direction? Is something like that your question? OTOH, BHs as portals to other universes --or regions of the universe-- is still an open question in physics, so we're not sure they are actually possible. Gravity is not a part of the current laws of particle physics. It's something pretty much "adjoined" to the standard model of particle physics. ------ PS: I had edited this last night and some comments have already been posted very much in the direction I was going.

Looks to me like a redox reaction that you have to balance by identifying how many electrons are transferred from what ion to what ion, and then accounting for H2O ions depending on whether you are in an acid or basic solution. This is called the ion-electron balancing method. The acid --in this case-- or the base in others, is there to tell you that you must balance by using protons. Bases balance by using OH- ions. Is this homework?

Thanks, Phi, especially for "intact". That completely threw me off. Signals from atoms can be obtained without need of ionizing them. That's what an MRI does, for example, in which oscillating magnetic fields get the atom to radiate at low --non-ionizing-- frequencies. There are many other kind of signals you can get from atoms without ionizing them --making them lose their electrons--. Most of those signals from atoms are radiation of different frequencies. In the other case that you mention: More or less, yes. But in this case it's a metal. A metal can be conceived of as many atoms forming a common "molecule" --a metallic crystal-- in which the internal electrons --called valence electrons-- are close to their nuclei, while the conduction electrons form a common quantum highway --a conduction orbital--. Metals have a strong tendency to lose their outer electrons. But they can't get too far off. As you say, the light is due to the conduction electrons finding resistance and heating up the filament, rather than the glass. The glass is heated because it's so close to all this action.

Round?

Frequency of certain quantum states has nothing to do with the frequency of certain quantum events. It's just another way of saying "energy." I agree with Studiot that you gave a reasonably good account of some features of special relativity. But then you jumped somewhere I don't quite see.

I've noticed the same bug. Thanks for pointing it out.

Sorry, I don't understand your question. A waste of time? That's not a physical concept. This doesn't sound like a speculation. It seems to me you're asking a question. We'll help you rephrase, as clearly something's bothering you. In particular, I don't understand what you mean by "surging" or by "stay intake".

You're right. You did say so. I'm missing the second purely electrical one...

As @studiot said, there are two sign criteria. One for charges and another for magnetic fields with respect to currents --the right-hand rule--. It is a technical difficulty to be sure, but nothing measurable depends on it.

Oh, you can't possibly be this stupid. I'm not going to answer the other deliberately idiotic response you gave me in the other thread either. Bye.

They shouldn't, as they aren't. And there you go again with base 10. Base 10 tells you nothing about a number. There's absolutely nothing "seven" in number "seventeen", for example. They are as much unrelated numbers as can be. Seems like you just don't want to know.

They are portions of one. x-posted with Koti.

Everything is elementary-particle based. The Iguazu falls are atomic-based too, but they can be approximately understood without appealing to quantum mechanics. The phenomena that we pointed out to you can't.

The thing about inter-stellar communication is that you must wait there for an answer for such an awfully long time that there is no prospect of anything in the way of a meaningful conversation. It wouldn't be "hey, we're here" as much as, "hey, we were here at some point".

Cells are generally replaced --except most neurons-- because they are the functional units. Chromosomes aren't. Chromosomes are packages of genetic material in gametes, which are haploid cells --some kind of random selection of half the organism's genes. Gametes in males are very much expendable. In females, they are more costly, but still. Gametes are cells for export, so to speak --I mean sex--, so they don't need to be replaced. When cells release stress signals --chemicals that inform about something not being quite right in them-- they are disposed of, so you can imagine that the genetic material inside is at least as expendable. I hope that helped. This is kind of my lowdown of the story. An expert will give you a more accurate picture. Edit: Welcome to the forums, Salik.

The way I see it, purpose does exist in the universe, but it is an emergent property. Intelligent beings have purpose because they have goals. The universe has no goal, as far as we can tell. It's no wonder that we, intelligent beings, have a tendency to see purpose everywhere.

I'm familiar with a shorter version of it, "brute force", as synonym of a not-very-refined method of solving a problem. As in, "instead of trying to find a clever change of variables, we may try to solve the equation by brute force." All I remember from neural networks is that it was about implementing an algorithm for "machine learning". The machine is involved in a repeated process of trial and error and the statistical weight are optimised. Something like that. @Ghideon --and other users too-- is the expert. Solving a jigsaw puzzle is kind of a paradigmatic problem for machine learning, as well as many other processes in which recognition of shapes and colours plays a part (texts in different fonts, etc.) I consider the thread very interesting, and I'm here to learn really.

Do I sense a time paradox?

This sounds like a problem for AI, which is, I think, what Ghideon suggests. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk024nbBjc0bqbgZWN7Uiy_NzGaWpzA%3A1609506166041&ei=dh3vX-GIAo32gAbnwKGoAw&q=ai+jigsaw+puzzle+solver&oq=ai+jigsaw+puzzle+solver

conspiracy theorist a person who believes in conspiracy theories conspiracy theory the belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event I don't think Einstein can be called a conspiracy theorist in any sense. He was a theorist of the highest calibre. Science has nothing to do with goose stepping. There are discussions, arguments going back and forth, different approaches and interpretations. Well established areas of science may look to the novice as goose stepping. They are just agreement, bundled together by evidence.

Neutrons are most stable inside the nucleus.

There would be lots of diffraction. Direction would change considerably. Photon ending up just about anywhere. In vacuum photons don't change rapidity. In medium, they do, according to refraction index.

I won't, that's for my notebook for the time being. The equation doesn't make sense anyway. I'm having fun with the mathematical problem. I've re-derived the eqs. for hyperbolic motion, which I had forgotten, in case I need to explain them later. Your mathematical problem can be solved under assumptions of which you have provided no information. You haven't clarified whether \( T \) is proper time or coordinate time. Your equation makes dimensional sense if \( c=1 \) and all velocities are dimensionless. But you haven't said that, creating a lot of confusion. It's implied on your blog, though --see below--, when you say, If you choose velocities as dimensionless, you're OK, because a t-dependent parameter that appears in solving the eq. is, \[ \left[\frac{FT}{M}\right]=MLT^{-2}\times T\times M^{-1}=LT^{-1} \] Another thing you haven't clarified is whether force, velocity and acceleration are collinear. I have assumed that, because you should first tackle that one before getting into other cases. I've had to go through different hypotheses, like constant 4-force (derivative of 4-momentum with respect to proper time), constant rate of energy supply; \( T \) being proper time or \( T \) being coordinate inertial time. I've tried to study all the cases you could fork into. Something you should understand is that there is no universal character to how a particle moves under given circumstances. The law of motion is not a universal law under different assumptions for \( F \); it's just how that particle is moving under given circumstances. The key assumption seems to be \( F = \) constant. That is not universal. That just represents how you decide to push the particle. On your blog, advertising link removed by moderator where I've finally been able to take a look at your "derivation", I've been able to spot a couple more mistakes. There's no such thing as Lorentz mass dilation formula. And saying that energy is always force times distance is grossly mistaken. Also mistaken is assuming that momentum rate of change can be taken to be \( \frac{MV}{T} \). Neither can anything depend on \( \frac{V-V_0}{T-T_0} \) --finite differences-- in the equation of motion, because of well-known symmetry properties. This question of symmetry properties I leave for Markus, because he's the one dealing with that aspect on this thread.

What a goblet of nonsense! No. But people have. I remember a conversation with J.M.R. Parrondo years ago. I loved Feynman's work, but he didn't seem to find it so fascinating, for some reason. He was busy finding flaws in it. Apparently he found one in the chapter on thermodynamics and the ratchet, and that's what led him to Parrondo's paradox. My take on it is that even in error, Feynman was incredibly inspiring.