joigus

Posting videos is not against the forum rules. Posting standalone videos in a discussion OP with no further explanation is.

This is a sophism. I made no claim. I said you are presenting insufficient arguments. And you are, if at all. And I'm being very lenient at that. It's you who's making the big claims. Prove them. In the Hadith that you quote --without external reference to a reliable source in English of the Sayings of the Prophet, so that people can check it--, a donkey, a smoking mountain, etc. are mentioned. Where are they in the picture? Where is the satellite? Do you not agree with the translation from Latin Annuit coeptis as the implorative expression "favor our undertakings"? Your assertions are completely delirious. The onus is on you. Bring (it on)!

Yeah, it's possible that's what they mean. I haven't watched the video though. I do remember one other report of small anisotropies having to do with charge, which is amazing, even for small anisotropies. It wouldn't surprise me a lot if some day, some small deviation from the general Copernican principle were found that could have an anthropic explanation. Certainly the Earth must enjoy some blessings in a context of cosmic violence. And the religious conclusions are out of the question. Thank you for the valuable info.

This is the real Plank-satellite picture: Show me the axis.

Maybe you're right. I haven't studied the Big Rip conjecture in any detail. Right now I must confess I fail to see how it would affect the subatomic scales. Is that a claim of the theory? As the Hubble parameter is not really a velocity, but comes from a stretching out of the \( dt^2 \) term over \( da^2 \) term in the metric, for any finite value of, \[H \left( t \right) = \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\] \( \dot{a} \) must go to zero when \( a \) goes to zero. But maybe you could have a sizable \( \dot{a} \) for \( a \) of subatomic scale... I do remember Lenny Susskind dismissing the 'Big Rip' idea on similar grounds to what I'm saying here, but he did make some disclaimer at the end. I don't remember. You probably have a much more accurate picture of this than I do. PD: My intuition is that the whole set of gauge fields would re-scale with the rest of space-time and the equilibrium would be unaltered, but I could be wrong.

Have you ever thought that there are millions of people like you in the world? I can see nothing wrong with you. The wrong is in the people who insult you. What you say suggests to me that you live in a very narrow-minded environment.

Expanding phases of the universe don't rip atomic structures apart because the expanding term is very small when relative distance is very small. Even if the expanding phase is a DeSitter phase (exponential expansion) as it is now (in cosmic time). IOW, atoms don't notice universe expansion. Universe expansion is only noticeable at the galactic super-cluster scale. If Penrose said such a thing, well.. he was wrong. I don't think he did. And I, for one, don't see any ignorance in your question. Ignorants are those who don't know that they don't know, don't ask, or don't want to know.

Swansont is right. I forgot decays mediated by the strong force. Doh! Non-composite particles only decay via weak force, though.

I don't have to prove anything. You are the claimant, the onus is on you.

Yes, you do. I missed the donkey, I missed the 'smoking mount' --only clouds--, and the sentence in Latin is clearly asking God for something: 'Favor our undertakings' 'New order of the ages' So it could hardly be God speaking. Apparently the eye is sometimes depicted as a left eye, and sometimes as a right eye, and sometimes ambiguous. The one eye is a very common symbolism in monotheism. Islam goes back to the time when Christian theology was becoming increasingly complicated in Bizantium, and specifically against Christian Trinitarian doctrines, as the Temple of the Mount and the Qur'an make transparently clear. Symbolism dies hard, precisely because of its ambiguity. So many people adopt it, precisely because... well, almost anything goes. When you started talking about satellites you completely lost me. How an image from the 18th century can be telling us about satellites is beyond me.

You're being disingenuous, Michel. If somebody writes Tit4Tat, you can pretend all you want they don't mean anything and it could be an Armenian word for all you know. I won't. AmIRite? OTOH, if you say 123456, I really don't know what you mean, and I can't figure it out, unless you tell me.

Thanks for keeping me informed, Mattiao. Yes, I think I do. I've got a couple of questions for you, though. Are you always working with one parameter, \( k \), and arbitrary number of equations? Are the equations always linear in \( k \)? I'll get back to you as soon as I've got more time to spare. Well done!

You missed the diacritics and the fact that these forums are in English. The capital in 'One' clearly suggests the partition 'Curios'+'One'. But you're right. Only they know. Well, I agree. Rep points can be unfair from the other end too. I've been collaborating with a user here on a very interesting question in the Calculus and Analysis section that hasn't got me any reputation points. Though I think it's the best thing I've done here so far. We seem to be doing some progress, which is what matters to me. OTOH, other days I publish a good joke on the jokes section --that I just copied from somewhere else-- and I get three rep points. That's life.

Yes, exactly. It makes things decay. That's its job.

Very important datum to me. @iNow comments notwithstanding. Hormones play a role in all this. I must deal with youngsters every day, and I know only too well. Some very promising students behave like idiots just because of their hormones. You must know this if you're a teacher, or else you can and will do real damage to very valuable brains. There's not even the shadow of a chance that anybody will steal your ideas, at least those you have exposed on this forum. You've just stuck to your guns only to shoot your foot. You cannot even begin to imagine how humble you must be in order to be great. Newton is possibly an exception --he could afford to be feisty and petty. You declare yourself "curious one," but you sound pretty incurious: incurious /ɪnˈkjʊərɪəs/ adjective adjective: incurious not eager to know something; lacking curiosity. Definitions from Oxford Languages

Thanks for the references and for adding the genetic perspective, @Arete.

I'm waiting for the REAL religion to come around. So my faith is postponed. But he's building a temple, made of styrofoam. I'm looking forward to worship.

C'mon. You know you are his Nemesis. Infinity must have an end! You owe it to numbers. It's easy as pi.

But you're just using awareness as synonym of interaction. I prefer to say "interaction." What brings about the decay of the muon is the W- weak boson.

That's a great answer. I remember when I was a kid my summer holidays felt like an alternative life. Full of experiences that seemed like brought from another world.

I was going to say that from where you stand, you can't even see the box, but Hanke and Phi have read my mind. Get in the box as soon as you can, study it, and then learn how to open its doors/windows. That's the last thing I can say, honestly. Life is too short.

I'm not sure, but I suppose you mean biological evolution. The most general theory (I'd say meta-theory) is the one under the name "dynamical systems." It studies everything that changes. The Volterra model is a good place to start. Two competing species with situation not depending on time in the simplest case. Easy enough to understand, and solutions are intuitively clear. A good motivational video (centered on another simple model of change) could be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcsL7vyrk But you haven't said what your level of maths is. Maybe you can tackle a book technical enough.

No. You don't understand mathematics, that's all.

Are you aware that you don't make any mathematical sense? Your sentences are like dadaist poems with mathematical words in them.

You seem to be under the impression that 0.99999999999999999... is the closest number to 1. This proves that you don't understand real numbers. That number, 0.99999999999999999... with infinitely many 9's in its digits, is exactly 1. Number one seems to get past you. Why don't you accept the help of people who know more than you?