joigus

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Here's a higher resolution: There are further inconsistencies, as the city of Shambala has been identified, for all I know, and geology and known biology easily debunk this picture. It's actually kind of a challenge to spot all the inconsistencies with known facts. I find the comment "inner Earth to be re-drawn by someone who has been there! Thank you..." particularly endearing. Edit. With this picture, we would have plants that grow in presumably inverted microgravity...

My original idea was about scientific principles, but poetic, inspirational mottoes are certainly useful too. So I personally welcome them. Another very well-known one by John Wheeler: There is another one which captures the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution, that I can't remember now, and I must rescue from somewhere. If anybody remembers...

I think your idea is not very out there, and I'll tell you why from my own reasoning. The first time you hear about the Plank scale, you find the lp and the tp to be very reasonably in the range of what a minimal distance and time must be. Well below anything event-related that makes sense. Very small. Inconceivably small. But... mp is nothing like that. It's neither here nor there. It isn't at all interpretable as the minimum conceivable mass; nor is it the opposite. It's close to the mass of an amoeba: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=mass+of+an+amoeba&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Coincidence? I don't think so. To me, Plank's mass is to do with information, and there must be some kind of power law behind it. What that power law could be I don't know. But I don't think it's to do with humans; I think it's probably to do with severe constrictions on how a macroscopic system stores and processes information of the world around it. As long as we are in the arena of speculation...

I misunderstood the problem here. Of course you guys are right: Gravitational field inside a shell of spherical mass is zero. For some reason I kept thinking of the "real" Earth, or an approximate model to it.

Love requires many letters. 26 fall short. You almost got me. Although love letters are a thing of the past, probably. I once learnt that in Wales there is a place which has one of the longest toponyms. There seems to be a Maori toponym that is longer. How about a weekend in, Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu? If that's too much of a stretch, you can always stay at, Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch I'm sure those are sentences in disguise!

Also, maybe Cadabra, for symbolic calculations, especially suited for field theory: https://cadabra.science/ I haven't tested it, to tell you the truth.

You've got a free web portal: https://www.wolframalpha.com/ And if you need more computation power and time, server dedication, (plus access to some packages, etc.), you can download an app for about not much more than 2€, if I remember correctly. I think it's money well spent.

Birkhoff's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkhoff's_theorem_(relativity) Sorry. I hadn't noticed that Markus had already said it. +1

No. I learnt about Django Reinhardt from within my light cone, by gathering signals. Very nice mnemonics. +1 The left ear is inverted. I mentioned Django Reinhardt because he had two fingers burnt, and managed to play beautifully with only eight fingers.

I posted the solution here: Gravitational field at centre is zero. It can be solved by using Gauss' theorem. For interior solution spherical symmetry must be assumed. Goes down linearly with the distance to the centre. I agree that there's nothing else remotely scientific in OP. Any hollow in the Earth's interior would be crushed by the enormous pressure, obviously.

I don't know about MAPLE, but I think there is a Mathematica package to calculate Christoffel symbols. I've found this discussion which may be useful for the Mathematica option: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/8895/how-to-calculate-scalar-curvature-ricci-tensor-and-christoffel-symbols-in-mathem

Please cite another language with a shorter alphabet.

Berserk!!! Thank you. Agreed.

smorgasbord, finesse, latte, pizza, siesta, zeitgeist, faux pas, guerrilla,... katana, feng sui, voodoo, or d'oeuvres, lingerie, shaman, cul de sac, baton, bon apetit, epaulettes... French seems to be le favori.

I don't think any aphorism will bypass the need to practice. Not even with tensor calculus. But how about this for pep talk?: If Django Reinhardt could do it, why can't you?

I completely agree with your point about reality. Also about your summarizing the concern of physics. In fact, I think what you said isn't nearly enough insisted upon in classes and seminars. But I don't completely agree with the point about truth. I think it's just the statements involving truth in physics are conditional, or graded, or constraining the mental space of possibilities, if you want. Not absolute. So my phrasing would be, and I hope you agree and it's no moot point, physics is not concerned with any absolute truth, or absolute certainty, but with degrees of certainty (truth). +1. Has Nature no final truth in store for us? Maybe so. But true or false are states of our knowledge that necessarily affect our statements about the world. So maybe the proposition is (rephrasing @Strange's rephrasing of Feynman some days ago): Photons are not particles. Photons are not waves. They are what they are, something else: photons, wavycles, whatever. I see some value of truth in that. If only to say what definitely they are not.

If they are well-learned enough in science, maths, logic, linguistics, computer science..., why not?

My first hurried answer would go in the direction of #(moles of gaseous products)-#(moles of gaseous reactants) being as big as possible. But I also realize as I read you all that the exothermic character must be an important factor too, which would make a lot of sense. I also gather from what more knowledgeable people than me are saying that for some reason reactions involving Nitrogen are better at it.

Eponyms and toponyms are another scary field of lexicon, potentially limitless. In Chinese you've got quite many of them that have their own specific pictograph.

I still have some difficulty with this, but maybe it's not 'up my alley' as they say. Every trade has its lingo. I do. Brilliant ideas never die. But Fourier rocks too. There seems to be a branch of mnemonics here ranging from cross-cultural to off colour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_color_code_mnemonics Some of them I find more difficult to remember than the sequence of codes itself. Thank you. I find especially useful the report-writing one.

Very interesting piece of news. Thank you. +1 Although, AFAIK, Mars' surface is very homogeneous, I wonder if one could detect signs of past transport phenomena, normally associated to glaciers, like erratics. Something like that would definitely clinch the case, IMO. Or maybe Mars' geology is just too boring to hope for that. Scratching patterns could be another sign. Maybe also difficult to see on Mars' surface, as Martian soil is generally soft and windswept.

Oh, rest assured he's up to something by now. Probably confusing, un-related and un-nice. Crackpottery and trolling are more than just a lifestyle.

Japanese is loaded with English loan words! +1 It has an English living inside its lexicon. For example: エレベーター ドア Edit: Which leads us back to your previous question: What is a language? No simple answer. Edit 2: I love this one: ベルト (beruto) for "belt". LOL. I've forgotten most of my Hiragana and Katakana phonetics.

Sorry, but you seemed to be talking about the SM: I wouldn't disagree too strongly with Markus about that. All I can add is there is no application that I know of in which you invert time at the horizon. He went on to say that this idea doesn't sit too well with the SM. He did say that, and related it to the point you were making. You seem to be suggesting to do away with the SM at the horizon, while retaining GR there. You must have a pretty strong argument if you want to do that. There you are, he did mention the SM in connection with the argument. Keep in mind that T, C, and P, are always considered as passive transformations (re-labellings), not as something that you can actually do to a system. I hope to catch up with the main arguments eventually, though. I'm a late comer here.

I could hardly agree more with this. Language is an ever-changing, evolving structure. Consider the word "smart." It means something in the UK, and has a different meaning in the US. And even today these meanings may be evolving towards a cluster of different meanings around the same word, due to the effects of more, and more efficient, communication bridges opening up across the Atlantic.