pinball1970

I watched a documentary on this, the debate between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. I never understood why the conditions of a black hole are applied to the rest of the universe. If information is lost via Hawking radiation from the mass of a black hole why does that mean particles elsewhere could go through the same process? Would they not need BH extreme conditions? The description of Hawking radiation in his book was along the lines of a pair of virtual particles created at the event horizon, one can be sucked in and the other released as radiation. (Forgive me if this is sloppy, it was popsci and years since I read it) I later read that virtual particles are more of a mathematical tool not an actual physical thing, like Feynman's backwards in time positrons. So I think I even less sure of any of it now.

Physics is empirical and a way of finding out how the universe operates at the fundamental level, mathematics is not. I would describe mathematics with science but not science Itself, hence STEM.

Yes smog, moisture plus pollution.

There is an Ai feel to this plus recent work has not been cited. 1996 the latest?

It is down to what is available at the time, Oxygen in this case and what is energetically favourable. I am not a chemist but here is an example that could be useful in terms of Biochemistry that you can relate to. Carbon monoxide poisoning can be fatal as available O2 binding sites on the Haemoglobin are taken up with CO instead. This bond is a lot stronger than the bond with O2 (about 200 times) In order to force the Haemoglobin to give up the CO you have to place the patient in a hyperbaric Oxygen chamber. In chemistry terms you are changing the O2 concentration and pressure. This swings the equilibrium from CO-Hb to O2- Hb. Same molecules different reaction because of the different conditions.

That reads a little like holographic principle. That reads like the opening of "The greatest theory ever told (so far) Lawrence Krauss. Yes that is what it does. Gravitational effects only (so far) Lots of things are like this in science, gravity, electricity, fields, particles, radiation. We use techniques to detect them and measure their properties.

We are social animals and our evolution goes back millions not 100s of 1000s of years.

You have probably already seen the numberphile you tube videos on this? They cover fast growing hierarchies w.r.t. functions and TREE is right up there if not the biggest. There are a few videos on this but this one covers the fast growing hierarchies. https://youtu.be/0X9DYRLmTNY?si=GGVE3oRmePaqYAmp

If that is what you think then we are done. Perhaps interact with other posters and not derail this thread.

No it's nothing whatsoever to do with religion and it is zero to do with emotions. I have already told you three times now that one can test these things. Why are you determined to not follow an argument? You raised this not me. Again, why are you determined to not follow a discussion, argument, train of thought? No,you seem incapable of scrolling back to what you write. You said a lot of obvious silly stuff like people cannot read science papers, did you forget? You also said not everyone can be a scientist which no one on the thread implied, you forget that too? STOP putting stupid ideas on my lips and try and follow a thread.

Yes we have evolved to the conditions on earth.

Reaction conditions, O2, energy etc

Why indoctrination? Is teaching science, something they can test by simply using a cell phone indoctrination? That's not my background. As a factory worker I would still like to visit the Dr and know what is going on with me. Perhaps I would like to look at a Hubble JWST side by side before I start my minimum wage shift? Dumb as I am. Not the same in every book

+1

Nitpick is details and details matter +1

You said teachers. No but everyone can learn some facts or what the scientific method is. You keep saying these truisms. Abstracts are meant to tell you what the study is about, a summary. No one is suggesting a 12 year old can understand GR or know what the issues are with Lambda CDM and early Galaxy formation. They can however understand that we sent a telescope into space to look for them, that it found some, they are early, that they formed 280,000 million years after the BB. I don't think that is worthless for a kid, a kid doing GCSEs (16) a kid doing A levels (18) or second year University student doing Astrophysics or a 58 year old tech who handles spectral data.

Ok perhaps I am not reading his correctly. What is "X" in "6x-1?"

When x=1 you get 5 &7 both prime but for other numbers you get one only. Easy if it's if it's 3 or 4, but more tricky if it's in the millions. Also how do you get 2 and 3?

and you still test the results Yes and we trust our Drs today even though we did not go to medical school. Also our TV, PC, cell phone, boiler, car, fridge and satellite dish, microscope, electronic scales and spectrophotometer even though we don't know how they work fundamentally and could not build one from scratch. Why? They work, science works, we do not need to blindly accept it because we test it every day. Not every PhD is striving to be a teacher so why would that matter? We are not supposed to, it's like saying not everyone can drive an F1 car. Not everyone on the planet is walking round in daze because they do not understand the mathematics of QT or GR. You never read abstracts? Or the discussion or conclusions? You understand zero?

Would you put Copilot in this category? It has those options, 3 seconds, 30 seconds and ten minutes. I have not tried the ten minutes yet but 30 seconds is called "think deeper." It has been useful to me in terms of being a more personalized search engine that gives a couple of references once the information is given. Mathematical formula are not possible, it gives it in LaTeX language but that could be my set up (I'm still fairly new to this) I tried TREE on it and it managed 1 but told me two was a gargantuan number when it is in fact 3. TREE 3 is gargantuan so that is where it may have got mixed up, that was a quick I think so I will try some deeper options and feedback.

I do not think Ligo, JWST, Euclid and the LHC had that in mind but the great thing with science is you never know what will come out of it at the end. CERN gave us the internet, diagnostic techs and there are also projects on cleaner fuel if you look on the website. Faraday had no idea his discoveries and later Maxwell would change the face of modern civilization with electricity. Quantum mechanics did the same but Dirac and co just wanted to know how the universe operated at the fundamental level. The guys on the Manhattan project had different things to consider, capitalism was not one of them (probably) John Butterworth published a book called, "Smashing physics," there is a chapter on this very question. Should science have a tech or application in mind? I do not think the guys doing it, do it because of that. They apply for a program after their UG that ties in with their interests. The PhD guys on here may disagree.

Depends on what the subject is, if it is science, then you seek a reputable publication. No, UG only. That is very situation dependant and for me very very rarely without question.

How do I put that into biological terms? Either you have the vaccine or you do not. If you do not you then have the disease as it is described in the literature. If that disease is as severe as something like Covid then it is wise as an individual and as a society to have the vaccine, it really is a no brainer. No one said or suggested that life is a utopia. Back to the OP, no we are not, we are giving humanity a chance to live longer healthier lives.

Made a mess of that one sorry "If they have got as far as Riemann, then they may have got as far as Godel and be ok with it."

I lost my faith a long time ago. Great thing about putting your trust in someone or something is you can test if was warranted or not.