swansont

It’s not energy under stress. The stress-energy tensor is part of determining gravity. It’s dependent on density and flux of energy and momentum.

Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this. Yeah, you brought this same nonsense up when we discussed the policy. https://scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/ It was bollocks then, and nothing has changed It may not be what you’re talking about, but it’s part of the discussion. The logical conclusion from this is that science is a massive conspiracy and we’re making it all up. Because that’s where repeatability/reproducibility enters into it. If the experiment is made up, then so must the next one that reproduces the result, or builds on it. A huge house of cards. But technology is built on it, too, and it works. The issue is not belief but trust - a matter of credibility - and the fact that the technology works, and the experiments you can do agree with other results, builds trust in the science you can’t personally check. e.g. GPS actually works. They aren’t faking it, and it’s not just some happy accident that it works. With an AI result, we don’t know where it’s coming from, or if it’s a hallucination. If we did know the source, then you can cite that instead. Then everybody can see/decide if it’s a credible source.

What’s happened in the last six months won’t be undone very soon, and it will take a long time to reverse the damage. Science isn’t something you can stop and then pick up where you left off. Damaged trust is not something that is rebuilt quickly. And countries are finding they don’t need the US as much as most thought.

I think the USA has abdicated that role in spirit and are on the way to losing it economically and scientifically. It will be tough to regain that position. We’re taking great strides in making sure it never happens again, or at least for a generation.

Just revisited this thread on another matter and yes, it’s obvious that I misread/misinterpreted something. My apologies.

That (plagiarism) is also against the rules. But 2.13 says “Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.” so if breaking the rules is a problem, using AI content is a problem.

Moderator NoteRule 2.13 forbids using AI material to support arguments. IOW, don’t give us the AI summary from your search.

There’s a reason for that. (left as an exercise for the reader) But some signs in the Bible could not, such as Joshua 10:13 “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” Again, left as an exercise.

Time isn’t matter, or a particle. Is there an antilength, that cancels out length?

We have books. We’re aware of the Greek and Roman gods. Gods from Mesopotamia, even.

Testicles of the same spin can’t exist in the same scrotum, unless they are in different orbital angular momentum states (which is painful)

OTOH the AI crawlers will now have to incorporate it and provide it as a possible answer to some question.

What does this even mean? “Can’t” doesn’t enter into it for an omnipotent diety. (with God all things are possible/with God nothing shall be impossible/the Lord God omnipotent reigneth) “Science and humanity” isn’t part of the discussion. Stop trying to change the subject Population isn’t declining. Musk is a white supremacist complaining about white population. I will not use a Nazi as a model If there’s novbody around to do science, there’s nobody doing science. Of what relevance is this?

You asked a similar question some years ago https://scienceforums.net/topic/120883-somethings-wrong-with-the-way-we-calculate-mass/ The analysis and answer given there still applies

I want people to expend the tiniest effort to post things in the appropriate forum, but like Sisyphus I’m cursed to roll them into the right forum only to have new ones appear in inappropriate ones. Moved to physics. Why do you think they would melt? How can there be one at the center? The universe has no center. Why do they have to be balls? Is the ability to move around important to the problem?

In what way is this a “brain teaser” or puzzle?

It’s bookkeeping. Energy is conserved, so work being done means the energy has to come from some source, and go somewhere else. The sign is telling you whether energy was deposited in the system (+), or spent by the system (-)

I think our view of omnipotent is quite straightforward, and if a deity is not, it should not be advertised as such. It’s one of those topics that people debate; some conclude there is no deity and others don’t think about it too much because of the implications. (like it’s a choice rather than a limitation of power) What does this have to do with omnipotence? Are you simply incapable of sticking to a topic, and restraining yourself from proselytizing?

Moderator NoteAs you were informed in the other thread, we’re done discussing this theorem or anything connected with it.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon can be small r = 2GM/c^2 g = GM/r^2 (Newtonian) so g = c^4/4GM If the mass is really big, g can be quite small.

It has gravity, so it’s much the same as how we can determine the mass of a normal star - it causes an acceleration of ~GM/r^2 and anything in orbit is subject to that.

Moderator NoteFrom rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted IOW, linking to your substack to have people read the paper violates the rule twice. This is a discussion forum, not your blog or a platform to advertise your work.

Apparently not Math is a tool of science. An hypothesis that leads to logical contradictions will never make it to being a theory; the evidence won’t match up with the model. But the situation here is that the logic is flawed. As with your conjecture, you are proceeding via faulty path, starting with a flawed premise.

That must be it. /s I said nothing to the contrary. The final arbiter of science is experiment/observation. The only way to disprove a theory is to show that it doesn't match with experiment. Any argument about reason boils down to argument from incredulity (as I previously said) but science is under no obligation to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or be understandable.

I thought God was the ultimate off switch. Or is she not omnipotent?