swansont

Doesn’t look like that to me. The hellfire does, after turning in to the apparent strike, but the target doesn’t. It’s hard to say with a featureless background, but it looks like it’s traveling at ~225 degrees before, and closer to 270 deg after. It’s strange that the immediate deflection is at about 150 degrees, or toward the hellfire. The video embedded in Rep Burlison’s post in this article let me manually run it forward and back by manipulating the progress bar (at the 0:20 mark) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/ufo-hearing-know-video-seemingly-174100555.html

We have rules about what we expect from speculations, and it requires some amount of rigor. Our position reflects the idea that someone who lacks knowledge should be asking questions, rather than proposing answers.

The title of that is “Emergence of opposing arrows of time in open quantum systems” (again, you sin by omission) GR is not a quantum theory, and the systems under discussion are subject to non-quantum processes.

I see no mention of lying; the mention was one of accuracy. One can post inaccurate information without lying, in fact, we tend to assume that it’s a misconception/mistaken understanding, and not a bad faith attempt at deceit. One would then conclude that Mars has a bigger EMF than Earth. But Mars lacks a magnetic field and is colder, on average, than Earth.

The upshot of the above is that while the individual particle interactions (the “physical phenomena”) are reversible, the collective behavior is not. This should really be no surprise, since we have plenty of experience with everyday phenomena that are not.

Selective editing isn’t a good-faith technique* “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a HermitianHamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.” So tell me, is GR an example of a local quantum field theory, much less one with a Hermitian Hamiltonian? *from rule 2.12 Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

You were asked to cite some of the research you’ve done which is a perfectly reasonable request The conclusions should not be personal/subjective if based on objective facts .

Something that’s a solution if you only consider GR, but not when you include thermodynamics

The science forums? Which ones? I’m guessing it’s not this one; if it is I’d like some links. I’m a lot less interested in what happens somewhere else. Take it up with their management, not us, because this tactic hints at being a straw man.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true. The universe isn’t governed solely by GR. You can’t wish away the second law of thermodynamics There is no such thing. There is radiation pressure. Perhaps you can explain why you think radiation pressure is a significant contributor to BH formation.

That doesn’t depict stimulated emission. As far as WHs existing, you run into thermodynamics issues regarding entropy. If it were viewed as a thermodynamic process, it would not be reversible.

We’re not going to discuss anything generated by an AI. What you have here is a description of an hypothesis. You don’t have the math, and without that you can’t make specific predictions or make comparisons with experiment. Those are required.

You offered this in the context of time-reversal symmetry, and that’s incorrect. Yes, stimulated emission gives a photon, but photons would’ve been emitted anyway, unless there’s some nonradiative channel for de-excitation, and the atom needs to be excited in the first place, which removed a photon (unless the excitation was via some other process) I have to think there are better ways of observing black hole signatures. Hot gas being captured is probably fully ionized anyway, so this absorption and emission would be moot. I’d look for X-rays from the accelerated charges That seems like a stretch. Regardless, the article doesn’t provide details of the physics. Your time might be better spent understanding why stimulated emission is not time-reversed absorption. Basing any proposal on a flawed premise tends not to bear any fruit.

No, not by itself. Material for discussion must be posted here, not via a link. I think you overestimate the desire of anyone to slog through a wall o’ text to try and see what an AI got right or wrong. We are much more likely to be interested in answering questions you have about science.

Moderator NoteNone of that is relevant to the discussion, and there’s no actual science discussed here.

Your images aren’t loading for me but N2 could refer to the number of atoms in the excited state in a two-state system, where N1 would be the number in the ground state. Infalling radiation would also cause excitation of atoms. As I had previously explained, the time reversal analog would be emission from simple de-excitation. Time reversal would change the direction of the radiation. Push or pull is semantics; the force is from the photon momentum, so it depends on the direction of travel.

Why would photons hitting atoms cause different behavior depending on the source? An atom must already be in an excited state in order to experience stimulated emission. It’s not the opposite of absorption. (I vaguely recall having this discussion before) Why do you think there are N2 atoms outside a black or white hole? As far as radiation pressure, sure. There would be radiation pressure on a BH from the radiation incident on it. If for some reason it wasn’t isotropic the BH would experience a force.

Moderator NoteWe’re not physicians and we don’t do diagnoses, mental or physical. It’s potentially dangerous to speculate on such things. The only advice to give is to consult a professional

Yes. Luckily Poland chose not to escalate, and only shot down the drones. Putin was likely testing the response.

Moderator NoteThis is a discussion forum, not your blog.

Sensei has been suspended for repeated abusive commentary, even after being warned about it.

Whether the op is offended is not the metric. You were recently warned about this kind of comment. Unfortunate that it didn’t impact your behavior.

I don’t think accusations of lying are funny, and basing it on AI even less so

And you’ll never get better if you outsource the practice. It’s like asking a computer to go do some sport or hobby. You won’t get any better at it unless it’s you that puts in the effort.

So there’s no excuse for not doing what is required. And it’s these people who are using it and posting AI slop here that precipitated the rule You mentioned chess in response to exchemist, not me. And then got rude about it. That’s why you don’t ask a random person a question that requires expertise And one of the issues is people using it for things where the answer isn’t in Wikipedia or the scientific pdfs, because they’re trying to generate a new theory. Or they’re looking for support of an idea that has none. That’s when the LLM makes up an answer, and does what it’s programmed to: making a plausible-sounding answer. It doesn’t care that it’s not a correct answer (because that’s its programming, and it can’t care anyway) We routinely do detect errors, and I’d thank you for the compliment but it’s not difficult to google a citation and see that there are no results for it, nor does it require extensive knowledge to know that lawyers are indeed human, or to do some simple math that has been botched. I thought you said it gave really good answers. That’s not a good thing. Nobody can stop you from using LLMs in unhealthy ways but you can’t use them here to give answers. That’s not changing.