imatfaal

None whatsoever. Presuming you are talking about multiverse ideas rather than Sci-Fi parallel universes; it is a very good and useful interpretation of some aspects of science. But the very nature of our definitions means that there can be no evidence of something outside our universe; there are some anomalies (eg the cold spot on WMAP ) that some wishful thinking claims to be the influence of other universes upon our own - but most of them rely on the multiverse being the default explanation in absence of any other proven idea. This smacks of religion to me - if you cannot explain it then it might be God (or in this case the Multiverse) which is failing to acknowledge that pink unicorns have the same explanatory value.

Both? Neither? Paraphrasing -- Any sufficiently profound advance in technology is indistinguishable from an advance in science. I think it will be a scientific breakthrough in that it is seeking to do something which is theoretically novel within the current practical constraints; whereas technological progress is the overcoming of practical barriers within the current theoretical environment.

I have listened to an hours debate between world experts and they didn't get beyond whether the term artificial intelligence was an oxymoron or a valid expression. It is a fascinating topic - but to an extent it is like trying to observe oneself falling asleep; very difficult, totally subjective / impossibly introspective, and any results could be just a dream. The idea of Artificial intelligence and its discussion winds up telling us more about ourselves than about the subject - and the practice is dangerously close to eugenics without a firm moral and ethical code.

I don't think it makes enough sense to be mainstream or otherwise. Energy is a tricky concept to nail down once the usual definitions have been dismissed (perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly) but no search for a clear definition is helped by deliberate obfuscation

Proper and recognizable artificial intelligence (a difficult term) - a machine based intellect which most reasonable humans would realise/believe is capable of having and deserving rights, self-determination, and cognitive freedom

I would quibble on the lack of exercise component. Once you learned the technique to get the ball moving quickly you could generate enough angular momentum in the weighted inner ball that a fair amount of torque was required to hold and twist the ball in any other direction than around axis. I knew several sportsmen and women who used them to improve grip - and to provide exercise as part of rehab from injury. It was a hell of a lot less passive than the fidget spinners That's presuming we are talking about the same sort of things; I was referring to a Powerball (and no - I wouldn't have known the name without looking either) like this I dug mine out of the cupboard of junk - a minute or so later I think my forearm would testify that the exercise component was not null

! Moderator Note Aspden effect only please.

Which one? I don't wish to "true Scotsman" the argument, but if there is no supernatural element to a regimen of behaviour it is an ethical system - not a religion. There are the Quakers and the Universal Unitarians - who both have sizeable proportions of their congregations who are atheists - but as an organisation they "welcome" and "find space" for secularism; thus showing the existence of a (perhaps unimportant) demarcation between those members who are secular and those who are not, and that the organisation as a whole is non-secular.

Damn - I hope I am right.

I was gonna post that too but decided that it was not quite right. Dependency is a term (normally) reserved for the relationship between a variable and another (set of) variables - but c is not a variable. I wuld say that that G/c^2 is the constant of proportionality of the relationship between r_S and M; I would not say that r_S depends on c in a mathematical sense - only in a plain language usage of the word.

Good question. By the way - a word to the wise; most people will realise you mean the speed of light when you write C (upper case), especially in this context - but the speed of light should be designated by c (lower case). It seems pernickity to mention it - but misuse of terms, units, and symbols can snowball into a real misunderstanding very quickly (even at the highest levels); it is best to practice precision as much and, as soon as possible.

Indeed - on an amazing resource/website*. I have used that page to help explain before as well; for some reason, the analogy works even though it is not really any simpler than the real world scenario it is mirroring. * Will we lose this sort of thing under the present/proposed cutbacks - it can't be expensive to run but also it will not be costless. Sorry very [ot]

! Moderator Note The side-chat, casual insults, and logical fallacies in this thread - from all viewpoints - was fairly disappointing. Thread Locked - we should be able to have a discussion on religion without resorting to such teenage antics. Please try to keep the signal to noise ratio a little higher in future. ! Moderator Note Calling out the troll From my understanding, if you label someone as a troll you are claiming they are arguing merely to annoy and frustrate the other members of the board; the internet maxim is Don't Feed the Trolls - you highlight the problem and then withdraw. A report using the handy system provided will often sort this problem out. If, however, you label your counterpart in a discussion a Troll and then continue to argue with this member then this is an argumentum ad hominem; you are attempting to diminish the argument of the other member by attacking her or his character and motivation. There is no place in Scienceforums.net for any form of logical fallacy especially not one which relies on adversely characterising or stereotyping another member. Please bear this in mind whenever the temptation is to start name-calling of any sort. Thanks.

OK they both make sense to me - thanks, and well spotted; I must admit I was so annoyed at the fallacies I just skipped the description of the algorithm.

The inflationary epoch was around 10^-36 of a second to 10^-34 of a second after the big bang - ie a frightening short period in the very very first instances after the big bang. The CMB was formed 380,000 years after the big bang in the era of recombination / the surface of last scattering (I just love those two oh-so poetic names). The variations in the CMB are tiny by the way - one part in about ten thousand would cover all variation; that is pretty homogeneous. Any black holes formed way way after the era of recombination ( the universe was almost homogeneous then - see above on CMB which is a reflection of the universe at that point.) Until an enormous time had passed we didn't even have hadrons - they only formed at the earliest estimation around a millionth of second after the big bang - the universe didn't see stars until 150 million years or so after the big bang. The earliest black holes were just so long after inflation that we cannot envisage them in the same context

There was no question. It was merely a ruse to get members to go to a dodgy site. If you wish to discuss gold (3) chloride feel free to open a thread - but the deleted thread was unmistakably spam

It was deleted as spam - the text was copied from wikipedia and the link was very very dodgy This was the text At first glance it seems to have been lifted wholesale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold(III)_chloride

I haven't seen the thread and I look at the titles of most new ones to weed out the obvious spam. Was Gold 3 Chloride in the title ?

The matter in a white dwarf which is under the chandrasekar limit (1.39 Solar Masses) is held apart by the electron degeneracy pressure - if it were actively fusing it would be held apart by the thermal pressure involved with such a high temperature; you reach this situation when there is not much left to fuse together (the sun has run out of fuel) AND there is not enough inward gravitational pressure to continue fusion. Matter in a white dwarf star which is above the chandrasekar limit and is running out of fuel will also get to the point where the only thing against the gravitational pressure inwards is the electron degeneracy pressure outwards - but for these heavier stars the gravity "wins" and electron degeneracy pressure is overcome and other things can happen depending on its make up and any companion; most spectacularly Super Nova

! Moderator Note No.

Agree completely - I have looked at the Number Field Sieve algorithms and I just cannot work out what is really going on; most of this form of algorithm seem to have a choke point regarding the number of operations required rather than the difficulty of the operations involved. Further to the OP - the really place of study should be Shor's Algorithm; real world quantum computing has arrived. Whilst it is at a pre-difference engine level of development at present it will become viable. Shor's algorithm is proven to work in polynomial time - whereas the General number sieve works in sub-exponential time

the Sieve of Eratosthenes is a prime number finder (ie it finds all the primes within a certain range) - not a method of factorization. The Sieve of Eratosthenes is not even the fastest at doing this once the size of the range / largest number of the range get large ~10^14 The fastest way to factor difficult products (those of two primes of a similar size) is the General Number Field Sieve or the Special Number Field Sieve (if your number fits its parameters). Please do not write guesses like P=NP in the main fora - it is irresponsible and misleading. None of your post deals with computational complexity properly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_number_field_sieve

You need to read up on "Frame Dragging". The Kerr Metric (this is a vacuum solution to the Einstein Field Equations - ie General Relativity) described spacetime around a black hole with angular momentum - ie a spinning black hole. So yes a spinning black hole does "drag spacetime around" It does not need to be spinning at the speed of light - in fact it cannot be as nothing which has mass moves through space at the speed of light - it just needs to be massive and be spinning. A central spinning mass will entrain the inertial frame such that it is affected by the central masses rotation; it is a gravitational effect - but that must also be seen as an acceleration effect of an inertial frame. Here is Clifford Will's write up of the experimental proof of frame dragging - Gravity Probe B https://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/43

That mathematical singularities ("divide by zero error" ) existed was known very soon - use of Schwarzchild Coordinates at the Event Horizon to give stopped time is a common example. But these involved calculational procedures that might be wrong. It was also known that certain unphysical scenarios would lead to physical singularities - but doubted whether any of these would actually manifest. Hawking showed they happned in actuality This is not a good page - but I am struggling to find one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems This is interesting but does not help that much https://quantumfrontiers.com/2014/11/05/the-science-that-made-stephen-hawking-famous/

- The pasta thing made me remember a good page for Neutron Stars Taken from here M Coleman Miller's Introduction to Neutron Stars