geordief

I have lots of these and they date back some 30-60 years.(so no washing instructions on them) Now I think I may have bed bugs or similar in my bed and so I want to clean the bedding. Easy enough with sheets but I am not sure about the woolen blankets as the (=my) rule with wool is to wash at a cold water temperature-and this may not be very effective for killing these bed bugs My suspicion is that it may be possible to go to a warmish temperature without damaging them but not the 90%that I am using on the sheets. I doubt this is a problem many here will have faced but I can't seem to find another discussion forum dealing with washing clothes or similar. Maybe ,I can use one as a Guinea pig first to see if they take very hot water without shrinking. I don't suppose just airing them (for a few days) would do the job.

Well ,the last massive particle that remained before all the fuel supplies were exhausted would be travelling at a finite speed (below c) And if the size of the initial system was increased without limit would there be an equation that would come out to c in the limit? (Hope my limits are not self contradictory)

I accept that I sometimes have the idea that if we have a system with mass and we convert its mass progressively and in a directed manner to energy so that it accelerates in a particular direction until the very last amount of mass in the system is converted to energy... if we make that system arbitrarily as large as say half the (observable?) universe would that give a mathematical equation that would show that the final speed was a limit that was the same as c? (yes I am thinking of a theoretical nuclear rocket half the size of the universe that burns itself up as fuel)

Not a question but I was addressing @StarEagle1 's idea that " If someday we could actually fly at (near) light speed," to point out that we already did this. I then asked " Is the actual barrier that of attaining light speed wrt a frame of reference that we are initially at rest with? ie accelerating to light speed from and wrt an initial frame of reference..."

I meant it the same way as @zapatos clarified it.If we find or choose a suitable reference point, we are moving wrt it at a near light speed(the neutrino was a good example) With most objects we only move at slow speeds but ,with the example of the neutrino not only can we say that the neutrino is moving at near light speed wrt to us but we can also say that in the frame of the neutrino we are moving at a near light speed wrt it. So in that sense we are moving at a near light speed even though we think we are not moving (I know you know this of course)

I thought we were already flying at light speed if we choose the appropriate frame of reference. Is the actual barrier that of attaining light speed wrt a frame of reference that we are initially at rest with? Ie accelerating to light speed from and wrt an initial frame of reference?

So we are just trying to make predictions about quantum processes in the presence of extreme gravitational (and other?) conditions. There is no attempt to fuse the two models into one overarching one? If ,as you say quantum processes are understandable in curved space and we say the mathematical singularities are just quirks of the model ,what is the problem? Will progress just be incremental and softly softly catchee monkey?

Do any of the ongoing theories for a QFT for gravity explore a unified field including all the existing fields plus a gravity field?

Are they responsible for or have a role in determining the curved spacetime? Is the gravity field entirely distinct from the other fields or do they have any properties and behaviours in common? Would there be as many interactions as there are fields (so as many interactions as there are fundamental particles)?

"Everything is fields",I heard Sean Carroll say in a lecture. So I am wondering how they work. How do they interact with each other(is it via their particles/excitations?) and what is speculated to be their relationship/interactions with the gravity field? As I have understood it there are as many fields as there are fundamental particles. Is there any idea of why there are as many fundamental particles as there are ?

Would such a universe have to be one where everything happens at the same time and in the same place? (perhaps to paraphrase in reverse a couple of well known definitions) Have there been any speculations along those lines? With time and causation being such perennial fascinations it wouldn't surprise me.I may have seen something similar a few years back but can't recall where I saw or whether it was purely theoretical or if there was any more to it.

Are there any possible universes(I know this " other laws universe" is sometimes discussed) where space and time could be not joined? Could there be a model of a different universe where that was part of the set up and would it hold together? I was also wondering if time loops might be permitted somewhere on the micro level.(in this universe )?

Groundhog day.Does anyone make any money?

There is that, as well (I mean I think you are right) The macro object that we are "sending back" has only existed as such for an infinitesimally short period of spacetime . "It" has no time to return to in the past where it had the same configuration.

If an object travelled back in time wouldn't every part of it have to follow it on its journey? There are so many components of any one object that it might take longer than the age of this ,or multiple universes for that to happen. If the object arrived at the point in spacetime it had been at before minus one component it could not be said to have travelled back in time If just one component did manage to make the journey then that would be a quantum object and I wonder whether that would cause a problem ? Would it be a case of "they all rolled over and one fell out,there was nine in the bed and the little one said....."?

Off topic,perhaps but can you try to give a short idea of the lines along which the debate is polarized in other settings**? Is it along the lines of whether a moratorium is called for? Or are there major discussions and differing approaches in other areas? **I have just listened to a bit of commentary on a few tv stations,that is all.

Can we weight the entries in the database in terms of factual reliability(and enforce that standard by law) I mean ,does CHATGPT just gobble up "information" provided by serial murderers and normal Joe Soaps equally permissively?

So is there a way of addressing this failing without banning them entirely? That seems a Quichote-esque avenue as the djinni is out of the bottle.

Are there going to be different regional and vested interest versions of CHATGPT? Will different proponents rely on different databases to skew the output in their favour? Will they try to spam the databases if their rivals ? Is there any way to weed out factual falsehoods from a database by fact checking "entries"? Should contributors to the database have a right to have their "entries" expunged? Is the "social network on steroids" nature of this new tool going to force existing content publishers on the internet to face up to their responsibilities to moderate content in the same way that print has been ,even if ineffectively (hello Mr Murdoch ) up till now?

Because we have learned to generalize? If my brother slept with my wife then so might his best friend or my other brothers.

Suppose you had a brilliant film director. Do you suppose he or she could make a film of consequence if all he had to work with was "brain dead" actors -interpreters of his and the author's work who brought absolutely nothing to the table and had to be led by the nose in the characters they portrayed?

It is not bad,but I am not a great reader and not a "fine judge" I 'd say it would sell copy.

It is wrong to mock the afflicted but it seems to me that De Santis bears a physical similarity to Micky Mouse. Trump has attacked him for having been bested by a mouse but perhaps it was a fair contest and he was just wrong footed by the genuine article?

Blew his finger off? Was that the school for hard knocks?

Yes,not their finest hour.What about Trump and his lawyer?