MigL

Nice to be able to log in again ... Simply solved by electromagnetically scooping up interstellar Hydrogen, feeding it to a ramjet that 'energizes' the expelled mass using a matter-antimatter reactor, and expelling it rearwards to accelerate, and forward to decelerate. Of course the hydrogen density in this part of the galaxy is not sufficient to provide adequate thrust, nor is the technology available for a matter-antimatter reactor, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible for a more advanced civilization in a Hydrogen dense spiral arm of the galaxy. Sure, and we also have threads on perpetual motion machines or 'free' energy, intelligent 'creation', gravity by electromagnetism, global warming 'hoaxes', and ToE explained by pictures. Nobody that proposes those is willing to tackle the Physics and Engineering either. Even when you present the Physics/Engineering issues to them , they refuse to see/acknowledge said issues.

Sometimes the patterns we notice are directly caused by a relationship; that is science. Sometimes the patterns we notice are indirectly caused by relationships; correlations can be science. Sometimes we notice patterns where there is no relationship whatsoever; that is nowhere near science, it is numerology, otherwise known as WAGs. Do I need to repeat this again ?

I see. I guess I won't be coming by for breakfast, or tea and biscuits. I like my bread very crusty ( 1/2 inch thick crust ) and very dry. It is mainly used for sopping up sauces after a good meal. It's a pain in the butt finding good bakeries that make that sort of bread.

Nice. Necessity is the mother of invention. But you can't really call it a 'battery' , as it stores heat, not multi-purpose electricity. Although you could re-purpose the heat above 100o to heat water into steam and drive generators ( with some losses ), and that last 100o of water would still have about 5 times the heat capacity of the 100o sand.

Free energy ? There is no such thing. Unless you're talking about your home fireplace, and the trees in your back yard, you are paying for the source ( oil, wind, sunlight, gas, etc ) or the means oh delivery ( wires, pipes, solar panels, windmills, etc ), but either way, you are paying.

There is causality, where a cause leads directly to the effect in question. There are correlations, where the effect in question is indirectly, or loosely associated with a particular cause. And there are WAGs, where no relationship can be established or ascertained. Depending on your definition of 'numerology', one may be able to shoehorn it into the correlation category, but according to my definition, it definitely belongs in the WAG category.

D Trump either has no shame, or is oblivious ( too dumb to catch on ) to embarrassment. As are all the idiots who voted for him, and continue to support him.

Tearing and detachments take more than a few days to heal. They require medical attention, and can take months to heal completely ( if ever ). Ligaments and joints can, however, become enflamed; and recuperation is in the order of days ( depending on age ). Usually when taking a break from heavy workouts, and going back to the gym to use the same weights as when you stopped, leads to joint inflammation. I remember my elbows swelling up such that U couldn't wash my hair in the shower. Another incident of enflamed ligaments, was shin splints when I used to run ( don't run on your toes ). But I do have a friend who tore his bicep ( never fully healed ), and my nephew had to have ligaments re-attached in his knee ( took weeks of immobilization, and months of physio ), so it is possible. My advice is to use strict controlled motions when using heavy weights ( no swinging/bouncing ).

Data centers and AI are big business and big profits for Billionaires and investors. They can afford to pay the high prices for power, and in so doing,, they drive up energy costs, or cause draughts, for the idiots who buy into this technology to have it think for them. We are our own worst enemies, and there are plenty of unscrupulous people willing to take advantage of, and get insanely rich off of, us stupid people.

Sorry. LHC is capable of 1.4x1013 eV.

You are right. The dice example would be more suitable as it is easy to agree on the outcome/event, whereas we seem to be at odds over the which outcome of the horse race we are assigning probabilities to. I think we 'beat these horses to death'.

Typical cosmic ray energies are between 106 eV, and 1020 eV, far beyond what CERN and the LHC can achieve, at 1.413 eV. But I see you recognize that. As for the Trinity test, I remember reading that E Fermi was able to calculate the yield of the blast by the distance scraps of paper were scattered by the shock wave. IOW, everything about the fission reaction was planned and understood. That doesn't mean unforeseen results can't happen. I believe that the Castle Bravo fusion test, in the Marshall Islands, was the one where they used the two different isotopes of Lithium, believing Ithium-7 to be inert, whereas it actually contributed to the fusion reaction generating a yield 2.5 times than expected, and scaring the crap out of everyone, being about 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Science, as we know it, is deeply rooted in causality. Unless you can establish a cause for an effect, you are just describing patterns. Mind you, sometimes those numerological patterns may turn out to hold true, but that is not science; it is, at best, guesswork, and at worst, bullsh*t.

I don't mind your disagreement, but your reasoning is flawed. Disregarding the 'unplaced' outcome for now, if one horse places 1st, there are only 5 horses that can place 2nd, and 4 that can place 3rd, and so on, leaving only one horse to place last. Your sample space, for all possible 'placed' outcomes, would be 6!. But there are only 6 possible outcomes for winning the race; who/what else could win, other than one of the 6 horses ?

Maybe a brief tutorial on vector analysis would help @tylers100 if he is lacking in that area.

That is correct. So if the question specifies the event "what is the probability of any one horse winning the race" then Of course you can ask "what is the probability of any event happening", which would also include a dead heat, all disqualified, and many more; but that is not what was asked. Just as in @joigus' original post, the paradox is in the wording of the question; not with the probabilities themselves.

The question I was attempting to clarify was If you have no prior information guiding you to probable outcomes, then you cannot assign probability to any event. The best you can do is that an event has to occur, and divide by the possible number of ways that event can occur. In effect, the probability of any one of the horses winning the race is 1/6 . What a priori information would you use to assign probabilities of the first event, never mind frequency distributions which can only be gleaned after many such events ?

Just wondering ... What is a 'one dimensional object' with 'three points and two lines'? Why are you deliberately trying to confuse yourself with this non-standard interpretation of gravity? What do you imagine is lacking from the standard treatment of gravity that can be obtained from a high-school level textbook, and which would tell you that gravity always 'acts' from the center of mass point, but geometry/distribution does play a role in the tidal effects.

Still not convinced ... There is no history of the 6 horses, so you have no reason to assign a probability other than 1/6 to each horse, since the expected ( guaranteed ) outcome is that one of the 6 must win. To do otherwise, you'd be making up information. If I am misunderstanding you, please dumb it down, as I can be rather 'thick' sometimes.

No, but you would think Iranians killed his father, and must prepare to die ... ( you gotta watch the movie )

Surely the frequentist ( never heard the term, but I suppose I am one ) would define the probability of an event E, p(E) = F/ N , where N is the total number of possible outcomes, and F is the one desired outcome, E. But I suppose this doesn't give a frequency distribution ...

In most cases 'random' simply means lack of information about the process that leads to the 'random' outcome. The example I often use is the set of numbers 1,5,9,2,6,5,3,5,8,9,7,9,3,2,3 which seem perfectly random numbers between 0 and 9, and when presented with those numbers, one assumes they cannot be generated from each other, or a mathematical process. Yet if you calculate Pi, and subtract 3.14, you are left with those 'random' numbers as the remaining 15 digits, so not random at all when new information is obtained. That is not to say that there are no truly random events, to which, of course, you can assign a numerical value.

And, if you mean the Roman Empire, it should be noted that the Austro-Hungarian Empire, under Habsberg rule, referred to themselves, until the beginning of the last century, as the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, since all the Germanic tribes that invaded/sacked Rome essentially took on Roman laws and systems of government, and became 'Romans'. It is not a coincidence that Germanic rulers are called 'Kaiser', the alteration of 'Caesar' ( emperor ). Also 'Czar', and even 'Tsar' in Russia, indicating the Roman Empire had influence in the European continent until 1918. By the same token, the American system of laws and government, essentially a modified British system, has been very successful and has been a model for other nations. At least until it was taken over by 'big money', and corrupted beyond recognition by D Trump. I fullt expect to see this modern day Nero ( or Caligula ) playing the fiddle while Washington DC burns.

Congratulations, and many more ...

Holographic Entropic Service/Force cosmology ? Have heard it mentioned; not very familiar with it. "Entropic cosmology (or HES - Holographic Entropic Service/Force Cosmology) models the universe's evolution not through dark energy, but by treating gravity as an entropic force arising from information stored on the cosmic horizon. In this framework, the acceleration of the universe is a result of the statistical tendency for the horizon's entropy to increase." From what I've read ( not much ), it has issues.