MigL

I can't remember if it was Oppenheimer who originally worked this out. You're right. The Event Horizon is always spherical.

And those numbers and angles mean ... what ? You know, we can land on the moon, or fly to Mars and the outer planets with greater precision than that, yet we can't send irregularly shaped, rocky probes across interstellar distances. You would think those that can, would be more accurate. Soooo ... 'woo' or coincidence ?

That's why I'm a member; you can gain valuable insight even from an otherwise worthless thread.

Don't the weak deserve 'freedom' also ? Besides, there is always someone stronger ...

Your math might check out, but when are you going to consider the Physicality of the system ? You need to consider the actual mechanism, including the 'bounces that blow away outer layers of the original star, and the fact that density will be greatest at the center, so that a BH's Event Horizon grows from the center outwards. This is, then, a change in gravity as the event horizon grows. And as changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light, how does that change propagate out of the Event Horizon ? Theory rather suggests conserved quantities, such as mass, charge and angular momentum, are preserved/encoded on the Event Horizon, and we don't know the ultimate fate of the collapsed matter, as we know of no force that can resist such crushing gravitational pressures. Nice math presentation, but totally useless without considering the Physics.

How about Release the rest of the Epstein files, you scumbag. Your time is up; and take your ass-kissing cronies with you. Let America once again be the benevolent superpower leading the world, from oppression from dictators, towards the freedom of democracy. Trump's misinformation is finally catching up to him | Opinion And although this article paints a sorry picture for Republicans, starting with R Reagan, I would take Reagan, or either of the two Bush, in a heartbeat, over the current idiot running the US.

This is not a 'woo' or conspiracy theory site. But thanks for the update on the closest passing of an interplanetary ( maybe interstellar ) object coincidentally during the solstice.

Yeah right ! Because Facebook and YouTube are peer reviewed sources. ( I wouldn't waste my time )

good explanation @studiot The OP must be new to number and set theory. As for the Physical points made by other members, although all other interactions are quantized, IOW discrete granularity, the space-time field of gravity may or may not, be granular/quantizable ( it certainly is not by standard perturbative methods ).

Both Religion and science are tools. Both can be used constructively to aid humanity and both can help destroy it. Science has given us the means to feed ourselves, make tools to aid our work, make our lives comfortable and explore and know our world, but it has also given us nuclear weapons which may someday destroy us. Religion has given us morals and ethics which allow us to get along with one another, but it is also used by some religious leaders to control the populace, and has probably caused more wars than any other human institution, and again, can destroy us. The same can be said of any 'tool' mankind has developed, after all, guns were once used to hunt for food. The intent to use all our 'tools' for good or evil is purely dependent on the user. So, if we do destroy ourselves, it'll be solely our own fault.

Maybe if you had learned to refrain from the 'snarky' comments to moderators, and following forum rules, while away, you might have received a warmer welcome back.

Seems to be an extremely common misconception. We assume that any intelligence developed by AI ( if ever ) will have the same characteristics of our intelligence. But our intelligence has developed over the last million years based on guiding emotions suited to our survival ( mostly fear ) and those emotions still largely guide our intellect to this day. Why are we assuming that the AI's intellect will be tempered by those same emotions when they have none ? We make the same assumptions about extra-terrestrial life, and assume that they are like us, needy of liquid water and resources, and think like us, always needy and wanting. Life, and intelligence, has myriad possibilities.

But, there being an infinite number of universes, with infinite possibilities, there is a possible person with ALL the knowledge of the universe. Hopefully today you have learned that you should never use infinities to make a point, because, just like Physics theories, when infinities arise, your point ceases to be valid 🙂 .

Exactly the same to the observer as he is at the same depth in the gravitational well. It is termed 'proper time'. Observers at other depths in the gravity well will see differing time. ( this is easier visualized with a light clock or signal )

Other than the fact that I mentioned 'heavier' clocks in jest as a response to a post about time 'density', it see,s to me that a clock at a higher gravitational potential would have a higher potential energy than the same clock at a lower level in the well. Its intrinsic/invariant/rest mass would be the same to all observers, but, energy being frame dependent, an external observer would measure a different total energy than an observer holding the clock. Now, the interesting part that references back to the OP, is that a lot of our measuring equipment is also frame dependent, so whatever we measure by comparison in one frame, tends to be different from the measurement made by comparison to the instruments in another frame. Yet invariant measurements are the same across all frames, so can they be said to be made by comparison ?

The fact that "we don't know" is not a license for guesswork. I could just as easily propose that the current symmetry between matter/anti-matter wasn't always so, but was broken ( one extra matter per billion pairs during the early periods of the Big Bang ), allowing for excess of matter to dominate in the present day. Such conditions might have arisen during the inflationary period, and then symmetry re-established when it ended. We do have examples of symmetry breaks ( electro-weak break ); is a symmetry establishment so far fetched ? ( as far fetched as 'negative' universes on the other side of a BH ? ) Theories should be based on what we do know; such as observational evidence/experiment.

Exactly. That is an example of a 'gauge'. Something like temperature, on the other hand, is not a relative measurement. We don't so much compare it to a scale, rather we assign a scale to it. I would have thought the word 'absolute' would be fitting, but maybe not. Nevertheless, there is a difference to a relational 'gauge' measurement.

If I was standing, like a bird, on a 1500V cable ( without a ground, obviously ), what would I measure the voltage of the cable to be ? We have no clue what you mean by 'density' of time. Are some clocks heavier than others ?

What's naked got to do with it ? If you're a man, and you sun bathe nude in your backyard, your female neighbor calls the cops and you go to jail. If your female neighbor sun bathes nude in her backyard and you see her, she calls the cops, and you still go to jail. You don't have the God given tight to ogle naked women, no matter if you're dressed or not 😄 .

I'll let her know you appreciated her performance.

Suicide is the ultimate act of giving up in the face of adversity; no 'big balls' required.

Not Hyperbole. My niece, Alex, is a magician at the Greg Frewin Theater in nearby Niagara Falls. Last year she made two appearances on Britain's Got Talent The theater used to keep tigers and when one tiger abandoned its newborn because of a broken leg , she nursed it back to health at home ( until it started looking at her like food ) and it is now in a zoo north of Toronto.

I realize Monsanto had lots of lawyers ( and so does Bayer ) but when an adjacent GMO field 'infects' a natural seed field, and Monsanto tells the natural farmer that he has to destroy his infected seeds because they are 'patented', why does no one sue Monsanto for 'infecting their natural crop ?

But have you learned that if you put strips of tape on the floor in a rectangular/square pattern, your feline companion will happily lie down within the perimeter of the tape, as if it was a 'box' ? Or even on a rectangular sheet of paper/magazine you might leave on the floor ? ( yes, I had two cats for about 17 years, and my niece had a baby tiger for almost a year when she lived at my other house )

Do I detect a bit of contempt for rigor? The fact that other speculative processes are patentable does not make your AI influenced WAGs patentable. And without rigor they may not even be worth consideration.