Baby Astronaut

The correct phrasing: if someone happened to die by accidentally slipping on a banana peel, will mentioning it cause giggles at their funeral?

"If a tree falls in the forest and hits a mime, does anyone care?"

I'm sure the mime's parents care.

(we all know mime school's very expensive)

(on a side note, wonder if anyone posting on these forums is a mime?)

However quantum mechanics has demonstrated that the universe acts differently when we're looking as opposed to when we let it be.

As others have said, the naked eyes without viewing instruments aren't likely to change what's being observed.

As an even stronger statement: I strongly expect they'd merge into a single shell as soon as they touch. Reason: Consider the classical gravitational field and two equi-potential spheres around the centers of two circular masses. When the masses approach, the two spheres deform and at a closer distance merge into one.

If so, then each black hole would suddenly be inside a larger event horizon and neither one could escape. Therefore the particle's never going to leave anyway in your scenario, as the black holes each would be stuck in the newly formed/merged event horizon.

But do we know for sure the event horizons would instantly become one? Now that I'm visualizing it, you deduction seems highly possible, but I'd like confirmation.

What's CMS stand for?

...it does make a sound.

Why?

The universe doesn't need our presence for its laws to function. How do I conclude that? Because the universe has existed longer than our fossil record indicates.

And sound waves do occur without the presence of a biological listening apparatus. It can be tested: just place a glass chalice along with a machine that emits a high pitched electronic sound deep into the woods away from human ears, come back and observe if the glass shattered. Voilà

How do two black holes have their event horizons overlap, then "continue on their merry way"?

Hurtling fast enough through space?

But remember, an event horizon isn't a real physical object and so can't be trapped by gravity anyway...I presume.

Thanks guys.

...to one, two, or more server-side scripts (but not all of them), or even to particular functions of the server itself

Just to ensure that we're all on the same page...you knew I meant giving control not just of the website, but of the server that it's residing on? (partial control though, like being able to navigate the server itself and make permitted changes -- in specified/limited ways only)

Un-freakin-believably astounding pics. Some have me thinking of what you'd see under a petri dish of alien microbial stuff, others have me thinking of water ripples. Many just really strange looking.

Thanks Martin.

"I believe the universe is trying to kill me."

 

Leaving that a personal belief, what is there to discuss? It can be responded to: "I don't belive that the universe is trying to kill you." However, that's not discussion.

You sure it can't be made into a productive discussion? Let's see.

Dammit...you were right JillSwift.

So again I'm led to the conclusion that a faith forum does not fit in here.

 

And again; there are gobs of forums out there who welcome discussions of faith.

¹ Belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence.

That's just it. Personal belief can be labeled as such, thus wouldn't be a claim, just a belief specific to that person's reckonings.

Or it could've just entered one first, moments before the second overtook it.

9) Infinity.

10) Omniscience.

11) sun's temperature

....a particle's caught.

The situation: two black holes passed near each other, like so...

Their event horizons slightly overlap, with a particle caught exactly in the middle of this overlap. Now the black holes continue on their merry way. The particle must leave with one black hole, yet at the same time it must leave the other black hole. Thus does it violate a scientific principle? For now there would be something able to escape an event horizon.

A side question...if a photon were caught instead of a particle, does anything interesting/unusual happen to its movement?

But we can measure a number beyond the calculated total energy of the universe

Can one make a website that gives full editorial control to someone, allowing them to upload content and make any kind of changes, but you still have a master key just in case you need to override that control?

And if so, how possible is it to allow full control to either just one part of the website -- for example to the menu system, or images, or css scripts, etc -- or to just a certain number of functions -- such as permissions/access to one, two, or more server-side scripts (but not all of them), or even to particular functions of the server itself...like a person being able to update/edit/delete scripts yet has no control over their archiving into back-ups?*

*(for example if a script is deleted/erased it automatically gets backed up first, nothing the person can do about it)

If someone typed up a post, didn't hit "Submit", abandons the computer, meanwhile the branch of a falling tree eventually hits the Submit key, while no one's around.....Does it get posted?

If no one tried to make unsupported claims or dismissive remarks, I think a faith subforum discussion area could work.

If it is true, then yes. Surely there would be mention of someone's dead loved one walking the Earth. Or perhaps there'd be some empty graves of people who died before then.

 

Perhaps there would be a Roman record of the trial and/or capital punishment.

 

While you cannot directly measure it being false by absence of these things, the presence of these things would be scientifically measurable.

 

However, there are times where an absence of evidence can be supporting evidence.

 

For instance: Matthew mentions Herod massacring all the infants of the area. Provided it is true, there could be several things to provide evidence such as historical accounts or an unusual spike in infant graves in the area at the time.

What if the bibles just mixed in sprinkles of real history with its stories?

The problem anyway is that finding circumstantial/supporting evidence for one biblical description isn't whatsoever proof for the other biblical descriptions.

Catch-22... Will penicillin help with that?

It's later expanded to be a more all-encompassing "you can't win" type of maxim.

I thought catch-22 meant the "solution" was in reality just an instant shortcut back to the problem.

Edit: or that a feedback loop's created either between a problem and its solution, or between two problems.

Thanks swansont, everyone.

It will depend on the context. However, [math]r[/math] often stands for radius.

 

When one writes down an equation one should be careful to define all the symbols. In practice, some symbols have a specific meaning in different branches of physics. Note that the meaning may be very different depending on the subject.

Never blindly trust the meaning of a letter. Use your own brain, because different countries/books/websites have different letters.

Wow. I had thought it a far more organized and universal system.

If mathematics is the best (i.e. universal) language for contact with aliens, how's an extraterrestrial going to unravel what the letters represent in our equations? Hypothetically speaking

[math]r[/math] stands for...?

Is there a website anywhere that briefly explains all such letters, i.e. what each represents?

Edtharan did you catch my last post #132?

....to make models of human behaviours and in the last couple of decades this method has been revealing much about human behaviours that we didn't know before.

I'd like to see the data on that, if you would. A google search based on the quote above turned up nothing relevant.

The key words I used...

models of human behaviors in last decades reveal much we didn't know

Thanks, swansont. Got it: just observing isn't enough to stop the wave behavior. One must attempt to detect its path.

1. Why is there no wave created after the red pair? What are you doing to stop this...

Attempting to detect which slit the particle has entered.

Does it become a wave again if no such detection exists at the second pair (by the time the electron reaches it)?

...also double slit experiments are done using a single source

True. Drawing on a forum post is quite limited and so I did my best Just ignore the extra shooter.

2. That is a method of working out which slit the electron has gone through, so it would destroy the interference pattern.

Wow, yeah. Hadn't even occurred to me that indirectly, the divider would reveal the electron's path.

3. if the slits are not next to each other you just have two single slit experiments one above the other, nothing interesting will occur.

Let's assume the height of each slit is 20 inches, they're just not level -- one's bottom is higher than the other by a few inches. So perhaps the single electron becomes a wave of potentials (3:10 in the vid) and goes through the lower slit as normal, but for the slightly higher one the bottom part of its wave is blocked -- thus only the top portion of the wave goes through.

Interesting in such a manner.

From a letter by Darwin...

"I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work & which I know no one individual who wd not say a very foolish one."

Pretty close to the way I feel (or perhaps how others will in due time). Been going it 5+ years. Just curious though, does anyone else here feel the same way, or has in the past?

Do hope so

(Credit Sisyphus for introducing that website previously)

It seems the meeting of particle/antiparticle keeps the violation of conservation from occurring. But if Hawking Radiation is a vast group of particles composed entirely of the one particle that didn't fall into the black hole, then can't we safely deduce the escaping particles won't be annihilated in the near future?

Yet if that's the case, has the violation occurred?

Another question on Hawking Radiation: it follows that about half of the particles falling into the black hole by that process will be "anti". If so, the black hole itself surely is made of regular particles. So as soon the anti- enters the black hole, shouldn't it annihilate with a random particle?

1. A new hypothetical experiment uses two pairs of double-slits. Electrons go through one pair of slits (red), and further down also go through a second pair.

> ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °l ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ) )

>° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° l ) )

A wave doesn't form at the red pair.

Only because: you're observing, which collapses the particle's wave --- but as it travels further to the second pair, does it become a wave again?

2. Another hypothetical experiment begins in more familiar territory, where if the electron is shot one at a time, it would enter both slits and interfere with itself.

However, you run a divider in between the slits all the way to the back wall. So if a particle wave goes through both slits, it'd now be unable to interfere with itself, as that divider in the center block the waves from meeting.

Does it still go through both slits?

3. The next hypothetical experiment is the regular double-slit, but you've elevated one slit a few inches higher than the other. Does the wave's height allow it to reach both slits? And if so, might anything interesting occur?

Note: the hypothetical experiments I've listed are based on conclusions drawn from the following YouTube vid. I'm not sure if they got it right, but in case they didn't, I'm just basing my questions off that. And I'd still have a muddy view of the double-slit experiment (if they're wrong).

DfPeprQ7oGc

I have some respect for Bill-O and I do at least consider him honest.

Simply the fruits of a con's labors.