Strange

Here is a nice illustration of how you can view space as "falling" into a black hole (taking things with it). It reaches the speed of light at the event horizon, which is consistent with the description in the first post: https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

2 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

Once you cross over the event horizon of a black hole you cross the point of no return. The speed of light is 186,000 MPS but once you cross over the event horizon you would have to have a speed faster than that to escape from the gravity of the black hole and nothing can move faster than 186,000 MPS because as weight increases with speed, once you reach that speed your weight becomes infinite so it would require infinite energy just to reach light speed. That is why you can't escape from a black hole since the escape speed is faster than the speed of light and you can't go faster than the speed of light according to conventional physics. 

Although it is often explained that way, that is not the reason you can't escape a black hole(*). After all, you can temporarily leave the surface of the Earth at less than the escape velocity. But you can't leave a black hole, even temporarily.

It is better to think of it as being due to space time curvature: after you pass the even horizon, spacetime is so curved that there are no paths that lead away from the centre of the black hole. Whatever direction you go is towards the centre. Worse, spacetime is so curved that "towards the centre" is no longer a spatial direction but is your future. And there is no escaping the future

(*) Actually, I suppose that in Guilstand-Painleve coordinates it is true. 

11 hours ago, GadgetJim57 said:

I know how to get the correct answer to this Math Puzzle

Odd that you don't tell us what you think the answer is, then.

As with all these stupid puzzles, I guess one can make up a story to justify any answer, but in this case it seems reasonable to say (as your friend's list shows) that the answer is N * (N + 3) = 10.

I don't understand what all the shouting about (or what your friend said vs what you said) or why you have posted everything twice. Is that part of the puzzle 🙂 

21 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Afternoon, all.

The adaptive semi-determinism or ASD is a concept conceived by myself in an attempt to define and explain the universal mechanism behind everything, or at least I think so.

I thought I'd share about the ASD to all of you on here. I had hoped that by sharing about it, it could become more developed or evolved understanding via discussion between you and me.

Unfortunately, it became apparent that I performed poorly of job with the definition and explanation for the ASD mechanism. As result of that, I have decided to discontinue my contribution to philosophy / science. It is clear that I have no place in either domains or fields. I wasted your time, for that I am sorry and won't bother any of you again.

I wish you good luck with finding, proving, and putting the final theory to good use if there is any.

Good day to all of you.

You could stick around and get involved in other discussions. That might be interesting and it might help you clarify your ideas in you own head so that you are able to explain them to others.

2 hours ago, Farid said:

Hello Everybody,

I just wanted to express my opinion on magic tricks. I have seen many magic tricks on YouTube and other media platforms. And, most of them are extremely hard to explain. My opinion on it is that some of them are just illusions, and some of them are real. What do I mean by "real?" By that, I mean that if a magicians disappearing trick is real, it means that the magician has actually disappeared. 

It seems infinitely more likely that you just haven’t worked out how the trick is done. 

This should not be surprising: even professional magicians are not always able to work out how a trick was done. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Fool_Us - even when they are fooled, they have never said “well, I guess you must have really made it disappear”

15 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Sorry for the long reply.

Think of ASD like Kernel used in Linux operating systems, a middle (drivers sort of) between hardware and software. That is kinda the best explanation I can could come up with atm.

As you are unable to explain this vague feeling to anyone else, in meaningful terms, it seems to be the most spectacularly useless idea ever.

"My theory of everything is that things seem kind of right to me in a way I can't quite define"

15 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Philosophical interpretation of and action with meaning.

23 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes it is rather the reverse. What is the difference between:

It doesn't strike me as a very useful analogy as you end with a croissant every time. (Half joking; half serious)

8 hours ago, ALine said:

I want this thread to be an attempt to create a generalized overall mapping of mathematics as we know it at this current time.

Looks like someone beat you to it: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-map-of-mathematics-20200213/

Without knowing more, it is impossible to say. But videos are notoriously bad sources of information (I have seen a video of aliens attacking Earth; pretty sure it wasn't real.)

1 hour ago, studiot said:

It is common practice (especially in schools) to state, somewhere near the beginning, "We will only consider statically determinate frames/beams/structures in this text."
Sometimes a simple example of an indeterminate structure (such as a propped cantilever or a doubly cross braced frame) is shown as an example but not discussed further.

I must have been away that day.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Every schoolboy studying applied maths or physics learns the 'principle of static indeterminancy'.

Is it bad that I have never heard of that before? Can I blame my teachers?

34 minutes ago, francis20520 said:

I am assuming that there are SOME statements that CAN be proved.

Pretty much everything in mathematics can be proved. There are a few well-known problems that have not been proved yet (some have substantial prizes associated with them).

It took over 300 years before someone proved Fermat's Last Theorem. That is partly because it had to build on a huge amount of mathematics that was developed in the meantime. Some very simple looking problems can be very hard to solve. Some quite complex sounding problems, that people have struggled with for decades, might turn out to have a really simple proof. (Mathematics is one of the few files where outsiders can, and do, make breakthroughs.)

48 minutes ago, francis20520 said:

So, is there any statement yet discovered in mathematics that satisfies Godel's proof??? Have they found a statement that cannot be shown to be either true or false?? 

There are lots of unknowns in mathematics (e.g the continuum hypothesis; that there is no infinity between the (infinite) set of integers and the (infinitely larger) set of reals) that have not yet been proved either way.

And there are some problems for which it can be proved that there's no solution.

But I don't think you can ever say that a particular problem is unprovable because of Gödel Incompleteness. Unless it is a problem specifically constructed to be unprovable for that reason (which is how Gödel proved the theorem; by constructing a mathematical statement that could not be proved in the rules of the system).

41 minutes ago, hoola said:

@ strange...I was thinking about how an instantaneous  local event, not  how a remote merger or other natural  phenomena, might be detected.   With a rapid deceleration of a massive object directly in front of a proposed sensor, could proximity allow detection? 

And I am just trying to give you an idea of the sort of massive scale you would need to be dealing with, even at close range, to produce something that can only just be detected by, perhaps, the most sensitive device on the planet.

Quote

Would the 58 megaton thermonuclear explosion set off by the soviet union have created GWs at any theoretically detectable level , if it happened proximate to ligo?

I'm not sure it would. And they would be swamped by the physical vibrations caused by the explosion. 

1 hour ago, francis20520 said:

But does Godel's theorems have implications in physics where we search for "knowledge"???

I.e. Does these 2 theorems put a limit to knowledge we can obtain about the universe through physics???

No. They are purely about the "completeness" of formal systems.

In other words, can a formal system (e.g. mathematics) prove that anything that can be written down using that formal system is either true of false.

And the answer to that is no. You can write something using mathematics that you cannot use the same mathematics to prove or disprove. You can extend your formal system to make it more complete and allow you to prove that statement. But then there will be other statements that this extended system cannot prove. And so ad infinitum.

Physics uses mathematics but it is not limited by that mathematics in the same way. (And some mathematicians complain that physicists are a bit "ad hoc" and don't really stick to absolutely formal derivations.)

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

They will agree on the timing as seen from an observer at O though won't they ?

Yes. Because the Lorentz transform is reversible (I'm sure there is a proper mathematical term; linear?) so the events get transformed from O to A and to B, then if you transform them back to O you end up where you started.

So, they might not agree about the ordering of events in their frames, but they will agree about what is seen by an observer in O.

They can do it either way: they can transform their measurements to O (which could be one way of A and B comparing their own local measurements). O they can transfer O to A or B, respectively.

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

I understand that  both observers will agree  on the timing and nature of  events playing out at O.

Hang on. They won't agree on the time between events in O (as they measure it in A and B). They might not even agree on the relative ordering of events in O.

On 6/30/2020 at 1:10 PM, hoola said:

A pertubation from a mundane acceleration is tiny, but if it happens proximate to a proposed reciever,  could the inverse square law offer a local GW amplitude capable of detection? I would think it would require an acoustic barrier with some form of sound cancellation, or ideally be done in a vaccuum. Perhaps the stack could be placed in a vaccuum chamber, and any testing could not acoustically affect any readings..      Is deceleration  equivalent to an accelration in creating GWs? thanks 

If we assume that things scale linearly (almost certainly not true) then, based on the first gravitational waves detected, you would need two masses of around 7kg total, spinning round each other at nearly the speed of light to generate an equivalent signal (i.e. causing movement of less then the size of a proton).

So, not at all practical.

I don't remember the exact figures, but I seem to remember that if those two merging black holes had been at the distance of the sun, the gravitational waves would have had almost no perceptible effect on earth. Even though they carried away several solar-mass equivalents of energy is a few milliseconds. Gravity is very, very weak.

If the LED was actually a laser (as in a laser pointer) then you might be seeing laser speckle. But that is only where it is reflected from a surface, not around the light itself.

8 hours ago, Ajil Benny said:

Law behind it : There will be a gene difference between father and son, ie the gene similarity difference is 0.1 and the similarity difference between the gene that we get from father and mother is 0.1.

Humans have about 25000 genes. So a change of 0.1 would require 2,500 mutations. 

Then again, the son only gets about half their genes from the father so the difference could be much larger than that