81–89 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New utility function seems to be consensus-based monetary value as modern art becomes a store for value and/or an investment.
Utility keeps us honest, we really don't want to end up firing on all cylinders towards the perfect combination of drugs, VR and storytelling that will shut us down forever while explaining the Fermi paradox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For all practical purposes, I agree with the analogy, but would like to point out that the box might not be infinite so there could be limits to invention. Take a chess game as an example. No one would say there weren't creative inventions regarding tactics and strategies to win, but the bottom line is that the number of possible chess games, no matter how staggeringly huge, is still finite. In the end, no matter how…
There is something on the order of 10^100 (~2^300) bits of storage available at the Universe. Is the box larger or smaller than that?
In that case the issue is that some parts of the universe are out of reach from other parts, because of the light-speed limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My heretical theory of dark matter is that is just a byproduct of black holes gravitational effects. Probably something about so much mass punching such a deep curve in spacetime creates a widespread effect. Of course this is just a baseless theory, but it seems more reasonable to consider the possibilities of a realm which we know that we know almost nothing about, than inventing new particles or physics to fit the…
The trouble with this kind of theory is that for a force like gravity, if you consider the force outside a sphere surrounding the sun, the force is identical no matter how the mass inside is distributed, whether it's the sun or a solar mass black hole inside the sphere.
Let me state up front, I am no fan of the "black hole" and "neutron star" concepts so take the following comments as arising from that basis.
The x-ray data and observations are only "supposed" to be coming from "black holes" as we cannot and have not directly observed any such entities. Now, it may be that there are specific entities involved that are dark body and gravitationally significant. However, as we are unable to directly observed these entities, they may also be quite visible and as well as gravitationally significant in terms of the effects seen.
The current consensus model for the universe entails a belief that General Relativity is correct and at the base of the GR model is a belief that the ONLY significant force at solar, galactic and universal levels is gravity, in whatever form your model of gravity may specifically mean, as in a force or in GR terms a warping of space due to mass.
Since we also know that there are large areas of charged space, we need to be able to ask the question - "are these charged space areas of such significance that they effect large areas of solar, galactic or universal space?"
The thing that we call gravity is of such weakness that even weak electric or magnetic fields completely override any gravitational effects. The simplest example that I use with my grandchildren is rubbing a balloon against my limited coverage of hair on my head and that balloon will stay connected with my hair against any force of gravity that is around me.
Too oft, methinks, the consensus models of the day are considered "holy writ" and ye are considered "blasphemers of the highest order" if one even dares to voice any doubt in those models. We take ourselves so seriously, even though what we should be doing is knuckling down and looking at all the facts before us.
If our models are wrong, so what? Is not the purpose of participating in any science a means to getting a better understanding of the nature of the universe around us? If our models are wrong in any area, let's try something else. To me in a sense, we are still in the mindset of those who came before who fought against a heliocentric view, they would rather add more gears to the geocentric model than consider that maybe another model is more useful in describing the world around us.
Mayhaps, we need to take some steps back from our current models, put aside our pet theories and just look at the data that we have and see if some other pattern arises. It should be no skin off of our noses if the models and theories we have are shown to be wrong.
Let's make science fun again, because it ain't no fun today.
I'm sure this is an oversimplified view, but doesn't it seem like, because black holes are more dense, they'd naturally tend to fall toward and gather around the center of the galaxy? Sort of like how more dense objects tend to be found at the bottom of a pond? So then perhaps it makes a lot of sense that the galactic center would contain a lot of black holes.
Imagine that our sun suddenly collapsed into a 1-solar-mass black hole. What would happen to the orbits of the planets? Nothing. The black hole would still exert the same gravitational pull as the sun did. The same is true if you replace all the planets with equivalent-mass black holes. Denser objects in an atmosphere or other fluid, where there is friction and buoyancy, will tend to sink to the bottom. However, if y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One way to dispel the idea that everything has been invented is to imagine something small and mundane – but 100 years in the future. It seems unlikely that people will be writing code or picking out groceries the same way they do today, for example. Some aspects will be the same. But are you sure we won’t be picking out groceries in VR? Another thing that helps: technological progress seemed exponential over the las…
> One way to dispel the idea that everything has been invented is to imagine something small and mundane – but 100 years in the future... Hasn't people always thought there were living in the pinnacle of technology era? I mean, if you look at texts that are 50 or 100 years old, you can see people chest thumping about how they are in the modern world. Aren't we doing the same now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble with this kind of theory is that for a force like gravity, if you consider the force outside a sphere surrounding the sun, the force is identical no matter how the mass inside is distributed, whether it's the sun or a solar mass black hole inside the sphere.
At extreme scales gravity may behave in strange and unexpected ways -- as do other phenomena.
We don’t see any of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a pond, you have the force of gravity (i.e., buoyant force) to do this sorting. This force doesn't exist in space, or at least not in a way that's analogous to the pond.
Interesting. Can you provide any more details? Obviously the force of gravity exists in space. So what's a better way to describe the difference?
Is it possible that black holes could account for a good portion of "dark matter"? They literally fit the term.
> Is it possible that black holes could account for a good portion of "dark matter"? A key issue with this hypothesis is how the holes could have formed. In order to form a black hole, a system has to gravitationally collapse. But that involves emitting a lot of energy, usually in the form of radiation, as the system becomes more and more tightly bound gravitationally. For ordinary matter, the kind we and visible sta…