An astronaut - or any other object - crossing the event horizon of a large enough black hole wouldn't feel a thing (small ones are a different matter; tidal forces would tear him apart before he got that close). From the perspective of an outsider, he may for all intents and purposes no longer exist (although actually to an outside observer he'd appear to get closer and closer but never cross), but as far as he's concerned, he still does.
If instead the chair is converted into particles smaller even than electrons
Would you say the same about a square circle and if not why not?
A square circle is a contradiction in terms. A 4D object is just hard (not impossible) to visualize, and pretty much by definition has a 3D surface. It can (probably, I haven't done the maths) even project a 3D shadow onto the 3D surface of another 4D object.
A 3D surface would not seem to be a particularly useful concept even if we could imagine such a thing.
You're just not imagining hard enough. Don't just scoff and dismiss as ridiculous that which you don't care to comprehend.
Needless to say, like square circles, there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of 3 dimensional surfaces.
There's no evidence for their physical (not least because, as you may have noticed, we live in a 3D universe so such objects are impossible here), but as mathematical constructs they are perfectly cromulent. Just because you can't imagine a 3D surface of a 4D object, doesn't mean others can't. Mathematicians have been "studying" n-dimensional objects for years.
That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
If you can accept the existence of a God that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity), why can't you accept a universe that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity)?
If we can accept that the universe exists without demanding to know how it started
Then you're not being very scientific about it.
Physics needs get over this notion that when cosmology can't explain something we just gather it and put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it and call it a theory.
What's the alternative? If we can't explain it, don't even try? No. You gather it up, you put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it, and then you let the rest of the community do their best to come up with something which explains the world better. And that's science.
**SOMETHING** started the universe...who cares if it was God or something else...
So dogs prefer to hang around and interact with the creatures they've been hanging around with and interacting with since birth, in the individual sense, and since domestication, as a species. Glad we cleared that one up.
The difference between my approach and that of the naturalistic scientific community is that my worldview does not require our universe to be a closed system.
Science doesn't require anything of anything. It certainly doesn't require the universe to be a closed system. There's plenty of active scientific research and theory going on around the subject. Is our universe just an inflated patch of another universe? Are we living on the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional brane? And so on.
and I find that a lot of things in life make a lot more sense with that approach.
A lot of things make a lot more sense for people when they can just throw up their arms and say "God did it!" It doesn't actually get you anywhere, though. A lot of science is about saying "this doesn't make sense - why not?"
Slashdot Mirror
If instead the chair is converted into particles smaller even than electrons
Where'd you get that from?
Would you say the same about a square circle and if not why not?
A square circle is a contradiction in terms. A 4D object is just hard (not impossible) to visualize, and pretty much by definition has a 3D surface. It can (probably, I haven't done the maths) even project a 3D shadow onto the 3D surface of another 4D object.
A 3D surface would not seem to be a particularly useful concept even if we could imagine such a thing.
You're just not imagining hard enough. Don't just scoff and dismiss as ridiculous that which you don't care to comprehend.
Needless to say, like square circles, there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of 3 dimensional surfaces.
There's no evidence for their physical (not least because, as you may have noticed, we live in a 3D universe so such objects are impossible here), but as mathematical constructs they are perfectly cromulent. Just because you can't imagine a 3D surface of a 4D object, doesn't mean others can't. Mathematicians have been "studying" n-dimensional objects for years.
Just in case you're serious (you can never tell) - no, you couldn't do that.
Because the surface that is the event horizon has N-1 dimensions.
That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.
If you can accept the existence of a God that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity), why can't you accept a universe that doesn't need or have an explanation (and wasn't created by another entity)?
If we can accept that the universe exists without demanding to know how it started
Then you're not being very scientific about it.
Physics needs get over this notion that when cosmology can't explain something we just gather it and put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it and call it a theory.
What's the alternative? If we can't explain it, don't even try? No. You gather it up, you put it in a bigger bag with a new label on it, and then you let the rest of the community do their best to come up with something which explains the world better. And that's science.
**SOMETHING** started the universe...who cares if it was God or something else...
I care. I want to know.
A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.
No, it isn't. It's two-dimensional only by everyday common experience.
Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Only until we build a bigger telescope.
No, we'll never see it. The light from there will never reach us.
It's not really the same because anything that collides with a black hole will cease to exist.
No, it won't.
YANAP
Oh hey, you're the guy.
So dogs prefer to hang around and interact with the creatures they've been hanging around with and interacting with since birth, in the individual sense, and since domestication, as a species. Glad we cleared that one up.
From the article: 'Battushig, playing the role of the car
Huh? What car?
moved into the sensor's path to show me how it worked
How what worked?
"The use of the long wires is very inconvenient for my users,"
Well, obviously.
He realized that contractors would be reluctant to install the siren in other buildings
What siren?
TL;DR: Next time, pick a paragraph from the article that makes sense in isolation.
In other tests, one chip was shown to use 100% less power when switched off.
around the same energy that a 2,000-pound car going 70 miles per hour on the highway has in potential.
Wouldn't that be kinetic?
Computer does thing other computers can do!
My feeling is that a lot people with creationist leanings just don't understand quite how long a billion years actually is.
The difference between my approach and that of the naturalistic scientific community is that my worldview does not require our universe to be a closed system.
Science doesn't require anything of anything. It certainly doesn't require the universe to be a closed system. There's plenty of active scientific research and theory going on around the subject. Is our universe just an inflated patch of another universe? Are we living on the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional brane? And so on.
and I find that a lot of things in life make a lot more sense with that approach.
A lot of things make a lot more sense for people when they can just throw up their arms and say "God did it!" It doesn't actually get you anywhere, though. A lot of science is about saying "this doesn't make sense - why not?"
Why? Do you/"we" know the helipause isn't spherical, or did you just assume it isn't? Or are you using another definition of "interstellar space"?
It's Arbitrary: Voyager 1 Is An Interstellar Probe, Probably
You just need a Greasemonkey script to sanitise his Greasemonkey script every time it gets an update.
Facebook got rid of something that...
They've only got rid of it from Facebook. It's still alive and kicking at its own website.
steambox n. pl. steam-box-es pretentious pl. steam-box-en
R.I.{.
He's history's greatest monster!
...a lamp monster! Ooo-oooh!
You're a moron.
Who's a moron?
Nikola Tesla demonstrated a 100 Watt light bulb being lit 92 miles away from his Colorado Springs lab about 100 years ago.
Did he, really? Or did you pull those numbers out of thin air based on a half-remembered page you saw on Geocities once?