I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is.
I'm not the OP, but my definition of porn is: Anything showing (or, for texts, describing) sexual activity in detail. While I've never seen any Playboy magazine, from what I hear, all they show is naked women. Those women are not engaged in any sexual activity. Therefore: No porn.
Actually the effects of the cosmological constant are quite well understood. Especially, unless you get to absurdly high values, it will affect nothing but the expansion of the universe. It will not affect nuclear physics, it will not affect electrodynamics, it will not affect chemistry, or anything else.
Of course it could turn out that the cosmological constant isn't really a free parameter, but is somehow linked to other quantities; in that case, the value of the cosmological constant in the real universe would be fixed by the values of some other quantities/constants (or vice versa). In that case, it could indeed be that any change which causes the cosmological constant to be negative would also have other effects which would make things radically different. Or it might turn out that the cosmological constant cannot be negative at all (for example, because it turns out to be the square of some other quantity).
But since such connections are not known, there's nothing wrong with tentatively assuming that it's an independent parameter (it definitely is in our current models), looking at the effect changing it has, and see what conclusions you can draw from it. In this case the valid conclusion is that, from our current knowledge, the anthropic principle isn't sufficient to explain why the cosmological constant is positive.
Of course everything beyond that (e.g. speculations about what this says about the existence or non-existence of a creator) is no longer science.
You've got to be kidding. I think every atheist type as a kid honestly had an anxiety prone evening where they wondered "well, if I formally declare... then I will be hit by lightning or run over by a bus, because the christian god hates atheists (or so I had been told)". Repeat the experiment a zillion times and you end up with the inevitable scientific conclusion that atheism must be correct, after all I used the scientific method to declare a hypothesis and tested it untold zillions of times and just couldn't provably falsify it.
You at best have falsified the theory that you will necessarily be hit by a lightning or run over by a bus if you are a non-believer. Actually you'll not even have proven that until you actually die without that happening to you, because as long as you're not dead, it could still happen.
BTW, I'm immortal. Proof: There have been many many millions of seconds when I didn't die, and not a single in which I died. That's quite a lot of evidence that I won't ever die.
The math we use seems irrelevant, binary, hex, octal, decimal, it all comes out equivalent and the "dependency tree" of mathematical knowledge seems to have remarkably little room for variation compared to practically all other sciences, so it's an especially poor example.
Hex, Dec etc. are not different maths, they are just different representations of numbers. The math behind them is exactly the same. Don't confuse math with calculation.
If you want to ask what a different math could look like, maybe start with other rules for logical inference.
That's still not the right analogy. The anthropic principle just says: If we wouldn't have won the lottery, we would not be here, therefore from the fact we are here we can conclude we have won the lottery.
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
I think so: The anthropic principle rules out non-inhabitable worlds. Since we are not in a non-inhabitable world, the anthropic principle is satisfied.
However it might be a problem with string-based multiverse theories: Unlike (AFAIK) the anthropic principle, those would involve actual probabilities, and therefore they would have to explain this non-optimality. However if there's anything which makes a positive cosmological constant more likely than a negative one, that would be sufficient.
2) The omnipotent did not want to maximize the chances of life, but instead did what he/she/it wanted to: which is pretty much the definition of an omnipotent.
Actually, the definition os an omnipotent is that he can do anything he wants, not that he does. An omnipotent god who is too lazy to do anything at all would still be omnipotent.
the product of two (positive) numbers (masses, in this case) of given sum is maximal if the two numbers are equal
Before anyone else replies: It's of course not only for positive numbers, but for all real numbers. I was just too lazy to think about it. But it actually just comes down to the binomial formula (a+b)*(a-b)=a^2-b^2. The sum of both numbers is, of course, 2a, and therefore the maximum is attained for b=0, i.e. both numbers being the same.
Of course masses are never negative, therefore it doesn't really matter here.
because everybody knows that a neuron-less Helium (aka unobtainium) will have antigravitational properties.
Well, I have good and bad news for you: The good news: Even ordinary Helium doesn't have neurons (nor any other sort of brain cells). The bad news: Despite of this, it isn't known for showing antigravity (although you can use it to lift things up here on earth).
You are aware that you cannot siphon water higher than 10 meters? Well, unless you manage to fill the tube with dark energy, because that has negative pressure;-)
Well the product of two (positive) numbers (masses, in this case) of given sum is maximal if the two numbers are equal, and it forms a parabolic curve (i.e. only one extremum). So removing mass from the smaller body and adding it to the larger will reduce gravity between them.
Won't mining the moon screw up all life on Earth, if we mine enough?
The mass of the moon is 7.36 * 10^22 kilograms. For comparison, the total annual world mining of coal is 5990 * 10^9 kg. Assuming the total mining on the moon would be as large (which I consider highly unlikely), then the mass of the moon would be reduced by about 0.000000008% per year. If that's not negligible, I don't know what is. Even if we had started this right after the dinosaurs died, we would have used up just half a percent of the moon. Assuming there's that much useful material on it to begin with.
I didn't belittle anyone. Having bad social skills means just not being good in social things, nothing more. Would you also say I belittle people if I say some people are bad at math? Or if I say some people are bad at music? Why should being bad at social skills be any different? Heck, I am bad at social skills. Not just "different than the social norm", but bad at social skills. So you think I belittled myself? Certainly not! It's you who are demeaning people bad at social skills, because by considering that term demeaning, you are implicitly saying that being bad at social skills is something demeaning.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the OP, but my definition of porn is: Anything showing (or, for texts, describing) sexual activity in detail.
While I've never seen any Playboy magazine, from what I hear, all they show is naked women. Those women are not engaged in any sexual activity. Therefore: No porn.
Actually the effects of the cosmological constant are quite well understood. Especially, unless you get to absurdly high values, it will affect nothing but the expansion of the universe. It will not affect nuclear physics, it will not affect electrodynamics, it will not affect chemistry, or anything else.
Of course it could turn out that the cosmological constant isn't really a free parameter, but is somehow linked to other quantities; in that case, the value of the cosmological constant in the real universe would be fixed by the values of some other quantities/constants (or vice versa). In that case, it could indeed be that any change which causes the cosmological constant to be negative would also have other effects which would make things radically different. Or it might turn out that the cosmological constant cannot be negative at all (for example, because it turns out to be the square of some other quantity).
But since such connections are not known, there's nothing wrong with tentatively assuming that it's an independent parameter (it definitely is in our current models), looking at the effect changing it has, and see what conclusions you can draw from it. In this case the valid conclusion is that, from our current knowledge, the anthropic principle isn't sufficient to explain why the cosmological constant is positive.
Of course everything beyond that (e.g. speculations about what this says about the existence or non-existence of a creator) is no longer science.
and they asked "Why do you want to study the stars?"
Well, maybe they thought only movie/TV stars used cosmetics. :-)
You at best have falsified the theory that you will necessarily be hit by a lightning or run over by a bus if you are a non-believer. Actually you'll not even have proven that until you actually die without that happening to you, because as long as you're not dead, it could still happen.
BTW, I'm immortal. Proof: There have been many many millions of seconds when I didn't die, and not a single in which I died. That's quite a lot of evidence that I won't ever die.
Hex, Dec etc. are not different maths, they are just different representations of numbers. The math behind them is exactly the same. Don't confuse math with calculation.
If you want to ask what a different math could look like, maybe start with other rules for logical inference.
That's still not the right analogy. The anthropic principle just says: If we wouldn't have won the lottery, we would not be here, therefore from the fact we are here we can conclude we have won the lottery.
Doesn't the Anthropic Principle adequately deal with this issue in any case?
I think so: The anthropic principle rules out non-inhabitable worlds. Since we are not in a non-inhabitable world, the anthropic principle is satisfied.
However it might be a problem with string-based multiverse theories: Unlike (AFAIK) the anthropic principle, those would involve actual probabilities, and therefore they would have to explain this non-optimality. However if there's anything which makes a positive cosmological constant more likely than a negative one, that would be sufficient.
At the inner edge of the habitable zone, we get the most light from the sun, thus the most energy to drive the biosphere.
Actually, the definition os an omnipotent is that he can do anything he wants, not that he does. An omnipotent god who is too lazy to do anything at all would still be omnipotent.
Of course the fact that any argument can be twisted around this way is proof that an intelligent designer exists! ;-)
Anything with the potential to adversely affect menstrual cycles should strike fear into the hearts of mankind...
Like hop?
Before anyone else replies: It's of course not only for positive numbers, but for all real numbers. I was just too lazy to think about it. But it actually just comes down to the binomial formula (a+b)*(a-b)=a^2-b^2. The sum of both numbers is, of course, 2a, and therefore the maximum is attained for b=0, i.e. both numbers being the same.
Of course masses are never negative, therefore it doesn't really matter here.
Well, I have good and bad news for you: The good news: Even ordinary Helium doesn't have neurons (nor any other sort of brain cells). The bad news: Despite of this, it isn't known for showing antigravity (although you can use it to lift things up here on earth).
Space elevator?
Space is already up there. There's no need to elevate it. :-)
You are aware that you cannot siphon water higher than 10 meters? ;-)
Well, unless you manage to fill the tube with dark energy, because that has negative pressure
Well the product of two (positive) numbers (masses, in this case) of given sum is maximal if the two numbers are equal, and it forms a parabolic curve (i.e. only one extremum). So removing mass from the smaller body and adding it to the larger will reduce gravity between them.
That was too easy for a geek snipe.
The mass of the moon is 7.36 * 10^22 kilograms. For comparison, the total annual world mining of coal is 5990 * 10^9 kg. Assuming the total mining on the moon would be as large (which I consider highly unlikely), then the mass of the moon would be reduced by about 0.000000008% per year. If that's not negligible, I don't know what is. Even if we had started this right after the dinosaurs died, we would have used up just half a percent of the moon. Assuming there's that much useful material on it to begin with.
Probably simply because we use the Greek name for earth, so it is consistent to use the Greek name for the moon as well.
Yes, except during a lunar eclipse.
Work is many people's raison d'etre. It should qualify as a mental illness, in my opinion.
But I don't know any person for whom commuting to work is the raison d'etre.
Think of it: All currently used vehicles still use the wheel, an invention of the stone age!
A small extension to your navigation system can solve that: Set off an alarm if you are approaching a certain place.
I didn't belittle anyone. Having bad social skills means just not being good in social things, nothing more. Would you also say I belittle people if I say some people are bad at math? Or if I say some people are bad at music? Why should being bad at social skills be any different? Heck, I am bad at social skills. Not just "different than the social norm", but bad at social skills. So you think I belittled myself? Certainly not! It's you who are demeaning people bad at social skills, because by considering that term demeaning, you are implicitly saying that being bad at social skills is something demeaning.
Will it also just work on XP?
Ah, you're playing FPS.
Particle physics: Shooting small, fast particles onto targets (or against each other). I see a pattern here. :-)