Leaderboard

Attacking them might also be a huge gamble. Your current knowledge of them is 10,000 years old. The fastest you can hope to attack them will take at least 10,000 years. As you are assuming they are a threat to "your" resources they have presumably spread beyond their star system. If you don't manage to annihilate enough of them on the first shot, the second shot may be directed at you.

There is little to no reason for the density parameter to change as one can accurately treat expansion as a closed adiabatic perfect fluid. lets put some math to that using The FLRW metric. the GR form of the FLRW equation is \[(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\frac{\epsilon(t)}{c^2}-\frac{k c^2}{R^2_0}\frac{1}{a^2(t)}\] k=0 , curvature \[\frac{\epsilon(t)}{c^2}\] is the energy density in the Babera Ryden notation as opposed to mass density \[\rho\] the reason will become clear later on \[\rho_c(t)=\frac{\epsilon(t)}{c^2}=\frac{3H^2(t)}{8\pi G}\] \[H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\] critical density value present day value approx 70 km/sec/Mpc \[\rho_c]+\frac{\epsilon_c}{c^2}=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}=9.2*10^3 g cm^3\]using the 70 km/sec/Mpc \[H^2=\Omega H^2-\frac{kc^2}{R^2_0a^2(t)}\Rightarrow1-\Omega(t)=\frac{kc^2}{H^2(t)a^2(t)R^2_0}\] if \[\Omega=1\] then it equals one at all times since the RHS of the last equation always vanishes for the flat case for the \[\Omega>1,\Omega<1\] the value may change however never change sign ie positive curvature will change but never become negative curvature Now for adiabatic fluid first law of thermodynamics \[dE-PDV+DQ\] the change in internal energy equates to the sum of PDV work and added heat/energy however there is no place for heat/energy to come from or leave the system therefore\[DE+pdV=0\Rightarrow \dot{E}+p\dot{V}=0\] for a commoving sphere \[V=\frac{4\pi}{3}r^3_sa^3{t}\] \[\dot{V}=\frac{4\pi}{3} r^3_s(3a^2\dot{a})=V \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\] \[E=V_\epsilon\] \[\dot{E}=V\dot{\epsilon}+\dot{V_{\epsilon}}\]\[=V\dot{\epsilon}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\epsilon\] with \[\dot{E}+P\dot{V}=0 \]we get \[V\dot{\epsilon}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\epsilon+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}P=0\] thus \[\dot{\epsilon}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\epsilon+P)=0\] which is the same as the fluid equation standard notation \[\dot{\rho}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho+P)=0\] there's the first law of thermodynamics as its a closed system according to this examination conservation of energy would apply however this doesn't examine quantum fluctuations or the cosmological constant.

Ah, so you're against corruption and abuse, and somebody somewhere tied the those two things together with "woke culture" in your mind (and a LOT of other people's minds). You now view attempts to correct the inequalities in the system as suspect. You have made the decision about being "woke" that many far-right personalities wanted you to make. And don't kid yourself, people like DeSantis represent the extreme right (the ones you say you're opposed to) in this country, people who don't give af about what minorities continue to experience in a system slanted against them.

Unfortunately, this is not clear, at least to me. What corruption are you talking about? You'd need to be much more specific. Also, was iNow points out, the most prominent "anti-woke" spokespeople define woke culture as the acknowledgement of systemic bias. Empirically measurable systemic bias exists. There's not really a middle ground to take. You either accept that systemic bias is real and are therefore "woke", or you deny reality. An analogy might be climate change - you can't really take a middle ground on being woke to climate change - you're either "woke" about it, or you're objectively wrong.

Ben, I hope you are keeping up your debt payments because if you miss one, the boss is sending Vinnie over to adjust your kneecaps.

If you have bad credit it is because you do not do a good job of paying off loans. Giving a person with bad credit the opportunity to go deeper into debt is a really bad option. What's worse is these types of loans typically have a very high interest rate.

You probably mean gravitational waves - gravity waves are a phenomenon in fluid dynamics, and have no relation to black holes. The answer to your question is threefold: 1. Gravitational radiation during BH mergers does not originate only at the event horizon, but results from the quadrupole moment of the binary system as a whole. Any kind of binary system - irrespective of what kind of objects it is comprised of - will be a source of such radiation. It is, in that sense, a global phenomenon of such spacetimes, and its source cannot be localised to any one particular point or region, including the event horizon. That being said, the geometry of the horizons reflect the geometry of all the rest of this spacetime (in very complex ways), so observing the wave forms of the radiation field allows you to extrapolate what happens at the horizon during the merger. This whole process is really a global one, and doesn’t just happen at the horizon. 2. The diverging in-fall time you are referring to applies to Schwarzschild black holes, but the spacetime in a binary system of in-spiralling BHs is not of the Schwarzschild type, not even approximately. Figuring out the precise in-fall time of a test particle from far away into one of these BHs is a highly non-trivial task, that can only be done numerically, but my guess is that it wouldn’t be infinite at all (one of the necessarily prerequisites for an infinite in-fall time is asymptotic flatness, which does not hold in this type of spacetime); it would also explicitly depend on where and when the test particle begins its free fall. 3. Even for Schwarzschild BHs, the infinite in-fall time applies only to test particles moving on time-like or null geodesics of the undisturbed background, ie it applies only to test particles whose own gravity can be neglected. This, however, is not the case for gravitational waves, which will couple to the background curvature in non-linear ways. To put it differently, a spacetime that contains gravitational radiation cannot have Schwarzschild geometry, and thus the infinite in-fall time does not necessarily follow. Even in cases where the gravitational waves are weak enough so that the background could still approximately be treated as Schwarzschild (which is not the case for a binary BH system!), the wave fronts wouldn’t propagate along the same trajectories as free-falling test particles, due to non-linear interactions with the background curvature. No it doesn’t. The length of the world line of a test particle free-falling from far away and crossing the horizon is finite and well defined; spacetime at and around the event horizon is smooth and regular, so time proceeds as normal there. The thing with this is that in curved spacetimes, there is an important difference between coordinate in-fall time and proper in-fall time. The coordinate in-fall time is what a distant observer will calculate and observe, based on his own instruments, which are not themselves located at the horizon; the numerical value of this will depend on which observer you choose. The proper in-fall time, on the other hand, is what is directly measured by a clock that is attached to the freely falling test particle itself; by definition, it equals the length of that particle’s world line through spacetime. For the case of a test particle freely falling into a Schwarzschild black hole, a far-away stationary observer will determine a coordinate in-fall time that diverges (goes to infinity). However, the proper in-fall time of that same test particle is finite and well defined, so the particle reaches the horizon in a finite amount of time as measured by its own clock, and continues falling through the horizon and into the singularity (also in a finite, well defined amount of time). Because of the way that proper time is defined mathematically, all observers agree on it. On the other hand though, coordinate time is always specific to a chosen observer, and not valid anywhere else. In curved spacetimes, time is a purely local phenomenon; a far-away observer does not share any concept of simultaneity with processes that happen at the (for him) distant horizon.

One factor is that similarly to other hot topics like immigration, politics likes to seize on such rather complex questions in order to gain cheap points. Rather quickly these issues then become rallying points and are not discussed in sufficient depth anymore. It is also funny to me that some folks argue that all that wokeness is finally causing backlash- whereas in fact the term is in itself a backlash to a status quo where systemic injustice was considered the norm and justified. The blame for inequality was then squarely placed on certain, typically powerless groups. I mean, in this thread there are a couple of important steps such as "hey hold on, how do we define woke in the first place?". Even such simple things are often not addressed in what passes as public discourse nowadays. Edit: I feel like I should start embracing old man attitude and hypocritically blame social media for all failings of modern society. While writing a post on social media.

I've spent 7 years as a faculty member at a minority serving institution and have a few insights that might be worthwhile into the whole concept of "woke" culture. 1. It's important to recognize that the fact that 70% of the student body comes from minority backgrounds and only 20% of the professors do. There are systemic reasons for that gap, reasons that should be thoroughly explored, identified and ameliorated so that there are no longer inherent biases in who gets to succeed and who doesn't. Evidence show the biases run deep - school districting, mortgage lending, access to medical care, etc and so on all affect opportunity. Contrary to DeSantis's lawyer's asinine comment, it's important to recognize that the playing field is not level and that race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability status etc all impact the opportunities an individual has to achieve 2. This can lead to a toxic environment (looking at you academic twitter) where fingers are pointed at people based on their identities as being undeserving or otherwise representative of a social injustice simply by existing. There have been multiple examples of extremely vindictive campaigns aimed at ending the careers and destroying the lives of privileged individuals for what amount to fairly innocuous statements or actions. Using "wokeness" simply to enact revenge on people that one deems to not deserve their position of privilege is counter-productive, I know first hand that what it does is push the privileged - who you need at the table to enact change that addresses inequity, out of the room. They delete their twitter accounts, stop coming to the EDI meetings and stop caring. 3. At the same time, the DeSanitses of the world can't deny the very observable, measurable, fact that systemic bias exists. You can't say that a poor, Hispanic, child with a single parent who has PTSD has the same pathway to becoming governor as a white, wealthy child with a stable home life because we all know that it's just not true. Pretending that they do because acknowledging your privileges played a role in your success/or lack thereof in spite of them makes you uncomfortable, or contests your flawed "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy is just fallacious and leads us back to point 2. 4. So wokeness with compassion is an important pathway to a more just and equal society. It's a term that's abused and corrupted by both sides of the argument, but if the way it is implemented is respectful, compassionate and empathetic itleads to a better place for everyone.

To me, to be woke means you realize you've been doing things without question just because it's the typical way. When you question the status quo, you find there's all these solutions that are better for the majority. You wake up to the fact you're being skillfully manipulated by people who can afford what that takes.

Interesting chat, which prompted a couple thoughts: One, an ET race that coldly calculates and affirms a high value on annihilating an entire planet of sentient beings...strikes me as very likely to be the sort of race that bombs itself back to the Amish farm level of civilization well before they make it into interstellar space. It's hard for me to see a fairly united planetary civilization evolving that would lack an ethical reluctance towards mass murder. I would think such an amoral perspective would lead more towards a planet of small balkanized states too busy feuding to be able to allocate sufficient resources to starfaring. As for "malevolence," I guess this depends on how one defines that term. Some might argue that a race that could justify such abhorrent acts as wiping out an entire sentient race, on a mathematical algorithm, would have a rather profound malevolence "baked in" to their character. And again, it's hard to see this character being one suited for longterm survival of an advanced civilization. My sense is that they would always be skating over very thin ice above a Hobbesian nightmare. (this is one reason I found the Klingons a rather improbable spacefaring race in the Star Trek franchise)

A pile of remains from some of the VERY many Russian rockets that have struck Kharkiv, Ukraine. Photo: Libkos/AP