Leaderboard

I think, you were right, and it is a transcendental equation. I've solved it with a very simple approximation procedure and Excel. Here it is: f(x) = (Pi - 2)/4 + sin(x) - x

And like with baboons, threat gesturing is what keeps people from coming to actual blows. It is a reminder that if you attack me you will get severly hurt too, even if you are 100x my size. Can you expand on this please? I am trying to understand why it is an illusion. As a rather small scale example, I knew a guy in college who was a bit of a dork, small and kind of funny looking. He also had a black belt in karate. As much as the bullies might have wanted to pick on him they never did, given that they knew prior to defeating him they were going to absorb an unacceptable level of damage themselves. If 10 guys decide to beat up one fellow outside a bar, if that guy pulls a knife the bullies are likely to back off. Not because they couldn't win, but because the risk to themselves was too extreme. Why isn't the same kind of risk analysis done by nations that is done by individuals? Why won't the threat of a nuclear bomb lobbed into your backyard be enough to keep a bigger nation from invading a smaller nation?

Yes. Thus the reason I asked. But I'm not talking about equals. I'm talking about asymmetric situations. Would Russia have been so willing to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? That's not the way I read it. In a Mexican standoff the best chance of survival is to maintain the status quo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff#:~:text=A Mexican standoff is a,situation without suffering a loss.

Do you have any thoughts on why NK and Israel do not get rid of the nuclear weapons if they are safer without them?

That looks a lot better, certainly.

He says that it takes billions of years for a galaxy to form. I don't know where he gets that from. I'm not an avid student of cosmology, but what drips of information I have absorbed described galaxies forming very soon after the big bang. And mostly, or all, with supermassive black holes at the centre. He seems to be talking about what people thought 25 years ago. Obviously the James Webb is showing some unexpected stuff, that's what it's for. Before Webb, it was more speculation what the early universe looked like. It seems to be emerging that all, or nearly all galaxies have a supermassive black hole at the centre, and the way that they detect that is by gravitational lensing. This isn't new stuff, it's what people have been saying for ages. Maybe the James Webb is showing that that's true for the very earliest galaxies. I haven't heard that there was any theoretical reason why that shouldn't be the case.

Good day. I am very thankful for everybody, who takes a part in this conversation. And, you, @studiot, very right now. Thank you for alternative point of view: it`s very important for my question. I want to say "thanks" one more time for everybody.

Around the SPONCH CaFe.

You're still not getting it. Nobody is saying that there is no deterrent effect. The point is that it only has to fail ONCE to cause a catastrophe. It's a bit like taking a pill that restores hair loss, but can cause a fatal heart attack. You can take the pill, and show off your luxuriant hair if you like. It's a gamble. A smaller reward, gambled against a total catastrophe. You might be a winner, or not, like the guy using the tightrope over the grand canyon. The difference with nuclear, is that you're taking the wives and kids across the tightrope along with you.

Please give me some time to continue, but I would like to start with all the things we know for sure, just asking you questions you hopefully answer saying "yes". Before we reach a possible solution of why this mystery force exists.

So for you the sun is an object that is constantly absorbing space. That is interesting. It is like throwing a spear through a waterfall. Please give me a -999 reputation. Lol. I don´t care. I prefer to have answers to my questions.

Please read the following sentences: "Gravity can only be explained by taking into account that there is a spacetime curvature." "The only proof of a spacetime curvature is gravity." "Because there is a god, we build a lot of churches." "If we build a lot of churches, there will be a god." "If the sun is shining today, I will ride my bike." "If I ride my bike, the sun will be shining." If you are interested in a new logical way to explain gravity, please send me a message, before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.