DanTrentfield

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh wow.....

Oh. My mistake

Because almost every great discovery in science (The telephone for example) has no practical purpose at first, and is frowned upon as a "plaything for the rich" until it is revolutionized and consumed by the hungry beast of technology and progress, and transformed into a brilliant machine.

....... This is not promising for the future of the species. And frankly uhm.... that's a very interesting thought that you would marry your phone. To leave this without the sudden urge to vomit and rant about how freaking disgusting many of the thoughts that just popped into my head about this concept are, I'd say that this is the worst kind of loneliness...... Because how lonely do you have to be to marry an inanimate object that is incapable of showing affection. This is the exact reason why I suggested that robotic wives be provided to people like this because at least then it is halfway natural in the fact that the object is at least semi intelligent and resembles a human being highly, and instead of gobbling up your attention like a black hole gobbles stars it encourages you to live life and find happiness. Not to insult the poor man but JEEZ.

Mine was a .biz website..... with all sorts of gritty ads all over the place It was advertising well among that my computer had a bunch of viruses (Which it did not, thanks to AVG) some very..... interesting photos. I'm just hoping that whatever happens I don't get put on the NSA child predator watchlist because of that stupid redirect..... I hate the promiscuous minds of many of the internet's denizens.... cause frankly really..... that's just disgusting.....

Thank you. I had told Swansont and he notified Capn' Refsmm but if you've already fixed it then I believe I owe them an apology and you a thank you.

Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Infinity is a rational number and well defined. And we know some things about the universe.

Thanks. Oh. I'm sorry. All I know is that romantic rejection literally makes me so depressed I will actually drink something other than wine (I have a glass of wine typically with dinner but we're talking consecutive shots of hard liquor) and it's usually about this time I lose a job and my grades drop a ton (I am in college) and I get into the mindset of "Well. Life is meant to be lived alone right? and I guess I'm not really worth love anyways" and this one time I got super drunk and apparently blacked out and woke up in a hospital with the biggest cut in my side I'd ever seen. Apparently I got into a bar fight and ended up getting cut with a knife pretty badly according to the bartender that night. Thankfully I no longer drink like that now that I'm happily married. But I'm pretty sure if something happened I would not be in a good situation at all. That is true. Hm. Interesting thought. But I'd say we should avoid deep learning AI, because then it can develop it's own thoughts and ideas and there are containment of information issues..... For example if it discovered Mein Kampf and began a neo nazi machine revolution

Well if it's anything like love you wouldn't have to. Unless they're b@*$!y all the time. Cause that's a pricetag worse than an arm and a leg Luckily however my wife is sweet and caring (and cute and sexy as hell ) and loves me for who I am, and is my best friend. Looking forward to a lifetime with her. It's actually quite funny how we met, I was sitting in a hotel lobby in Toronto (I was sick as a dog with the nastiest chestcold I've ever had) on a trip to visit some family that moved there. So I was sitting in this armchair and there was this coffee table in front of me and she tripped on the rug (New high heels she says, Drunk girl I say) and landed on the coffee table breaking the glass. She smelled like tequila, and had glass in her everywhere so I started picking it out and ran over to the front desk and asked for bandages and some alcohol wipes and I cleaned her up (She was drunk as a skunk) and she thanked me for it, said I was cute and ran off, tripped on her own two feet from how drunk she was, and very obviously needed help just getting to her room. So here I was practically carrying a drunk girl up to her room (She was leaning on me with what felt like all of her weight) while dragging her suitcase behind me. It was interesting plainly, especially when she thought the keycard reader was broken because she was putting the card in backwards..... and so she woke up the next day, (Looking like someone who's been doing some serious sleep deprivation marathons) saw me in the lobby with coffee, thanked me, and said she needed a guy like me in her life. It would be interesting to see if robot "love stories" could actually unfold like the tangled, uncontrolled messes of real ones.... I just wonder if AI could ever experience love, or deal with a situation like how I described in the way my now wife did.....

That is true. I guess I was thinking about that the wrong way.

Ah. Well then. I just got redirected from the post Magentic Pole Reversal imminent in Speculations to a malicious website, I was not able to grab the URL of said website regrettably but I recommend that the moderators/webmaster of SFN check this out. Here is the URL to the post which I was redirected from. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94554-magnetic-pole-shift-reversal-imminent/ I do not know if that result can be replicated, but this an anomaly because though I have seen a few rare ads on SFN my mouse was nowhere one. I checked my extensions and even the javascript console but have found nothing. Please investigate this matter, because I believe that either: A: The page contains an embedded malicious redirect, B: Someone is attempting to redirect traffic going to that page specifically or possibly SFN as a whole to a malicious website C: There is a breach of the firewall or security system of the SFN servers which is allowing these malicious redirects to control a limited amount of traffic (Unlikely but a distinct possibility.)

Marriage robots aside.... Women still have a place in a romantic relationship if they so choose to partake in that, which many do. A robot could never really replace a real person as there would still be rough edges in the programming most likely, and besides that hope you don't ever plan on having kids..... Unless of course we're making robots a walking cloning vat which is a HORRIBLE idea as we do not need 66 Rick Astleys to Rickroll us simultaneously. The whole reason I suggested that we have spouse robots is that many times people, especially men, and even sometimes women, are simply too nervous to ever actually talk to someone they are romantically interested in, Even more so if they are depressed or if that person is in a group of other people, and this creates a certain degree of emotional trauma which can lead to many many many late nights of getting drunk and possibly even lead to suicide. Because frankly having a long term and healthy care/concern relationship is both an integral part of the human existence and almost absolutely necessary for maintaining a degree of happiness.

Let us not forget Asimov's laws. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. If we develop true artificial intelligence then we should at least follow these basic laws. It allows for a rationality to govern the robots to allow them to govern themselves, and where there is freedom, there often is not violence or war. And this would allow a certain degree of freedom. However because of the nature of human beings there should be strict robotic labor laws as well as emulators for emotions, because if we did not experience emotion, morality would fly headlong out the window. At the same time we should prevent total technological singularity at least concerning the robots (Do not allow them to self modify/improve) and should give them the right to a fair trial much like humans, because this would give them the degree of aforementioned freedom. Also I think that robotic wives would seriously help people such as myself a few years ago. I was out of a job and my college plans were crashing, and I literally just thought of this: I will never be loved by anyone. The emotion excludes me because I am too awkward and weird in general. I do not have a place in society. And so a form of robotic romance would seriously help many people like this and most likely save many lives. However these robotic relationships should be strictly limited to people who are experiencing these thoughts and cannot seem to catch a break in life or find someone to cling to and to help them through. Humans are very social beings and many times our emotional needs are simply ignored and so we make terrible decisions because of that, sometimes tossing ourselves off cliffs because of inadequacies we believe are crippling to our place in society.

Though ∞ is incomprehensibly vast to the human mind, Mechanically 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity. Why? To quote google definitions: "a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)" but though it is unassignable in terms of quantity, it is still limited in the fact that infinity is infinity, it is a number too large to comprehend but still limited to itself. In this point lies that 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity, in the same way that the earth is something when in comparison to the universe and using your model it is nothing. Therefore negation due to insignificance in comparison to an infinite thing does not necessarily hold up, and it is a pessimistic thing. And if you wish to say that we know nothing then you mean to say that we have not tried. And that is an error. It is an error to assume that we know everything, but also an error to assume that we know nothing, because then you forget your past mistakes which are the most valuable kind of lessons. Never say that though 0.1X10-299 is insignificant in comparison to 1, and is practically nothing, that it is nothing, because the universe operates on both scales of macro and micro, and to discount something as too small or too large is foolish, you simply must take things from a neutral perspective when it comes to true comparison, and let that 1 out of ∞ be a 1 out of ∞. However I would have to agree with you that we know very little in comparison to how much there is to study. But we still know some things.

I'd have to agree with the researchers from Noaa and the journal Science Advances, and I'd have to go on to say that the runaway greenhouse effect is probably at work here. Well we still have forty years to put the Lazarus program in effect...... Just gotta build NASA a huge underground base..... Only we'll be running from heat and pollution instead of blight. Well then again they do pretty much the same to our food supply.

Also, I forgot to address something brought up by Strange, To quote the great man: That is a very good point. However I must call into question at least in interest of studying this phenomenon where you got your information. And I must ask if that information was tested via experiment. And I would like to see if I could possibly bridge this gap in the general consensus of this page. For an uncommon moment of personal thought on personally proposed matter I'd like to say that I personally think some parts of this make some degree of sense, so I'll most likely never scrap the ideas unless I have clear evidence that each one of them is wrong, because many of them if they were true and experimentally provable would bridge a lot of gaps (At least in my current knowledge..... I really do get lost in my own museum as Dr. Jones says because I don't even know how much we know about the universe ) in our knowledge of the universe.

At least there's never going to be a shortage of things to research..... Here meet my wife: Lady Physics: ∞ Me: The three stages of idiocy in scientific thought: OH! THIS IS BRILLIANT! I LOVE IT THIS IS GENIUS!!!! I LOVE PHYSICS!!!! OH S%#^ IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!! I'M A DUMB!^#& Lady Physics: ∞ I am infinite. You will never learn it all. But good luck trying. I eat minds like yours for breakfast

This raises several questions: 1. Holographic theory is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that a description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower dimensional "Light like boundary" like a gravitational horizon. (moving on in the article) string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way. (Quote of Wikipedia) So given this statement would then the forces of gravity be possibly attributable to a universe that contains our hypothetical universal black hole that has reached the state of maximum entropy and zero expansion as described in a law of limits like fashion by Hubble's law? (See question #4 for a more in depth explanation on why I think this.) 2. Being that the universe obeys the forces of entropy and it's singularity is in the past, why then would it's singularity also not be in the future? Entropy means the equal distribution and mixing of all components in a mixture, not necessarily the max spread unless I am mistaken. Which means that were it not for the forces of Dark energy if that truly is what is causing such rapid expansion, the universe would recondense albeit in a state of maximum entropy, to a singularity. 3. So if universal expansion is scaling effect, and it is not a speed at all, does that not necessarily mean that there could hypothetically be a speed great enough to overcome expansion of the universe, or because data mentioned in Hubble's law states that we are close to the critical state of zero expansion, that at that point or close enough to that point, any speed would be enough to overcome this scaling effect given time? 4. If we reach the point of zero expansion then the big crunch occurs as stated. But let's say that we do not reach that point fast enough, and lets say an unlikely thing happens which ties into my OP: Let's say The universe itself is somehow existing on the surface of a supermassive black hole which exists in another universe, of which we are a pocket universe of, and let's say this universe does not have close to/the critical density for the big crunch/and or continues to expand forever with all matter being consumed by black holes in this universe/ or even possibly has the critical density and big crunches, and in doing so creates a huge number of pocket universes in a very short amount of time, and the black hole which our universe exists on the surface of, dissipates/merges with another black hole, Given enough matter inside a black hole, such as one in which our universe would be contained if the OP is somehow true, would a rebound effect where a big bang like expansion of our pocket universe into the universe in which the black hole exists in occur? And if the big crunch scenario happens within the universe in which our universe exists in on the surface of a black hole happens and many pocket universes are formed with their own matter would our universe merge with another universe in a weird and very interesting fashion? This would tend to agree with the theory(?) of parallel universes as it could be hypothetically possible for pocket universes to have their own laws of physics (Man this is getting sketchy with "Possible" Yell out if I'm wrong and I shall amend any errors) with one important thing to note: In order for time to exist as it is a differential between two(?) (Sketchy....) objects one thing must be true: A universe that has reached the state of zero expansion and maximum entropy must exist in order for something like our universe to exist as we cannot have 0 without 1, because time works somewhat like this with differentials between maximum and minimum and in order for something with such a time flow as our universe to have that must mean that there is a universe that is in the state of maximum entropy and complete stagnation in terms of expansion (Zero expansion) because it has to create the possibility for that to exist as a concept in the first place. (If I am mistaken in any way shout it out please, I do not intend to promote errors, rather I hope to propose an interesting idea with my logic backing it, Even so my logic can be faulty.) And in the same way a universe that is younger than ours should also exist if we are not the top of the scale. But at the very least if this idea and way of thinking has any credibility whatsoever we must have an opposite. Thank you Strange once again for helping me to refine and remover errors from my ideas and please be sure point out any errors in that idea barely attestable as a feeble hypothesis of an idea that is far bigger than I expected. That last part goes for anyone who knows for sure if I'm wrong too. Links/Citation: Wikipedia on the Holographic Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Wikipedia on the Principle of Maximum Entropy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy Hubble's Law: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hubble.html Hubble's Law: H=71km/s/Mpc the fact that we see other galaxies moving away from us does not imply that we are the center of the universe! All galaxies will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe unless the other galaxies are part of the same gravitationally bound group or cluster of galaxies. A rising loaf of raisin bread is a good visual model: each raisin will see all other raisins moving away from it as the loaf expands. The fact that the universe is expanding then raises the question "Will it always expand?" Since the action of gravity works against the expansion, then if the density were large enough, the expansion would stop and the universe would collapse in a "big crunch". This is called a closed universe. If the density were small enough, the expansion would continue forever (an open universe). At a certain precise critical density, the universe would asymtotically approach zero expansion rate, but never collapse. Remarkably, all evidence indicates that the universe is very close to that critical density. Discussions about the expansion of the universe often refer to a density parameter Ω which is the density divided by the critical density, such that Ω = 1 represents the critical density condition. Also to add this. Given all of the above statements are true and that the universe is indeed a pocket universe existing on the surface of a black hole. I would like to propose a rickety but relatively well thought out equation to describe the nature of the number of possibilities possible in a pocket universe such as our own assuming that all of what I have stated is true (Even though it is probably not this is a given A, A=B situation.) the number of distinct possibilities in a pocket universe (Unless I'm horribly mistaken which is probably true) is Np=Lu X Mu/Mq6 With Np being the Number of Distinct possibilities Lu being the lifetime of the universe in Planck seconds (Unless there is now something smaller) Mu being the Mass of the Universe And Mq being the Mass of a Quark (Or the smallest known particle) and Mu divided by Mq being to the sixth to represent the number of unique directions said quark can travel in a single Planck second at any given speed (Up, Down, Left, Right, Forwards, and Backwards) without creating a hybrid of any directions and a case like this being inbetween direction 1 and direction 6 and so described by the 6 as it accounts for all six possibilities to be true at once (Schrodinger's cat in the box style, The quark has neither moved left nor right nor up nor down nor forwards nor backwards UNTIL it has moved and therefore all six must be accounted for) If this does not satisfy the scale of the number of distinct possibilities (Even though this would already be a huge scale of infinity) Let me know and I shall amend this. And if it is not amendable disregard this post please and thank you.

My mistake due to inexperience. Infinity is rational as well as well defined. Google definitions: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number So infinity is rational. But this post with it's belief is very clearly not. Please excuse my errors. I am still forming my knowledge of the universe.

So I've been thinking a bit lately. After the very helpful posts by people like Delta212 and Strange to name a few on my Universe is infinite only in the theoretical sense? thread, I'd like to ask a new question. Does the universe exist on the surface of a black hole? Crazy? Yes. Stupid and completely false? Probably. But let's pursue this matter anyways using some rickety but still somewhat logical points I've come up with. Hypothesis: The universe exists as the surface of a black hole 1. Question: The speed of light is the absolute limit of speed for particles with mass, Why is this? Answer: This could be the rate of the expansion of the universe, as if you surpassed this speed if this were the case you would completely exit the universe because you would be moving faster than the universe is expanding, therefore space cannot catch up with you, Because whilst the universe is infinite, infinity is only a quantity greater than any assignable quantity or countable number, (Cred. Google Definitions) which due to the limitations of the human brain make infinity a rational number, albeit a concept not able to be thought of as anything other than infinity because of it's size, Also, the presence of different infinities of larger scales lends evidence to infinity being a rational and limited number that is too large for us to ever visualize but still a limited and rational number. This would make sense with our current understanding of the nature of the expansion of the universe, as it is speeding up, not slowing down, as a ripple in a pond moving a constant speed would be ever increasing in rate of expansion. This however though it does not lend evidence to the question or answer it entirely and makes the assumption that space can be exited, which is a wild guess at best and pseudoscientific at worst, However, that the universe is speeding up in terms of expansion is in agreement with what is currently accepted for how the universe is expanding, making that the universe is expanding at a set rate of likely the speed of light, possible but hypothetical, and the fact that the universe is infinite but infinity is a limited number beyond our conceptualization does lend some tiny degree of possibility against huge odds of improbability of that possibility to the ability to exit space and the universe as a whole, and supports the consensus that while the universe is infinite, infinity is limited, therefore the universe is limited to infinity. 2. Question: If the universe were to exist on the surface of a black hole, why then would a state of maximum entropy not exist as all information and matter is distributed evenly on the surface of a black hole? Answer: Because maximum entropy takes time to achieve, because in the same way that a water based mixture with dirt, oil, and sand takes time to achieve the state of maximum entropy, so does the matter and information on the surface of a black hole take time to achieve a state of maximum entropy, and due to the extreme nature of time dilation around/in black holes it is hypothetically possible for time to be extremely sped up in comparison to the time of the universe in which the black hole exists. 3. Question: Assuming that the universe does indeed exist as the surface of a black hole why then is new matter not created whenever this hypothetical black hole consumes something? Answer: There are a few possible explanations for this: A: The hypothetical black hole has not/is not consuming any matter at this specific moment in time B: The hypothetical black hole has consumed it's entire universe C: Extreme time dilation makes our universe's increments of time so fast in comparison to the hypothetical universe that this hypothetical black hole exists in that matter from this hypothetical universe that this hypothetical black hole exists in does not even reach anywhere near the event horizon before our universe reaches a state of maximum entropy and dies out in heat death. 4. Question: Is there any evidence to support the possibility of the universe existing on the surface of a black hole? Answer: There is no evidence which can be proven solidly to support this conclusion at this point and time, And there will not be unless we gain serious insight into the nature of black holes, However, although there is not solid evidence to support this consensus, and only rudimentary reasoning to support this idea, it should still at least be considered as a possibility for universes to exist because it agrees for the most part, with Mr. Stephen Hawking's research into the nature of the early universe, and the nature of black holes, and it would explain what happens once you enter the event horizon of a black hole at least rudimentarily. In conclusion I think this is simply an interesting thought, and it does make some degree of sense with what we have discovered so far about the nature of black holes and the universe. Even so I cannot provide experimental evidence nor mathematics, so this begins to devolve into a mere speculation that I attest as a hypothesis. And I'd like to thank you for reading this rickety ramshackle hunk of junk that I just threw in the much beloved "Trash can".

Perhaps I should say something, the concept of an infinity is irrational, as it is non definable. But at the same time there are bigger infinities than just infinity, in the same way 2 is greater than 1. However just being able to think of something in a conceptual way does not rationalize it. This is because just because you can think of 1 doesn't mean you can ignore the question of 1 what? What is 1? That is my mistake here. I said the universe is definable. The universe is an infinity, so we are able to rationalize that it is an infinity, but we are not able to rationalize infinity itself.

Exactly my point. "Impossible is only impossible in the short term, there is a way to achieve anything, but it is impossible to us in the current because we have no knowledge of the existence of that way." -Anonymous

You are indeed correct about that. After all we cannot assume something we know nothing about. That nothing being the universe's nature of infinity. Thank you all for your insight into universal expansion, it helped me reform my concepts on it much. I must ask though, would it be theoretically possible to devise an experiment to gauge whether the universe is infinite or finite? Please don't say that it is beyond our understanding, it can be beyond our current understanding, but never beyond understanding, as the impossibilities of yesterday are part of common life today, demonstrating perfectly the adaptable nature of humanity.