Lord Antares

Good point, but doesn't the fact that photons always need v > c to escape from within the event horizon ultimately mean that there is always the same amount of force present at the horizon? To assume differently would be to assume that different photons in different event horizons need different escape velocities, which would imply that the forces at event horizons differ. Therefore, the gravitational force at the event horizon must be the same even for massive particles, no?

As far as I know, the escape velocity for all event horizons is c and therefore, the force of gravity is the same. What isn't different is the gravity on a set distance between a singularity (or the centerpoint of the event horizon, if you wish) and the event horizon. So, in other words, the event horizon is there BECAUSE the gravitational force at that point is the same, having an escape velocity of c, so the force at the event horizon must always be the same, by definition. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It would appear that the discussion was inccorect. Can you link to it?

My hometown just forbade 95 children from joining kindergarden until their parents vaccinate them. Good to hear.

Thanks for the links. While much of it went over my head, I was able to understand some things. I will come back if I have more questions. Don't think I ignored this. It's just that I know nothing about String theory and can't make anything of this.

Why do you doubt that? Because we don't have the technology for that means nothing to other possible civilizations. If you assume that there is alien life, then you should assume that there's heaps of it from all around the universe. Chances are reasonable that some might look our way and be able to discern signs of life from what they would identify as an unnatural field.

Aha, so my reasoning is not irrational here? I thought I was being purely speculative. Actually, the piece of information I was missing is this: I heard about this but am not familiar with the details. Is it possible at all to explain to a layman how these paradoxes were inferred from relativity? I assume the mathematics of it cannot be put into simple form since they must be complicated, judging by the fact it took so many years to figure it out. Fascinating information. I will look the pauli exclusion principle up. But they are still formed in a structure-like manner like regular matter is, rather than being one consistent piece of matter like the singularity is supposed to be, right?

I know this but I have been lead to believe that this is no longer true once a black hole forms, since there is no more repulsion between electrons, everything is squashed into pure matter. That's what I said.

If you make an arragement of atoms in the tightest way possible, due to their shape (even though that term is very loose), there will be some gaps in matter, or ''micro-vacuums''. Therefore, there must be such a thing as the highest possible number of atoms that can be fit inside a space of certain dimensions before the nuclear force is broken down. But the nuclear force can be broken down, something that happens when a black hole is forming. To my understanding, the singularity of a black hole (if there is such a thing) is thought to be comprised of just matter with no gaps in structure. This would mean that the space it occupies is occupied in whole, without the possibility of it getting denser. If any more matter is added to it, its volume will grow but not its density. My question is, why is then ''maximum density'' not something that exists in physics? The singularity IS thought to have infinite density, but this is a result of the equation p = m/v where v = 0, hence p = infinite, and not what I am talking about. Furthermore, if all singularities are the same size, how can some have more distant event horizons than others? You could say that some have more mass, but how could they have more mass if their size is zero and density infinite? What piece of information am I missing? Thanks in advance for any helpful replies.

When people use one example to disprove a statistic. Off all the fallacies, this one is my least favorite.

Again, general success is not the best way to correlate IQ. Presumably, all Nobel prize winners (and a high percentage of successful scientists) have been noted to have high IQs. Science being obviously different to football as it's a mental disciple, rather than phyisical. So there is a correlation between being able to solve the world's most complicated issues and having a high IQ.

That's what we are talking about. But as I said, I don't think monetary success is the best factor to compare IQ to. It is undeniable that most if not all successful scientists were given high IQ scores (of those who were given IQ scores in the first place)

And this clearly points to the issue of legitimacy of research, something I've been thinking about. How do you know, in this day and age, what is a legitimate research and what is not? How can an innocent soul stumble upon a research and be able to tell that it's misleading? Also, success might not be the best example of high IQ. How many Nobel prize winners have been tested to have a high IQ? I would guess all.

Don't twist your intentions here. You accused him of being a creationist, which is a mistake on your part for not being able to deduce it based on the logical flow of the conversation. Then you make a flippant comment about a miniscule rank increase that will never bother anyone. Crackpot sites are being linked to here often in order to discuss pseudoscience. Why don't you attack those other people who linked those? Don't move the goalposts here. I still don't see an apology.

See? I expect to see an apology to Code42.

It would help if you knew enough English to understand what he was trying to say.

That is a ridiculous assertion. It was clearly an example to show something akin to his idea.

I highly doubt that. A science center does a much better job at that than a theme park. At science centers, you may actually learn something. A theme park is there for the entertainment and flashy effects. What might happen is people would get hooked on the Tesla coils, gravity rollercoasters or whatever and would soon lose interest when they find out what level of mathematics and devotion it requires. A science center is a better indication of that and one is more likely to stick to science after showing affection for it in a science center than in a theme park.

But how? How would you represent the forces of an atom? Or the laws of thermodynamics? Or gravity? Or calculus? These are the things science is about. I can only see it working for biology. Maybe an evolution themed park ride. Now that I think of it, that would look good if pulled off right. You ride on a rollercoaster and as you progress, so does the scenery evolve from primitive to homo sapiens and other modern animals. I could see that working. But I hope you realize this is not something that can be done for other sciences like physics, chemistry or especially mathematics as they are based on ideas, calculations and experiments, rather than anything visible per se. So far, I like it for biology.

Teach how? English is not my first language so forgive me if I am misunderstanding something, but to my knowledge, a theme park is a themed entertainment ride, such as rollercoasters, wheels, haunted houses etc. Is that correct? If so, I don't see how they could actually teach science. That is something done in school, via documentaries etc. Some one-time science trip presentations for schools could be a good idea, but that's far from what you are suggesting, I guess.

What do you mean by science based? What would be an example? Really, all theme parks are science based in that they are run by electricity with some impressive demonstration of spin, momentum, velocity etc. I struggle to see what beyond that could be science based, as it would qlmost certainly be based on some lighting and digital effects, which we already see in theme parks.

I agree with everything said here. As I was about to say and Raider already did, there is a statistical correlation between ''high IQ'' and success. Not just success, but mathematical ability, rates of finishing college etc. No one is arguing that IQ is the absolute measure of intelligence, but it has some faint indications. One thing often overlooked is that the results for the ''normal ranges'' mean less than the ''extreme ranges''. That is to say, someone who gets an IQ of, say, 170 in a legitimate test (whatever that means) is much more likely to be considered an intelligent individual and be successful than a 120 guy is to be perceived as above-average.

I didn't know that. I was doing the European one, which is based on your first language. It didn't ask me for money. It's ridiculous that they do. The questions in it were fair enough. Yes, this. My opinion is that there is such a thing as measurable intelligence, only we are very far from designing appropriate tests for them. Many people question the whole concept of intelligence because of that, but I feel strongly that our tests are too stupid and primitive to convey it properly. There IS a correlation with high IQ scores and success of the people who do well on them, but with an unnaceptable margin of error. Good to hear honesty. I wouldn't say that you are stupid, based on that. I've been hearing too many people who think they are far more intelligent than they are being told/shown.

It depends on what you consider legitimate. Some would argue that the whole premise of an IQ test isn't legitimate. That being said, the most ''legitimate'' way is to find a mensa location near your location and take a test. Second best would be to take the internet mensa IQ test: https://www.mensaiqtest.net/ I've seen another one that shows up first based on your first language. The third best, and really shitty option is to take alternative online tests which often give ridiculous results.

???? What difference does it make if they are small changes over time or instant? If they look at it and see it, they will notice it, regardless of when they looked. To them, it could they have been an instant change for all they care. It doesn't matter which it is as the fact that there is an unnatural field will mean something to them, i.e. that there are indications of life on Earth.

Yes, you're starting to get it. At least you are making sense with this post. But what does any of this do? How does it benefit anything for the human race? What can you apply this knowledge to? Provided that it's correct in the first place. You cannot make anything that science does with this knowledge. Try to apply any philosophical reasoning to actually make any kind of output. You won't be able to. This is why I personally dislike philosophy. It's just argumentation. The whole discipline is based on talking about things you would talk about in some conversations anyway. And the issue is that no objective truth can be agreed upon from those conversations. So essentially, you have nothing of use. Good points, Strange, +1