Lord Antares

I cannot comprehend this topic at all. Why exactly would someone photoshop your photo to a porn site? Are you considering uploading nude pics to facebook? Or are you thinking they would photoshop your head on a nude body? If so, it is always clearly visible when it is photoshopped like that, so that would prove nothing. And who exactly would waste their time doing that? You can easily report them even if you care about that. And if you have ''enemies'', why do you keep them on facebook? As someone else said, of course this does happen occasionally but only because there are so many people in the world. Car accidents, rape, robbery and physical violence all happen more frequently than this type of thing.

Suppose you are faced with a mysterious machine that has 2 buttons on it. Button A has a 100% chance of giving you $100 Button B has an X% chance of giving you $1.000.000 What is the minimum value of X that would make you choose button B? I can hardly imagine anyone would go for the mathematical solution. For example, if you gave A = 100% for $100, and button B = 50% for $202 to a non-pragmatic math machine, it would choose B, while around 100% of humans would choose B. P.S. Obviously, it is implied you can only press the button once, so no B spamming until it rains money. (Or A spamming, depending on the value of x )

I'm surprised by this as well. How does travelling at 99% c require finite energy, while travelling at c requires infinitely more than that? Is this why c can't be reached? Why don't they mention this more often, it makes it easier? Also, why did CERN try reaching the speed of light then?

No, I guess I wasn't clear enough in my description. I don't mean it landing on the edge, I mean on the width surface, i.e. the narrow area between two edges of the coin, the one that has horizontal stripes over it (at least in my country). I realized the probable solution after I posted this, the previous one was wrong. It is simply to draw a circumscribed circle around the coin with the said width area directly facing you and measure the degrees out of 360 that the width takes up, divide by 2 (for the 2 width sides) and the answer is - the odds are 1 in (360/result), right? But that implies perfect 2-dimensional spin for the coin. You would have to include physics for 3d calculation. Also, now that I think of it, the real physical answer (expanding beyond initial impact position to real coin toss rules) is closer to 1 in 180, as swan said, because it would require the coin to land perfectly vertically in order not to tip off.

Yes, I was able to follow the text with no problem but the solutions in the boxes contained unknown symbols to me. Maybe a quick google search would help that, to be honest. You are right, learning math is the most logical solution to this, but I am in such a position that if I need to learn something extensively, I need to focus on something that will directly help my life (pogramming, re-entering college that I am qualified for etc.)

Yes, that's why I meant. That's why I said it would be different if you accounted for physics. I was pondering the question in a more mathematical manner, i.e. counting the initial hit position, disregarding what happens afterwards. Those odds would be significantly higher than if you included physics, no? And you are correct, I need to define what counts as landing on the edge or the sides. I guess the corner edge of the coin would be the boundary between the head/tails side and the width side. Then 1 in 180 couldn't be correct as you have to account or the width of the coin. If 1 in 180 is correct, then it would have to apply the same for both narrow and wide coins, which cannot be right. Are the odds then simply the ratio of the surface of the sides of the coin divided by the surface of the width side of the coin? I understand that the odds in a real coin toss are significantly lower to land vertically as it needs to be at the right angle; completely vertical. @Prometheus - I am sorry, I said I was illiterate in mathematics so I don't understand what these symbols and signs mean so I got lost in the equations.

Is it possible or easy at all to calculate mathematically? If you considered only the initial landing position and ignored the physics that happened thereafter, would it just be surface area of the sides X and surface area of the width Y where the odds would be 1 in (X:Y)? Of course, if you included actual physics, that would reduce the odds as there is a considerable chance that the coin would flip over after landing vertically due to momentum, angle, etc. Also, while I'm at it, another question (but pls answer the first): I've read a few times a supposedly true fact that the coin has a 2% higher chance of landing on the upper side due to that side being upwards the same or one more amount of times compared to the lower side. However, this does not make sense to me as no one would consider 0 flips to be a valid coin toss, obviously. Neither would they accept 1 flip as valid, most likely. So it depends on the minimum amount of flips one deems to validate the coin toss. I would think that number would be 2, if I had to guess, so that would bring us again to the upper side having the advantage; but wouldn't it have a higher advantage than 2% then? Surely, if you consider the minimum amount of flips that makes a coin toss valid + the realistic amount of possible coin flips in a real toss, wouldn't it be hard to arrive at the value of +2%? If I'm wrong, please explain why that specific value. I have zero education in mathematics, so forgive me if I'm missing some major, well known equations. Odds and probabilities fascinate me and I like to think of them and try to apply them in games/uncertain situations etc. so answers to questions like these are most welcome.

OK thanks. I will check out fermionic exclusion. By the way, it wouldn't have much to explain about the inside of the event horizon, only the fact that it would be allowed to have value for size inside but would show up at zero or infinitesimal when looked from the outside of the event horizon. Thanks anyway.

You understood everything I said except this part. I know there isn't a number before infinity, this is not the point. I mean the highest possible density before the structure of atoms/protons/whatever is the appropriate base particle breaks down. (breaks the nuclear force?) From then on, I could see how the density could reach infinity but I would use the term ''maximum density'' instead of ''infinite density'' for clarity. In my theory, the radius of a black hole would mathematically turn up as either zero or infinitesimal (I'm not 100% sure on this one) WHEN MEASURED FROM OUTSIDE the event horizon. Inside, it could be any value it pleases (that is not the theory itself; that would be stupid, but it is a result of the theory). In this theory, infinite density wouldn't be any kind of impossibility or spawn any paradoxes. I know none of this probably makes any sense to you, but I don't want to post the full theory until I've learned more about physics.

Why would you believe him anyway? Science has SO much research put into it, so many things have been proven and tested and magic has exactly 0. What's he's referring to is probably quantum leaps or some other form of unexplained quantum science stuff. It's simply that: unexplained. If he considers everything that's unexplained as magic, then yeah, magic does exist.

What do you mean? Isn't that mathematically wrong? For a black hole with infinite density to appear: 1) If there is no highest possible density before infinity, then matter would have to gradually get denser and denser until it reaches infinity which is impossible because if would take infinite time. 2) If it gets denser and at some point jumps to infinity, then there is a highest density value; the point at which it jumped to infinity, no? Sorry for being stubborn guys, but I don't like accepting something until I've fully understood what the other person means. For example, when someone tells me ''this is wrong because QUANTUM SCIENCE'', that doesn't satisfy my curiosity and didn't make me learn anything. In other words, reaching infinity is logically impossible unless unless there is an exact point before infinity. Reaching infinity gradually can obviously not be achieved.

Actually, I went into this discussion with an theory in which this is the only possible solution. In my view of it, density would rise and rise and at some point jump straight to infinity. It would have the highest possible value before infinity, and then infinite. So this makes me wonder if it has some merit... I know and this is exactly what I am talking about. I wasn't talking about outside volume. I was thinking of the inside volume of the smallest possible particles if such a thing is known. You guys said that this would be the neutron, which I'm happy with, but then there's quarks and quantum physics particles and it all gets confusing there.

I see. Unfortunately, my lack of knowledge about subatomic particles and quantum physics prevents me from discussing this issue any further. If atoms don't have a volume, then I'm confused. I understand they may not be like billiard balls, the electron field is scattered everywhere. Even gasses have volumes, but if atoms don't, then I don't even know what to say. Also, if Planck length is a thing, then a singularity isn't, is it? Sorry for being stubborn but it's just hard for me to believe singularities work. It's supposed to be infinitesimal. That's like saying ''the first number before infinity'', but instead it's ''the first number after zero''. It's just hard to believe. And why is then Mr. Strange agreeing with me to a degree? Yes, I know that a singularity would not consist of atoms as obviously it is supposed to be (infinitely?) smaller than them. I just thought that atoms are incompressible and therefore the size of the black hole couldn't be smaller than the sum of the atoms but it seems I was wrong.

But doesn't that violate the law of conservation of energy? For example, by that logic, if you took an object the size of the earth and condesned it into a singularity and then took another object the size of 1/10 earths and condensed it to a singularity, they would have exactly the same size and maximum density. Isn't that a loss of matter? Wouldn't it make more sense that the size of a black hole would be the sum of the sizes of the atoms it contains? This wouldn't violate that principle and it would still be maximum density. And it would still consider atoms uncompressable in terms of density unlike the other theory. Also, the size of the black hole would practically STILL be zero OUTSIDE of the event horizon because it perfectly bends space by 360°, making it, in a way, non-existant in outside space. I'm only saying this because you guys told me that the singularity theory isn't proven so this one makes more sense to me logically and mathematically.

Aha, so the black hole is defined as the inside of the event horizon, rather than the singularity itself? Then of course, falling INTO the black hole is the correct term. By the way guys, food for thought: why would it be a singularity (i.e. of infinitesimal size/smallest possible size) if mathematically, to get the same density you could just take the volume of all the atoms that make up the ''singularity'' and arrange them in a sphere. I don't mean in a way that a normal object is made, constructed by atoms side by side; I mean to make one consistent object/sphere whose volume would be exactly equal to the volume of all the atoms it contains. Surely, following the same logic, this would result in infinite density, or maximum density if you will. Wouldn't this result in a black hole as well, rather than having to somehow shrink beyond that into a singularity? I'm really interested to hear this question answered.

I always hear people talking about object falling into the black hole, possibly going through a wormhole and exiting in another universe etc. But isn't this fundamentally impossible? Black holes are completely solid, comprised of matter. Falling ''into'' a black hole is worse than saying falling into the earth from an airplane because the black hole is considerably more dense. (And this is another thing. I'm supposed to say the black hole is infinitely more dense than the earth because it has infinite density. In principle, this is very easy to understand because the space inside it is completely filled up with 0 cracks inside, therefore infinite density; But isn't this mathematically unacceptable since there should be such a thing as ''the largest possible value before infinity'' in this case if I'm not mistaken) Therefore, wouldn't something fall ONTO a black hole? I am aware that it would get shredded to bits before it could even reach it, but we're speaking hypothetically, of course. This is why wormholes never made sense to me. It would be pretty funny if in xxxx years we could come up with such an advanced technology, that we would be able to send a spacecraft which resists all of the black hole's forces to try to enter it, and the spacecraft just slammed into the black hole, killing everyone inside. I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable corrected me

Depends on what you mean by ''horrible person''. If you don't like yourself socially or mentally, if you don't like your laziness or some trait like that, it is possible to accept yourself. It's even possible to change yourself, depending on what your ''problem'' is. If by horrible person you mean you are immoral and like to hurt/cheat people for your own gain or satisfaction, then you might not be able to accept yourself. But then again, if you were a morally bad person, you probably wouldn't be pondering this.

I think I understand what you mean by motion of the particles. You mean that the fact they are moving THROUGH the green cube and not just standing in it means over a given period of time, all possible spaces or positions in the cube will be passed through by atoms? True, but this would mean that the vacuum area would also be constantly expanding, shrinking, curving and changing shape depending on the movement of particles. And there will be countless amounts of these spaces at any given time. I am not familiar with quantum theory. I can follow what you said and your calculation, but I don't know the theory of neutrinos. Are you saying that even though there may be only 3 atoms in the given area, there would be immense amounts of other particles which would fill this empty space? Would you say that, when you count in all the possible particles, all of the space would be filled at any given point in time?

Isn't a field just an area upon which a force acts? It doesn't necessarily have to contain matter. Or rather, it does contain matter but isn't filled with it completely. True, we have particles randomly moving through space, but just dynamically moves this notion of vacuum. No matter where particles are or how they move, there will always be the same amount of empty space between all of them, no? If all particles in the universe were bunched around one area, the amount of empty space would be the same as if they were evenly spread out throughout the universe.

So, the definition of a vacuum is ''space devoid of matter'', which is straightforward. However, to make a claim of a space without matter, you would have to say ''from point A to point B, there is no matter'' (or ''in between these end points there is no matter'' if you consider 3 dimensions). Scientific papers say that there exists no vacuum in the universe because even in the most desolate parts of the universe there are about 3 atoms in a cubic meter. To me, this makes no sense and I drew this shitty illustration to help explain why: EDIT: I am at work now and can't access the image. Imagine a cubic meter of space with 3 atoms in it. What I referred to below as the green area is the space of the whole cube and the blue area is a cubed space in between 2 of the atoms. The green area (cubic meter) is clearly not vacuum. However, why isn't the blue area a perfect vacuum? Why isn't all the space in between these atoms considered vacuum? Why would a cubic meter be used to show there is no vacuum since it is not a mathematically relevant unit? (As in, it is not a ''natural'' unit like the planck units) Why couldn't I, following the same logic, say ''there are no atoms in this cubic centimeter of deep space; therefore, perfect vacuum exists.''? Isn't then empty space/vacuum just equal to space? Isn't space/vacuum an entity through which particles and waves move and matter an entity off of which the same particles and waves bounce? Doesn't any place in between matter/atoms possess the same properties as vacuum and why isn't it considered as such then? I hope someone can clarify this; thanks for your answers in advance. I am not a physicist or any kind of professional scientist but I wish to learn. EDIT: I need to copy and paste this from another place where I wrote this for further clarification: As I said, I'm not a physicist, but simply logically, the definition can't be exact. Because the logic ''there is no perfect vacuum since there are ~3 atoms in a cubic meter even in the rarest parts of the universe'' is used to prove there is no vacuum, surely the statement ''there exists perfect vacuum since we know there are cubic centimeters in the universe which contain NO atoms'' must be just as valid because it uses the EXACT same logic, which absolutely nothing changed except for the unit of measurement. You see what I mean? To state that there is or is no vacuum, you would have to state the end points between which are or aren't any particles. So why would you use a cubic meter to determine that? Why not the smallest possible unit you could use? I guess the point of my statement is that I think it's ridiculous to state that there are no cubic meter-sized vacuums in the universe, because that has no relation to physics since it unnecessarily complicates the issue with scale. I hope this makes sense now.