koti

Perfectly normal function of every human body and mind.

But our "toy" universe could never be really empty as there are things happening within spacetime on the quantum level right ?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_emission

I'm using ESET Endpoint Security as my anti virus and firewall, AdBlock and AdBlock Plus for Chrome on Win10 and I have to say that I've never had a single virus or malicious software or script or whatever on my PC. I mind what I click on though.

Great analogy.

You need to apply the Lorentz transformation to determine what an observer standing on D would observe. When you do that you will see that he will observe the galaxy moving away at less than c. Edit: I see that I co-posted with imatfaal, his/her explanation is better because it explains that the relative velocity will also be always less than c.

No. The relative speed between A and C is less than c. Short, layman's answer - if you'd move at the speed of light (which is impossible) your weight would be infinite.

I'm wondering...when dealing with GR we're dealing with a concept of spacetime which is inseparable. Does it make sense to ask if one is the property of the other?

Janus, I apologize, I was writing while frying and flipping pancakes. I meant to ask about the NASA "impossible" EM drive engine.

+1 Janus. I know its off topic but could you give your quick opinion on the NASA ion engine who everybody went crazy on some time ago?

With a minor adjustment that the velocity of sound is different in different mediums. In solids it's the highest from what I recall.

Phew, you're 3 years older than me My birthday comes up 12 times in those 10mln digits from the link in the OP.

Good one, I've seen that one a couple years ago.

I assure you that he does not miss the point. The point that is crucial is that the resultant velocity of 2 trains traveling each at 100km/h and passing each other is 200km/h. The resultant velocity of 2 trains travelling each at c and passing each other is...c.

The probability of finding a few digit number in a string of 10mln digits is huge. It would be odd if the numbers you found would not be there - you'd actually have my attention then.

Its a plain rock. Keep in mind that an age of a rock you find here and there can be easly a few hundred milion years. You might be able to find rocks just laying around which are a couple of bilion years old which is nothing out of the ordinary.

Not much to see using just one photon though.

The act of observing anything with any method has to involve emitting and/or receiving energy or radiation and that causes the change in particle state right? My unscientific opinion is that the idea that consciousness is somehow involved is mumbo jumbo.

I was always convinced that the act of measurement which has to involve applying some kind of energy to the observable object is the whole idea behind altering the state of that object. Surely perception/consciousness/qualia cannot have anything to do with the act of observing or am I missing something here?

Yes we do. Most of living organisms have color perception (within their own capabilities) The fact that their color perception is less advanced than that of a human is irrelevant.

As far as I understand the inflation model states that at T0 spacetime itself was shrunk to some ridiculously small "size" I put size in quotes as Im not sure we can use that term towards a state of the universe in which possibly, there was no size or size had a different meaning. From my (narrow) understanding of whats going on in the field of the chase for finding a theory of quantum gravity which would possibly give us these answers, there aren't concrete conclusions as to if we are capable of grasping t0 with our current math & physics tools. I think I've heard or read that Ed Witten himself expressed such a doubt, certainly Hawking expressed such fears in his books.

We are talking about color and consciousness here. Im asserting that an organism which detects color has an evolutionary reason for that detection thus it experiences a "sensation" of that color within its own perception capabilities. There is clearly no correlation between consciousness and color perception in primitive organisms because primitive organisms are incapable of conscious thought. A human on the other hand can be completely color blind (or better yet completely blind since birth) and obviously can be capable of conscious thought. Whether or not a human who is not capable of conscious thought could process/perceive/interpret colors is unclear to me and Im afraid we wont find an answer to this question. It looks to me like color perception and conscious thought are not correlated in humans as well but this is realy a pointless statement from me as the term "consciousness" is so vague. Color perception in humans is a very complex subject though.

No. You prove you can.