joigus

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/some_1?q=some https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/massive?q=massive https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/black-hole?q=black+hole

Ditto. It started with a note that sounded poetic to me, which I always appreciate. Then suddenly I'm led to psychogeography. I'm told by Google: Stendhal syndrome?

Yes, let's.

No. I meant "evolution-wise".

Simple changes can have limitless consequences. You must look downstream.

It's OK, I understand. England would be my favourite in any other instance too. We hedge our bets in Spain. That's why we secured Alcaraz in Wimbledon's final too. Double the chance of getting a happy ending come Sunday. ...or double the disappointment though if both fail.

I don't know. It seems to me that you're making more sense than you ever have. Technology can have (and has had) this effect of re-wiring us into the universe in new and unexpected ways. Full of potential.

Patriotic fervour strikes when and where you least expect it. I know the feeling. I will take a seat on this one too.

Blather cannot be disproved. So much the worse for the blatherer.

Not even pseudo. The Sun is a big factor, and drives many reactions, keeping all those cycles going, as stated before in the thread. Otherwise all those cycles would grind to a halt in geological time, probably.

Far from it.

Thanks, Mordred. I'm all in favour of sterile-neutrino hypotheses. I recently tried to draw attention on Turok et al.'s idea of time-symmetric universe with sterile neutrinos being responsible for dark matter. For very long I've thought the next development is much more likely to come from a wildly new reinterpretation of familiar ideas than the familiar interpretation of wild new ideas.

Today I learned about the existence of ECC (elliptic curve cryptography). A cryptographic method which seems to bee just as efficient as RSA, but with smaller-size keys. Thanks to @Ghideon.

Very interesting, thank you! I'm very far from being an "expert" on cryptography, btw.

Within the confines of propositional logic (binary logic, that is) a proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time. I suppose that's what you're pointing at here. It makes sense to discuss whether a proposition is true or not true. It makes sense to discuss whether a proposition contradicts another, and therefore only one of them can be true. Truth is a value you assign to a proposition. A function, if you will. You do not assign truth/not truth to truth itself. Does that make sense?

The periodic table of encyclopedia entries? Again??

Agreed. I think the reasons having to do with PEP and conservation laws were very robust already. I sometimes succumb to the drive to try to help the idea as much as I can before it dies. I suppose it's because after a while I get too tired of always being quickly dismissive. I sometimes want to make a point that it's not that you have an extreme dislike for the idea. Gravitation is indeed the only interaction that could have neutrinos clustering at some level in some scenario. If you had a universe with no dark matter, no scatterers of any kind, nothing, huge distances before you could find the next galactic halo, I guess at some point neutrinos would start to cluster in huge mega-halos gravitationally... Anyway. As you said, it would fail on so many levels.

Well, they can cluster gravitationally, therefore very weakly. At galactic scale. x-posted with mordred. Plus all the other reasons they're telling you...

Neutrinos cannot cluster. They hardly interact at all.

Wrong. Beta decay must be involved, as said. And, There's a cute explanation in Surely you're joking Mr Feynman, about his father asking him, "when an electron falls from a higher to a lower orbit, where was the photon before it happened?"

Close enough. that no integers a, b, c > 0 could possibly satisfy the equation an+bn=cn for n also integer and greater than 2. Otherwise there trivially are such a's b's and c's aplenty.* I know of no practical applications of it. But I wouldn't rule them out. * Counterexample: n=3, a=2, b=1, c=91/3

Depends. Some time I could do without. Time has a filling, and that's what's of the essence.

You read my mind. I'm not one of those people who can dash off a quick essay over the cellular. I remember having thought of "wannabe philosopher". Quotation marks would have done the job. And your expression certainly does it. The truth is we get a lot of this. People who think they can do philosophy, and by means of their philosophy of sorts, clinch the case of the most difficult (and long-standing) scientific problems: What is time? Did the universe have a beginning?, etc. The truth being they don't even get started doing science. They do very poor philosophy too.

I meant 'another "philosopher"'... Sorry, I'm on my mobile phone and typing is harder.

It probably has to do with a forward-scattering amplitude. Thereby the pi.