joigus

ST geometry is usually said to take place in a 1+3 dimensional geometry. Meaning that one of the dimensions is singled out as time (by means of the so-called signature of the metric), and the other three constituting sections of the geometry at given times (so-called space-like surfaces). So what the OP is suggesting, it seems, is that a new dimension appears inside the BH when gravitational collapse occurs. Is that the case? Otherwise, GR's geometry already is 4D, as Mordred said. Or has this additional spatial dimension been there all along, like a dummy, that only acquires importance in the case of gravitational collapse?

True master of one-liners. The one about dating cracked me up!

And yes, fields is the relevant concept there. I forgot. Sorry, I didn't realise this was under the Teasers and Puzzles section. I added a spoiler.

This should easily be the most ignorant comment on these forums so far. 10120 (ten to the one hundred and twenty something) is not a precisely calculated number (like the fine structure constant, or the electron g factor). It is the gross overcount that QFT gets when applying cutoff on the harmonic oscillators to the Planck scale, to roughly estimate the energy density of the vacuum. So it's not that 10123 is the legit number for QFT vacuum energy density. This a grossly wrong number! And the thing to explain is not why Nature offers us this number. Rather, it is that the actual energy density of the vacuum is so low, instead of being this absurdly high number. Ditto.

Yes, thanks. That's right. I missed that possible interpretation. If I understood correctly most previous arguments, one cannot reach those distances in that sense either, and I agree. That kind of interstellar travel would require humongous energy. And the braking process too. The argument surfaced at the very beginning, although I'm not up to date on the follow-up Q&A.

In literature for example? I remember myself being quite OK with Tolkien's use of magic, as long as he didn't care to "explain" it. So we've got water, and fire, and earth, and wind, and the laws of Nature, and magic. Fine with me for the purposes of entertainment. When the Star Wars franchise started to appeal to midi-chlorians to try to "explain" how the force is particularly strong in some individuals, I remember having felt really disappointed: Do midichlorians act on ribosomes? Are they nucleotides, proteins...? I'm not sure those are absurdities though... I agree, btw, with most everybody else that science doesn't give you purpose. I love metaphors, so there goes mine: Science gives you a map of the territory, increasingly precise. What road to take is your choice.

Love every pixel of it! It reminds me of the Impressionists...

Oh! Such a good question! +1

And I applaud your applause. Truth be said, there are few members who are more willing to offer a helping hand.

GR, obviously. Newtonian gravity is perfectly linear. Real gravity is much more like GR... Or GR fits much better real gravity, NG being a suitable approximation for weak fields and slow velocities. A badger is similar to a skunk, and the probability of them being identical is 0%. I hope there's a point to this...

What is controversial, that gravity is non-linear, or that sources of gravitational waves do not have a unique signature? Doesn't seem to me like any of those things are controversial.

Oh, I see. I was thinking more of short distances rather than longer ones, as Lorentz contraction makes the accelerated body shorter and shorter. But the OP, as well as other members have been talking about cosmological distances too, now that you mention it. I must confess I haven't figured out how both are related. It seems like some combination of length contraction and time dilation (contraction relative to the traveller relative to the observers tied to the planets?). What I fail to see is how one is supposed to use these effects to achieve interstellar space travel. It could be that OP is trying to combine effects happening in different frames... This happens often.

I have. 🥹 It's so statistically significant that feels like troll farming. As soon as one is done, there's another one that seems to be saying, 'ok, I'll take over from here'.

That's a pattern of behaviour that you see in insects often, IMO.

I didn't know that, TikTok or X not being my sources for evolutionary biology. Quora has considerably better standards, but still...

Ok, I'm far too rusty on magnetohydrodynamics to be of more concrete help, but maybe I can be used as an "educated sounding board" of sorts here. For problems involving wires it's often the case that you cannot "dimensionally close" the formulas because you're missing a fiducial length. (The theoretically well-defined limit is often a wire of indefinite length). Other way of seeing it is that rather than force, Reynolds number, etc, the relevant quantities be force per unit length, Reynolds number per unit length, and so on. Could that be just the nudge that you need?

As I understand, the mods sometimes let the troll keep trolling long after the trolling behaviour has been spotted, as long as enough members find the topic interesting or worthy enough that they keep bringing up good-quality arguments, as is the case from Peterkin and exchemist.

Read The Selfish Gene. Your statements prove hands down that you're not familiar with the arguments there. And no, there are no genetic theories, as opposed to environmental ones. Genes interact with the environment from the get-go. In fact, they do during the perinatal stage already. You just made that up. It's a bit like saying you've heard an argument about electrostatics based on positive charges and another based on negative ones. Silly to say the least.

I second the motion.

As @KJW said, the aliquot sum: of any prime number is 1, so no prime number can be perfect. Example: 6=1+2+3=1*2*3

What do you mean by a distance becoming "reachable"? In the sense of being able to probe it? In the sense of making it fit through some kind of physical system in the perpendicular direction playing the role of a slit (like a couple of high-energy photons, etc...)? Or perhaps in the purely kinematical sense of it being proven that short by means of telemetry of some kind?

Ahem... no atheist in their right mind...? Be honest when quoting me, please. Of course atheists can do horrible things, but not out of belief. Viral ideas can be lethal. Religion is but one example of a viral idea with no logic or evidence to substanciate it. Religion can make an otherwise perfectly functional mind do horrible things. That was my point. Disfunctional minds can do what we all know they can do. Of course. Don't be disingenuous.

Tens[?], hundreds[?], of thousands of Tlaxcaltecs who were sacrificed by Aztec devotees every year would disagree with that. No atheist in their right mind would extract the beating heart of a living innocent person from their body. A religious person might. For those Aztecs, killing thousands of people as a sacrifice to their gods was totally moral. That's what god-fearing people can do.

I wholeheartedly agree.