swansont

Something that’s a solution if you only consider GR, but not when you include thermodynamics

The science forums? Which ones? I’m guessing it’s not this one; if it is I’d like some links. I’m a lot less interested in what happens somewhere else. Take it up with their management, not us, because this tactic hints at being a straw man.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true. The universe isn’t governed solely by GR. You can’t wish away the second law of thermodynamics There is no such thing. There is radiation pressure. Perhaps you can explain why you think radiation pressure is a significant contributor to BH formation.

That doesn’t depict stimulated emission. As far as WHs existing, you run into thermodynamics issues regarding entropy. If it were viewed as a thermodynamic process, it would not be reversible.

We’re not going to discuss anything generated by an AI. What you have here is a description of an hypothesis. You don’t have the math, and without that you can’t make specific predictions or make comparisons with experiment. Those are required.

You offered this in the context of time-reversal symmetry, and that’s incorrect. Yes, stimulated emission gives a photon, but photons would’ve been emitted anyway, unless there’s some nonradiative channel for de-excitation, and the atom needs to be excited in the first place, which removed a photon (unless the excitation was via some other process) I have to think there are better ways of observing black hole signatures. Hot gas being captured is probably fully ionized anyway, so this absorption and emission would be moot. I’d look for X-rays from the accelerated charges That seems like a stretch. Regardless, the article doesn’t provide details of the physics. Your time might be better spent understanding why stimulated emission is not time-reversed absorption. Basing any proposal on a flawed premise tends not to bear any fruit.

No, not by itself. Material for discussion must be posted here, not via a link. I think you overestimate the desire of anyone to slog through a wall o’ text to try and see what an AI got right or wrong. We are much more likely to be interested in answering questions you have about science.

Moderator NoteNone of that is relevant to the discussion, and there’s no actual science discussed here.

Your images aren’t loading for me but N2 could refer to the number of atoms in the excited state in a two-state system, where N1 would be the number in the ground state. Infalling radiation would also cause excitation of atoms. As I had previously explained, the time reversal analog would be emission from simple de-excitation. Time reversal would change the direction of the radiation. Push or pull is semantics; the force is from the photon momentum, so it depends on the direction of travel.

Why would photons hitting atoms cause different behavior depending on the source? An atom must already be in an excited state in order to experience stimulated emission. It’s not the opposite of absorption. (I vaguely recall having this discussion before) Why do you think there are N2 atoms outside a black or white hole? As far as radiation pressure, sure. There would be radiation pressure on a BH from the radiation incident on it. If for some reason it wasn’t isotropic the BH would experience a force.

Moderator NoteWe’re not physicians and we don’t do diagnoses, mental or physical. It’s potentially dangerous to speculate on such things. The only advice to give is to consult a professional

Yes. Luckily Poland chose not to escalate, and only shot down the drones. Putin was likely testing the response.

Moderator NoteThis is a discussion forum, not your blog.

Sensei has been suspended for repeated abusive commentary, even after being warned about it.

Whether the op is offended is not the metric. You were recently warned about this kind of comment. Unfortunate that it didn’t impact your behavior.

I don’t think accusations of lying are funny, and basing it on AI even less so

And you’ll never get better if you outsource the practice. It’s like asking a computer to go do some sport or hobby. You won’t get any better at it unless it’s you that puts in the effort.

So there’s no excuse for not doing what is required. And it’s these people who are using it and posting AI slop here that precipitated the rule You mentioned chess in response to exchemist, not me. And then got rude about it. That’s why you don’t ask a random person a question that requires expertise And one of the issues is people using it for things where the answer isn’t in Wikipedia or the scientific pdfs, because they’re trying to generate a new theory. Or they’re looking for support of an idea that has none. That’s when the LLM makes up an answer, and does what it’s programmed to: making a plausible-sounding answer. It doesn’t care that it’s not a correct answer (because that’s its programming, and it can’t care anyway) We routinely do detect errors, and I’d thank you for the compliment but it’s not difficult to google a citation and see that there are no results for it, nor does it require extensive knowledge to know that lawyers are indeed human, or to do some simple math that has been botched. I thought you said it gave really good answers. That’s not a good thing. Nobody can stop you from using LLMs in unhealthy ways but you can’t use them here to give answers. That’s not changing.

We do? I never got the memo.

Time is linear, meaning things happen one after the other? That’s in contrast to the block universe philosophy, aka eternalism. It’s also not linear, as in the rate is not constant as viewed by others, as relativity shows. It doesn’t cause things to move at different speeds. Events don’t necessarily happen in the same order as seen by observers in different frames of reference.

But presumably not With the Wind by SUR or Sax by Fleur East (I remember reading a suggestion that turning on subtitles while watching sometimes identifies a song, in case you watch again) There are examples of tunes written just for the TV show, which are hard to track down, so that could be the case here

If you don’t know what the object is, how could you possibly know what breaks off of it?

If you look at a clearer page https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/kech106.pdf The equation is K’=1/K, though it’s still not easy to discern the “prime” mark (knowing the chapter and unit number would speed up the process of digging in to all this)

Like sheep, they do not so much fly as plummet.

Because you’re assuming only the identified products are made, and you aren’t destroying or creating any of the atoms - you’re just rearranging the configuration. You have CO and H2O. If you form CO2, you have 2 Hydrogens left, so you get H2. That accounts for all of the atoms.