geordief

If the expansion which seems irreversible now was in fact to reverse itself at some stage (some unknown property of dark matter or dark energy or some other as yet unknown force) then we could end up with one aggregate BH? As density increased at the centre of that BH (or even a smaller one) might some limit be passed that would trigger a change in behaviour and allow matter to escape? (If there were extra dimensions could they escape that way?) Might an event like that be very similar to what may have occurred prior to the Big Bang?

If they can increase without limit does that provide a mechanism to prevent a singularity at the centre? Can the density get "spread out" with increasing size? Can all the matter in the universe be combined into one BH under any circumstances?

Can I post this question in this thread.?Is there a limit to the size a Black Hole can be?

I was talking about the way the police and the courts treat cases. am not sure there is a huge problem overall -account taken of the fact that members obviously come from the community and are susceptible to the same unconscious assumptions as the public in general.. On the other hand ,when a woman (or anyone obviously) is treated inappropriately by the system it is another injury ,and on a different level.

Are they ,considering the circumstances of the alleged crime (if it is a crime as sometimes,maybe in most cases actually it can be far less than that) ? I am not saying that they cannot or are not sometimes treated wrongly by the authorities(I don't have that information) but they do presumably have the right to take a case ( a class case?) against particular authorities if they feel they have been treated unfairly by the justice system .

What would happen if one attempted to make a similar simulation at comparable degrees of definition with the two slit experiment.? When a photon lands on the screen behind the two slits the region where it lands (and leaves a distinctive bounded record when viewed macroscopically) is presumably and usually a seething hive of activity as atoms on the physical screen bounce around .... Is it possible ,in theory if not in practice with a surface that exhibits complete rigidity ? If for example the screen was cooled to absolute zero. Can the arrival of a particle on such a screen be shown in a similar way to that in which the BE condensate is shown above.? As a general question , when decoherence occurs is it accompanied by a transfer of energy? (Can this transfer be shown graphically in a simulation?) One last general question :is it possible to view the general relationship between wave and particle manifestations/presentations as an "emergence" or a "phase transition" ?

Is there evidence that "parasites"(symbiotic organisms?) alter one's mood? Who or what is "in charge"?

Does "numb and number" get me an additional curtsey? (I have already ceded the proposition btw)

I wondered if it could be done automatically(ie posting in those threads would not be allowed if those criteria were not fulfilled) but Phi said no, this site would not be set up for that.

You mean that there would be times when an artificial restraint on length would be too constraining and make the exchanges dissatisfying?

Something like that.If it was feasible I would also like to insist on proper grammar and spelling. I wasn't thinking of a limit on character numbers so much as a limit on the amount of sentences or ideas if possible.

Is this site's software equipped for curtailing the length of posts in threads? Would it be a good idea to have a subforum where we would be guaranteed that posts and responses would be short and to the point? I accept my own intellectual limitations are not shared by all and that detailed posts are valuable and necessary but could there be an advantage to also providing for exchanges where just one point (of maybe two) at a time would be expressed?

In your link ,is the larger triangle a projection of the smaller triangle onto a plane containing the larger triangle? And RST lies in the same plane?(as also does ABR) You can "stack up" triangles in all sorts of orientations and any combination of angles between the two triangles (without constraints)?

One of our number having been banned for sockpuppetry I was wondering about the interpretation(?) introduced into his recent kinetic energy/classical vs quantum spin thread by Mordred . He seems to have come down very firmly on the interpretation of reality (that 7 letter word ) being made up of fields and solidity being the great illusion (if I paraphrase correctly) Can we put more meat on the bone perhaps? (esp the idea that fields trump particles and knock them out of the park) Are there thought to be whole families of fields? Can they all interact with each other ? Is the gravitational field a very special kind of field (a field of fields perhaps) ? There seem to be lots of questions queuing up in my mind so I had better stop there as I have probably introduced misunderstandings based on "little knowledge" already.

Can you show the traveler eating spaghetti as he walks upstairs? ;-)

Very impressive. What is it meant to be ? One step forward ,two steps back? Plus ca change?

Or perhaps ;-) https://youtu.be/jk63Psr3wzY

Thanks ,that looks fascinating. Wish I had more head storage room. If that was made into a murder mystery(with time travel) it would make for a great whodunnit

I am not clear where you say I am transiting to "Euclidean 3-space " from. As I understand my scenario the "transition" is from the world observed by the camera(3D+1 or 4D) to the surface of the viewing screen (2D or 2D+1 if I include time.) So ,with time being accounted for I am going from 4D to 3D and otherwise it is simply 3D to 2D.(eg taking a photo)

Hope I am keeping to the topic but would what is described as a 3D television screen be an example of a one to one mapping of 4D spacetime to a 2D(+1) surface? All the members of the set of the scene being broadcast are projected onto the screen and each event being recorded has its own unique place on the screen. Is this holograph territory?

If ignorance can barge in ,didn't Bell's inequality proof ** have something to say about there not being a determinism "guiding" apparent randomness? Do we not just have to accept the possibility that a "final" understanding of the relationship between determined and undetermined effects may simply not be there to uncover? "Shut up and calculate"? ** which I have not understood or obviously assimilated

Suppose you are talking about R3 do the relationships between the members of the set equate to all the points in a 3D space? So (1,6,7) could be mapped to(1,6) in R2 and so on? (2,8,512) could be mapped to(4,16)? Or would it have to be(4,64)? Either would work? Trying to familiarise myself with the "set" terrain as applied to dimensional spaces in general.

What is the lowdown on this area of physics? These characteristics are not supposed to make any sense to the layman and especially not to mean what they sound like. Is there any point for this wannabe layman to want to have an inkling(another fine word;-) ) of what these properties might actually represent or perhaps how they are measured? Not chapter and verse , just a minimal outline perhaps.

As a generality ,is there anything that GR can predict that SR cannot?