Unity+

Wouldn't we, then, be able to observe this effect when we observe Black Holes and what they emit and be able to make a conclusion about this?

Pretty interesting. However, does this mean universes are being "born" every time a black hole forms? Or was this black hole a special case?

Well, you might as well put the verse here since this thread is already screwed up. I never said that the Sun orbits around the Earth...if you read my post clearly you would notice what I was getting at.

I don't really care what a person believes or doesn't believe. However, my point was towards outspoken ones that would try to compare two things just to use word choice and imply a negative connotation to it. The observations never proved that the scriptures were wrong. If you are implying that scripture states that the Earth is at the center of the Universe(though it technically is, as well as all things in the Universe are by Hubble's law), then you are completely wrong. It doesn't state anything of the sort.

I think he means taking an input string from let's say a Scanner object and convert that to a integer value to apply the proper operations upon it.

You are on to something, which will be the point of this post. There are many speculations and hypotheses that provide a supposed mechanism for a self-caused Big Bang not relying another force to activate such a reaction. Many would argue that these are more rational than the existence of God. Well, in any case I would argue that these are also equivalent to the speculative idea that dragons exist. Therefore, wouldn't this mean that Atheists who rely on these speculations as their answer are basing the same amount of evidence for their own beliefs as the amount of evidence for the existence of dragons?

But, that is merely opinion as is the debate continues between the Platonic view and the other view of reality, which is the debate between whether mathematics is actually the language of nature or whether it is simply a representation. Yes, you can claim so, but if you really want to take a speculative idea don't do it in the News section. Do it in the Speculation section.

I simply stopped trying because we clearly can never stay on the same topic.

But God wasn't the burning bush, he was talking from the burning bush. This does not mean he was the burning bush.

I don't see how a dragon in some sense can be on the same level as a higher being because a dragon has a supposed biological sense to it. Therefore, if there were to be evidence of a dragon, it would have to be from...wait for it...biological aspects.

The meaning of life should not be a scientific study, rather a study of philosophy. If you try to make it a study of science, then it will only end up in crack-pottery.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/ They present a pretty interesting hypothesis.

...Did you even read the question?

Is this a response to me or to Phi for All?

From a theistic perspective, I don't think God wants a person to live on dishonest faith and rather on honest doubt. Though questioning his existence does come up from time to time on a regular basis(and sometimes for me), but at the end of the day there is always a conclusion, whether the person believes at the end of the day or not. If there were not honest doubt, you might as well have everyone believe in a false prophet, which even the Bible warns followers of the faith about. Actually, it does matter because in order to find the evidence their needs to be a set of standards for that evidence. If there is no statement of what the evidence would look like, the evidence would be meaningless. For example, the problem with finding evidence of God is determining what the evidence should look like in the first place, and clearly at this moment(and probably never) there isn't something we can actually say "Oh, if this is found, then this must be true". It is like trying to declare that A = C when we know that A = B, but we wouldn't know what it meant by B = C.

The work suggests the following conjecture. The differences of the x value for the points on the x-axis will always equal the following.

Here is a partial graph of a Collatz-Matrix equation of size [math]2\times 2[/math] if the default Collatz parameters up to [math]x=11[/math] The only thing I notice is how the points on the x-axis have a sequential growth. Here is how each point was received. So, for a [math]2\times 2[/math] matrix, a Collatz-Matrix equation produces 2 matrix solutions. Each matrix solution will produce a coordinate or point on the graph. To find the x coordinate of a point, you multiply the first diagonal elements. To get the y coordinate, you multiply the second diagonal elements. Also, one can integrate Collatz-Matrix equations by doing the following. The integration of this Collatz-Matrix equation can also be interpreted as this: An interesting thing about the graph is the points on the x-axis is that they are separated by two times each Collatz number. The coordinates of these points are: (8,0) (28, 0) (60, 57) (104, 0) (160, 0) (228, 0) (308, 0) (400, 0) (504, 0) (610, 0) (748, 0) And the difference between the x values is as follows: 8, 20, 32, 44, 56, 68, 80, 92, 104, 116 Where the difference between each of these differences is 12. Now, if these values are divided by 2, then the following occurs: 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58 It becomes a sequence of Collatz numbers. This pattern would continue as the x value of the Collatz-Matrix equation increases in size.

Thanks for fixing the equation. I guess there isn't really anything special about it. I just found it interesting.

Wait, so we have to remake that parabola?

Let us say there is a formula [math]ax+b[/math], and a sequence of numbers is laid out. Let us say the formula is [math]3x+1[/math]. 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 Now, let us put these numbers into sets of 3 in order. {4 7 10} {13 16 19} {22 25 28} Then, add up the numbers in each set to get the following sequence. 21 48 75 The pattern can be describe as each number within the sequence of sets can be found with the following, where s is the size of each set. where c is some number related to the formula. Has this been looked into before? If so, can someone link the webpage about it?

The media is especially at fault for the fear of artificial intelligence because there is this vibe from robotics that somehow if we build a machine like DARPA is then a Terminator-type scenario will ensue within our society, which sounds like a valid point but the likely hood of it happening is little to none. In my opinion(unless I read the article wrong), private businesses having hold of the research would be much better because the research would go faster. Whenever the government has hold of a research project, it takes much longer than needed because of funding issues. Take the Human Genome Project. Though both the private business and the government-funded project finished at about the same time, the private business started way later than the government funded project. At least if it is left to the private business, there is no threat to research by a group of people(though there is the issue of selling information and overpricing it, but that is to be left to a different debate).

Well, if you think about it man's inventions are based off the geometries of nature. For example, the wheel is one piece of geometry that is seen within anatomy of creatures(sort of in the sense of bones, where the joints are rounded to create motions in order to move limbs and such). It isn't necessarly that man was inspired by nature, but just how there are many repetitions of the concept of an invention found in nature, if you get my drift.

There are many similar concepts within Collatz Theory that involve the same concepts of Calculus, but some parts of Calculus are modified in Collatz Theory to fit the kinds of variables. For example, Integral equations involve manifold functions, such as [math]\chi _{d}\left ( \Upsilon _{\mu } \left \langle \partial _{n_{1}}|\partial _{n_{2}} \right \rangle\right )[/math], which require a modification of how integral equations are set up.

There are some special operations that must take place when adding Collatz-Matrix equations together. Let there be the following equation: The amount of matrix solutions for this given equation would be the following: Where [math]S_{m}[/math] represents how many total matrix solutions that will be the outcome, [math]A_{m}[/math] is the amount of matrix solutions for the first Collatz-Matrix equation and [math]B_{m}[/math] is the amount of matrix solutions for the second Collatz-Matrix equation. For example, the following could be an equation: Where [math]B_{m}[/math] represents the set of all the matrix solutions that will be the outcome of this equation.