Strange

Daily updates on Twitter: https://twitter.com/betelbot And some more background here: https://www.universetoday.com/145011/betelgeuse-is-still-dimming-and-we-have-the-pictures-to-prove-it/

The only way to do the calculation without losing accuracy is to use large enough integer values. A 410 (decimal) digit number requires about 1400 bits to represent it. There are arithmetic libraries for most languages (Python, C#, etc) for doing this sort of thing. Or there are math applications that can handle arbitrary precision arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_arbitrary-precision_arithmetic_software Sorry, didn't see this bit before. This might be what you want: https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/22725-variable-precision-integer-arithmetic

It was actually Markus: I thought it was an interesting comment too. I guess the reason is that it is non trivial to work out what the path of a superluminal particle would be (perhaps because the whole theory is built on the assumption that nothing can move faster).

What is the difference between experience and training? Humans and computers can learn these things the same way (apart from the fact human babies might be "hard-wired" to recognise some expressions).

This could be an interesting test of how sincere @Bmpbmp1975 is about wanting to discuss science seriously.

This sounds something like the "eternal inflation" hypothesis. I am not sure if each of these "big bang bubbles" you describe are considered to be unbounded or not.

! Moderator Note 1. You have been repeatedly been told not to keep posting those links, and yet you do. 2. You have one more chance to provide some evidence for your claims. If you do not do that in your next post, the thread will be closed and you will not be permitted to bring it up again. Statements of incredulity and ignorance ("Unfortunately, this cannot be true and it is not true") are not evidence.

I don’t see why not. https://nips.cc/Conferences/2019/ScheduleMultitrack?event=13207

It might be interesting to compare that with more recent work, such as Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which also looks at the two modes of thought and uses a lot of experimental evidence to try and understand the difference.

You can't factor large numbers like this using floating point arithmetic. Which is what you seem to be doing, unless these two numbers really do both end in hundreds of zeros.

It is disappointing to see this sort of thing spreading outside the US. I suppose the fact that a lot of rich and powerful people in Australia made their money from coal might be something to do with it. It is not all bad news though: https://www.positive.news/society/education/climate-education-added-to-national-curriculum-in-italy/

As someone with only a vague understanding of the relevant theories, that seems like a nice insight.

The article you read was very sensationalist and over-dramatic. Here is a more measured description: https://www.universetoday.com/140619/massive-triple-star-system-creates-this-bizarre-swirling-pinwheel-of-dust-and-it-could-be-the-site-of-a-gamma-ray-burst/ So that is a lot of energy to be released in a short time period. But there are other events (supernovae, black hole mergers, etc) that can release similar or larger amounts of energy. Some journalists do like to say that any big event is "the biggest ever" - it helps get more clicks and more advertising money. And there is no reason to think it is "about to blow". Form the article above: As the writer say, not only will we not be around to see it but quite possibly humans won't either ("Whether or not those astronomers will be human is another matter entirely. A lot can happen in a few hundred thousands years.") As those comments are just sound like some teenage rando spouting off about something they don't understand, I would just ignore them. Concentrate on the science, instead. But basically they are saying: "it may sound dramatic but it isn't dangerous and it is scientifically fascinating". Which is not much different from the final sentence of the article above:

The fact that physics, and in particular the speed of light, is the same for all observers independent of their state of relative motion. Because that fact appears to be true of the universe we live in.

! Moderator Note Moved to amore appropriate forum. I would point out that swansont was just posting as a member, not as a moderator. But maybe your comment is still valid more generally?

! Moderator Note This forum is not a suitable place to discuss idiotic conspiracy theories.

They are trained to recognise them (by showing them large numbers of examples). Probably a combination of some innate knowledge and some learning, I guess.

I guess that is why it is newsworthy!

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help. @kartik Please note that people may help you if you can show you have attempted to answer the question yourself. They are not here to do your homework for you.

I think the question is: what is there that it makes no sense for it to be missing from the Star Wars universe. Or: what is missing from the Star Wars universe that should be there because it makes no sense for it to be missing.

Nothing. No one has said anything about that except you.

They are different things. The clue is in the fact that they have different names: "cosmological constant" vs "equation of state". The cosmological constant is the energy density of space. It has a small positive value and is what causes the rate of expansion of the universe to increase. The equation of state of dark energy is the pressure of the energy (which is negative) divided by its density (the cosmological constant). It seems that the pressure and the density have nearly equal values (but opposite signs) so that the ratio (the equation of state, w) is close to -1 (or maybe exactly 1). As noted above, if the value is exactly -1 then the energy density of dark energy is constant.

Is that an interesting number, I wonder.

Not really. Something having a value of less than 0 (approximately -1 in this case) is not the same as "falling below 0" because that implies it once had a value greater than 1. If I am standing on the ground, it doesn't mean I have fallen from a ladder. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2004/09/10/the-dark-energy-equation-of-state/

Newtonian gravity is a useful approximation. In some cases it gives the wrong answer. In that sense it could be described as "wrong" (although I think that would be an exaggeration). The theory of phlogiston is completely wrong. It does not match the facts. If you want to call that sort of theory just wrong, then it seems bizarre to use the same word for a theory that works (Newtonian gravity). Because then no one knows what you mean by the word "wrong". That doesn't surprise me at all. The only argument for your claim that correlation requires causality is the fact you believe it. What is the causal connection between Nicolas Cage films and people drowning in swimming pools? There must be one, after all.