As a star collapses and its gravitational pull becomes stronger, time slows down from the point of view of an outside observer. From their time frame, the star will appear to stop its collapse just before reaching the Schwarzschild radius. For an observer on the surface of the ECO, it is still collapsing from but time is slowing down the closer it gets to the Schwarzschild radius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternally_collapsing_object
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9803014.pdf
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Indian-physicist-vindicated-in-black-hole-controversy/articleshow/800815.cms
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/22barc.htm
>>8971085
It's a black hole you faggot. Get your head out of your ass.
>>8971088
http://www.gizmodo.in/indiamodo/NASA-finding-bolsters-Indian-theory-on-black-hole/articleshow/49913583.cms
Evidence trumps shitheads on the internet.
>>8971085
Makes sense. Always wondered if that could happen myself but hadn't cared to learn GR. So why are black holes (or ECOs) black? Is the light being redshifted beyond detection?
What does /sci/ use for molecular modeling? Does anything actually produce tertiary structure close to experimental methods?
>>8971064
LAMMPS.
>>8971064
Teach yourself C and program the PDEs yourself.
Only reliable solution.
>>8971080
Hahahaha no, you have to use fortran not C.
Why does /sci/ hate accounting so much?Is it the fact that their daughters are going to be prepped for the /biz/y bull.
Also,I make $650,000 a yr so you can platter your sister up for me okay.
>>8970838
The same reason sci hates biology people
Accounting is literally accounting for things other poeple did. It is glorified grunt work. The math in accounting doesnt go past the knowledge a 16 year old should have. ffs i mean if something requires algebra max is not rigorous.
At least bio people take calculus.
>>8970839
And that has absolutely nothing to do with being an accountant, but rather selling yourself as a business.
Finance is very much glorified because the math can be rigorous, but in accounting it pretty much never is.
Tomorrow morning is my thesis defense. I finished my thesis two weeks ago, everything is fine with that, the issue is that I have not written my beamer presentation. I have about 8 hours left in this day to complete it, and since my thesis defense is basically me giving this 45 minute presentation, it will determine whether or not I pass. Obviously, I will be lucky to finish the presentation and have no time today to practice giving the presentation itself. I have already been accepted to a prestigious position at a new university, but if I fuck up I won't earn my master's degree and they won't take me. Help me stop procrastinating and write this shit.
>>8970703
give a blackboard talk
>>8970705
not an option at this university, have to write a beamer presentation in LaTeX to accompany your thesis.
>>8970703
what did you expect to get out of coming here? go away and do it
Are there more ENTP-Debater types on /sci/ besides me? One would expect a scientific board to have a lot of these.
>>8969496
No, you are the only one here.
Do the Jews have a plan for this world?
>>8969496
you can't be scientific and believe in pseudoscience my friend
How do you explain that the UAE want to colonize Mars
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4227854/UAE-build-CITY-MARS-2117.html
whereas Emiratians are all hardcore Muslims who believe the Earth is flat?
Why do you read the daily mail...
>>8967962
Because it was the first link on google.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/16/the-uaes-ambitious-plan-to-build-a-new-city-on-mars/
>>8967641
You think conservative Muslims believe the Earth is flat? Where did u learn this? I've never heard of that before.
i think we can
>> Orbital ring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQLDwY-LT_o
>> Project Orion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
https://youtu.be/pBenHWEGozE?t=42s
>>8966411
OH HELL NO. PROJECT ORION IS FORBIDDEN BY MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty
BESIDES, ORBITAL RINGS WITH SMALL NUMBERS OF SKYHOOKS, IE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD, HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE STABLE FOR LARGE PERTURBATIONS
NOT HAPPENING KIDDO.
Liberals will go apeshit of rtgs and will probably suicide bomb themselves on launch pads if you mention NERVA and you are talking about motherfucking nuclear pulse propulsion?
>>8966430
if we can build one skyhook, what stops us from building a second skyhook? or a third? or however many we need to keep it stable
this isn't a video game, where you are arbitrarily restricted to a specific number until we complete a quest or some shit
why do you shit up every thread screeching how things are impossible, when the solution is so fucking simple that a 10 year old could figure it out
Last thread reached the bump limit.
>what are you studying?
>any cool problems?
>any cool theorems or remarks?
>reference suggestions?
>???
>>8962385
I am trying to understand the solution to this exercise.
I think I get it all the way until the end. How can you guarantee that you can choose such an [math] x_0 [/math]? Can you even guarantee that the o(1) term will be smaller than b-a?
That said, if someone could explain the entire argument that would be good too because... maybe the reason I don't get that final part is because I am not truly getting the parts before.
>>8962412
>Can you even guarantee that the o(1) term will be smaller than b-a?
doesn't that follow immediately from the definition of little o? i.e. for all epsilon>0 the o(1) term is eventually bounded above in absolute value by epsilon, so you can just take epsilon= (b-a)/2
>>8962418
I didn't... realize. Little o was defined in this very chapter and I guess I haven't had time to digest.
But I think I get it. If f(x) = o(1) then that means that the limit as x approaches infinity of f(x)/1 equals 0. And therefore the limit as x approaches infinity of f(x) is 0. And that means that functions in the o(1) class get arbitrarily small.
Holy shit fuck. This was trivial. I can finally see
>Has stayed practically the same since 400 million years ago
>400 million years ago humans were fish
Why? Are horseshoe crabs perfect so they no longer evolved? What gave the fish enough to reason to evolve into modern humans within that same time frame?
It's almost like evolution is an unproven hypothesis. It's almost like it's a dogma that can't be questioned.
>>8962292
6000 years. When you have a robust and comprehensive worldview, you don't have to make up idiotic excuses for why reality doesn't fit your shit worldview.
Not in the slightest. They clearly have their abode in a very particular ecological niche and have there not diversified much over the years.
Meanwhile, the species who would become humans were forced to adapt to changing conditions.
This is just basic evolution.
FUCK those things.
No I mean for real.
I need to generate a small electromagnetic pulse to disable a small electronic device (an alarm clock) that is behind an inaccessible locked door.
What tools would I need to do this and how can I regulate the size of the pulse to keep it small and localize it to this 1 room and not take out the rest of the electrical system which the device I need to disable is plugged into.
A one kilogram copper ingot, a cars suspension spring and 2 car batteries
moar about inaccessible door
>>8973047
Powertool and a hammer.
Sorry I know its shit to make a thread just for a single question but my prof refuses to provide any insight or help doing a practice exam question. Im the one typing sentences in the email and he replies with 2 words either yes or no proving no insight in what im doing is wrong
I figure its better off if one of you can explain to me this question.
I believe the answer is false, because if we take a regular language , say L(TM) = {0}, we know the complement L'(TM) = {everything that isn't 0} (Assume the Language is over a binary alphabet). So if it were the case that L <=m L', (mapping reducibility) then everything in L' can be computable from something in L, but we know L is finite (one element 0) and L' is infinite.
Since only one element maps to one thing, clearly this cant be possible as elements such as 010, 110, 1111111 or whatever which are all in L' cannot be mapped to. And required by the if and only if statement we require such a mapping, this isnt possible.
Hence false.
Supposed answer:
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi00/cse105/hw5sol.pdf go to problem 4(b)
Doesnt make sense though, from what they claim, my Language L = {0} can be mapping reducible to its complement L' which is an infinite set consisting of everything apart from 0.
Other things in L' as mentioned in the OP are impossible to map to, so how is this a valid mapping reducible function?
anybody? willing to paypal for an explanation just trip your post
>>8972980
The answer is false, but youre answer is incorrect.
I don't think you understand the language thing quite yet. Your L(TM) = {0}, but it mapping reductions are for all instances of the languages, not just mapping accepted strings to accepted strings. So we can construct a mapping reduction from L to solve L' by just negating yes/no.
A simple counter example would be to propose a TM that accepts all strings over a language, such the it's compliment is empty
Answer correctly and get recruited by the NSA
>>8972659
Sum of interior angles of a five sided polygon is 540 degrees. Sum of interior angles of a four sided polygon is 360 degrees.
Suppose the answer is 90 degrees. Then each angles has 18 degrees. Which means the quadrilateral's final angle has degree 360 - 18 - 18 - 18 = 306. But 5*306 != 540. So it's not 90.
Suppose it's 120. Then each angle has 24 degrees. Which means the final angle has degree 360 - 24 - 24 - 24 = 288. But 5*288 != 540. So it's not 120.
Suppose it's 360. Then each angle has 72 degrees. Which means the final angle has degree 360 - 72 - 72 - 72 = 144. But 144*5 != 540.
Hm, so perhaps it's none of the above. The goal is to find an interior angle x in the five-sided polygon such that 5*x = 540. This means x is 108. But then to satisfy the four-sided interior sum of angles, 360 - 108 = 252. And 252/3 = 84.
Therefore each of the marked angles is 84 degrees. And so 84*5 = 420 degrees
The answer is 420 degrees
>>8972659
I don't know. There I answered correctly when do I start?
>>8972659
120
Will we relive our lives when we die? Seriously will we? Because if the universe condenses in on itself and we become the singulairty again and the big bang happens again won't it all carry out EXACLTy the same forcing us to relive our lives forever and ever?
http://www.marijuana.com/community/threads/reliving-our-lives-forever.249291/
Congratulations, you've barely scratched the surface of Nietzschean thought
>>8972448
Ummmm how is that at all what Nietzschean thoughht is about? It's about creating your own morality not about living your same life FOREVER
>>8972448
>e
you don't know anything about nietzschean thought
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9337990/Not-enough-hours-in-the-day-Scientists-predict-time-will-stop-completely.html
Apparently time will stop eventually. What if im in the middle of a really bad moment will time stops? Will I suffer for eternity? For example what if I'm in a lot of pain, lifting a huge weight, or under a cold shower, or being pinched RIGHT when time stops. Will I suffer forever? Should we be worried about this?
>>8972409
You're already suffering forever
>>8972415
What about when i die?
>>8972409
I think your life, consciousness and senses will "stop" too.
How long until we can start harnessing the energy of the quantum vacuum, and can we get to that point with wind, solar, and batteries?
>>8972402
Shitty energy density.
>>8972456
They probably said that about Uranium in the industrial revolution too though, when it wouldn't power their steam engines.
>>8972581
Difference being we can measure the energy density today, and it's something on the order of [math] 10^{-9} ~ \text { J m^{-3} } [/math] while Urainum has an energy density on the order of [math] 10^{9} ~ \text { MJ m^{-3} } [/math]. I don't see how we'd ever be able to extract a useful amount from the vacuum.