@BernardMeurer, interestingly, that doesn't seem to be the problem. Mainly because 1. I had a previous line of code using input that worked normally, and 2. it gives me another error message when I run it using raw_input. I'll just double check it is that line and not something else real quick...
@BernardMeurer, just double checked, and it worked, I just forgot to uncomment a different line of code, so a later line had an undefined variable - whoops. Thanks, though, can't believe I missed that.
Asked him and two other astrophysics professors with him if an event horizon could ever exist, since the apparent horizon would take an infinite amount of time to reach that point
@sirC I don't know why you expect someone who deals with questions like "does a black hole exist bcuz we cnt see it cuz lite cant ecscape from it?"to answer your question lol. Was he on a time constraint?
> It is worth quoting from a letter from M. Way and H. N ̈ussbaumer to Physics Today, August 2011, p. 8. “It is widely held that in 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe and that his discovery was based on his extended observations of redshifts in spiral nebulae. Both statements are incorrect. . . . There is a great irony in these falsehoods still being promoted today.
> Hubble himself never came out in favor of an expanding universe; on the contrary, he doubted it to the end of his days.” I am among those who oppose the continual promotion of falsehoods in physics.
> ndeed, there is some shady business for a budding historian of physics to look into and clarify. Since Lemaˆıtre’s seminal 1927 paper was published in French in an obscure Belgian journal, Eddington arranged for it to be republished in English in 1931. But the two crucial pages containing Lemaˆıtre’s estimate of the so-called Hubble constant were omitted in the English translation. Smells rather fishy to say the least. Some reader should track down the person responsible for this omission.
> By the time I was finishing this book, a couple of years after I wrote the words above, I learned that M. Livio (Nature 479 (2011), p. 171, nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7372/full/479171a.html) had indeed tracked down the relevant documents and concluded that it was Lemaˆıtre himself who deleted the crucial pages. One of Livio’s conclusions was disputed by S. van der Bergh in a letter to the editor (Nature 480 (2011), p. 321).
> Based on what I read while writing this book and also my earlier popular book (An Old Man’s Toy), I feel that the kindest thing I can say about Hubble is that he went out of his way not to acknowledge the contributions of his contemporaries. I hope that Hubble’s status in cosmology will be reevaluated in the future.
@BernardMeurer, it doesn't give syntax errors, but it should ask "what would you like your first gate to be" instead of going straight to "functionality not included"
@DanielSank, I am trying to create a simple simulator of quantum circuits, and I am writing the basic code that takes in the necessary inputs, and there is a logic error.
@DanielSank, indeed. I thought it would help me understand how quantum gates work and such by "explaining" it to the computer. The code can be seen here. It's pretty bad so far, I know.
> Beyond the limit of the observations, the form of [a] function, or relation, is speculative. For this reason, [a] law is empirical and it must remain empirical until it is explained by an accepted theory.
They're merely observations that seem to hold given the sample we have
Is the law of conservation of energy still valid or have there been experiments showing that energy could be created or lost?
