« first day (2695 days earlier)      last day (2236 days later) » 

3:01 PM
oh
Should be $F: S_i \to T_i$ where $F(S_i) = \dfrac{S_i}{2^i}$ then
if u can divide sequences like that then I think its okay
if I want to access a specific index of a sequence do I just write $S(n)$ to get the $n$th element?
 
Anonymous
@Obliv That's not making much sense...
 
Anonymous
You need to write mappings from one set to another. If $S_i$ is a set then dividing whole of it by a power of $2$ doesn't make sense
 
Anonymous
In your case $S_i$ is an infinite set
 
hmm
how do i write it so that the map divides elements of $S_i$ by their common factor $2^i$?
I did $2^i \mathbb{N}$ to map the multiples of $2^i$
since I could multiply by sets like that I thought i could divide as well
 
Anonymous
If $u\in S_i$, then $F(u)=\frac{u}{2^{i}}$.
 
3:10 PM
OH that looks familiar
 
Anonymous
Are you a math student?
 
Anonymous
Or physics?
 
neither but I did read a little bit of abstract algebra for a short while
so thats all of my knowledge on this type of notation
 
Anonymous
I see
 
$T_{i}$ is the sequence that is defined by $F:S_i \to T_i$ where $F(u) = \dfrac{u}{2^i}$ $\forall u \in S_i$
 
Anonymous
3:14 PM
Reasonable
 
thank you
so if I wanted to access an element of the set do I just write it like $T_1(3)$
 
Anonymous
You'd have to define what you mean by $T_1(3)$
 
Anonymous
For example you could define it to mean the third smallest element of $T_1$
 
Anonymous
It's not standard notation (I think)
 
smallest in terms of its order?
like the position i mean
I just want to access the third or fourth element depending on if you start from 0 I guess
 
Anonymous
3:20 PM
You mean ascending order I guess
 
Anonymous
That's okay
 
yeah sorry didn't make that clear
 
3:49 PM
@BernardoMeurer you around?
if you can:
what's it mean if I run
gfortran --version
and it returns a segmentation fault?
this is over macOS
 
@BalarkaSen coffee + syrup is good stuff mane
 
@EmilioPisanty I'd guess it's improperly installed and is either missing a library or has the wrong version of a library
 
4:05 PM
Why has GeG4 got a lower boiling point than AsH3?
 
4:21 PM
GeH4 you mean? Germane?
 
hey guys, I am wondering if I can ask current cutting edge research progress on PSE here?
(to be specific: Entropic gravity)
 
@Shing No
The people who hang out here only know current math
There's no practicing physicists here
 
Anonymous
@Shing You can always try. But for advanced topics you'll not much experts roaming around
 
Anonymous
@0celo7 Heh.
 
Anonymous
Emilio?
 
4:24 PM
He's an engineer
 
Anonymous
I'm not sure what @EmilioPisanty's reaction would be :P
 
Anonymous
(He's sort of the exception tbh though)
 
I think David is a high energy physicist?
 
Anonymous
@Shing He now develops software
 
@JohnRennie oh yes, I wanted to type that
 
4:27 PM
what's $\lim_{x\to \infty} S_i(x)$ where $S_i$ is an infinite sequence? It's the 'last' term of $S_i$ in a sense right?
and if the terms in $S_i$ grow as you increase $x$, then the limit goes to $\infty$
 
@Blue @JohnRennie Windows says my windows licence about to get expired , what do I do now ? It has already given this warning 3 times in 2 minutes.
 
@Tanuj that's odd. I'm unconvinced about this.
Is it trying to get you to click on some link?
I think you have some malware on the computer.
 
burn the computer
 
@0celo7 that's an extreme solution :-)
 
Anonymous
@Obliv Yeah, you could say that
 
4:43 PM
@JohnRennie you say extreme, I say guaranteed solution
 
@Shing motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/… sounds pretty ridiculous
 
Hi
I recently bought a physics textbook
When searched something about equilibrium, I couldn't see anything related to Lami's theorem.
Why don't all books explain Lami's Theorem?
Isn't it that important or something? Thank you.
 
@Goendo this is too basic to be called a theorem
It's basic when you do statics problems with Newton's laws using vectors
 
It's like how no mechanics books talks about the Torricelli equation
 
@bolbteppa thanks for the link. But I don't like reading Motls' blog. I think he attacks physics ideas too more often on blog than on paper(what he should have done instead)
he even made some very rude personal attacks to some professional physicists.
 
4:55 PM
I think a blog is an apt place for statements such as "But right now, after the helpful explanations by Erik, I am afraid that I am certain that he shares certain basic misconceptions about physics with the advocates of spin foams, loop quantum gravities, causal dynamical triangulations, octopi swimming in the spin foam, condensed matter gravities, and many other stupid things of the same kind."
 
What about a padded cell
 
@JohnRennie i know , it's strange
 
um... speaking of blog. I was looking for a blog with Latex (that works greatly on the blog) to store my personal physics notes.
Right now, I am using Leanotes (latex works well on this note app), but I want to share my notes with my friends, such that they can point out my mistakes.
so a blog is better than a app(leanotes)
any suggestions?
 
vzn
@bolbteppa do you object to Verlinde?
 
(I think wordpress' latex is a bit weak.)
 
5:00 PM
what are condensed matter gravities?
 
@vzn I'm guessing this is something you take seriously?
 
vzn
@Shing same with me too. badge of honor :P
 
Anonymous
@vzn He attacked you?
 
'In June 2017, a study by Princeton University researcher Kris Pardo revealed that Verlinde's theory is inconsistent with the observed rotation velocities of dwarf galaxies.[23][24]'
 
vzn
@bolbteppa notice you dodged the question so will return the favor (speaking of blogs) do you read any hossenfelder? lots better than motl in some ways :P
 
5:03 PM
@vzn I read Motl's reading of that blog
 
vzn
@Blue coarse comments few mos ago wrt P vs NP topic, me taking "pro" as to its significance. decided not to engage him ("further").
 
@vzn I think he attacked quite some people.
 
Anonymous
@vzn P vs NP problem? Since when is he into CS? :P
 
vzn
@Shing exactly. it would be interesting to see the (long) list. honestly though he reminds me of aaronson some in that way. altho "Lumo" being far worse ofc.
@Blue he says P vs NP is a useless/ meaningless/ insignificant problem. etc. am proud to take a contrary position on that one. btw cs complexity theory showing up more/ increasingly in study of black holes etc.
 
Anonymous
@vzn Ah, I see
 
5:06 PM
Motl has never attacked me, though amusingly I have been attacked by commenters to his blog. As I recall Dilaton called me some interesting names there :-)
 
@JohnRennie What did you do to them
 
I can't remember. I think it was over the homework policy on the PSE.
 
vzn
honestly disqus is a fairly decent commenting system. gotta give him some credit for using it.
 
If you are gravitating to a bunch of theories while knowing no/little math that people who know math and physics say are garbage, that really should cause some pause for thought tbh
 
Anonymous
I mean it is totally fine to strongly object to established theories, but only as long as they're providing a solid coherent argument about it, rather than just ranting. (One of the reasons I trust mathematicians a bit more than physicists, because it is easier to spot flaws in mathematics :P)
 
@0celo7 A quick search found these mentions though actually there's not too much there ...
 
@Blue "easier" You haven't read enough topology
 
vzn
@bolbteppa anyway hossenfelder, afaik quite reputable, has semi nice things to say about verlinde and there is an interesting quanta article etc. agreed, his ideas are quite radical by conventional stds, but you gotta admit, modern physics seems rather emptyhanded-verging-on-clueless on big stuff like dark matter/ energy, etc., and it wouldnt surprise me that maybe gravity & a revision of its nature is connected to the mystery somehow.
 
@JohnRennie that does seem to have been the case. thx.
 
@EmilioPisanty Fortran?
 
Anonymous
5:16 PM
@0celo7 I didn't mean in that sense. In physics one can say that "I've got a new theory which proves that only circular black holes exist" and goes on ranting without providing any actual mathematical framework. You can't really say that they're wrong or right. But in math, no-one would really take you seriously you unless you write down your proof explicitly. Spotting a mistake in something that exists is easier than spotting one in something that doesn't.
 
anyone else just have a chat outage?
 
@vzn so one person propping up one crazy theory compliments another propping up another crazy idea is legit, but modern physics is "emptyhanded-verging-on-clueless on big stuff like dark matter/ energy, etc", all those people in all those universities, I guess it's about the bling bling for them everyday?
 
I did
 
Yup :-)
 
Anonymous
5:16 PM
@Semiclassical Yeah
 
Anonymous
What's goin on?
 
vzn
@bolbteppa look you didnt say what you think of hossenfelder yet. dont really know what youre talking about. serious scientists can admit theres big gaps. its not a refutation of science.â„¢ verlinde is working on one of those "big gaps" instead of just assuming Newton is the final word etc
 
Thank God it's back. I was worried I was going to have to speak to someone in real life.
 
"the horror, the horror"
 
5:17 PM
@Blue loooooooool
 
@vzn she is researching LQG, need I say more
 
I'm working on a conjecture that's existed since the 80s and people have been using as if it's true
 
no one seems to give a shit that there's no proof
 
Sabine Hossenfelder isn't in academia anymore afaik
 
5:18 PM
and it's not like RH
 
vzn
@Semiclassical my understanding is shes "peripheral." she possibly has a stronger connection than Lumo. she seems to be quite respected. still publishing. etc
 
Anonymous
@0celo7 That's probably the exception rather than the rule :P
 
hmm, you may be right. googling doesn't seem to back me up
 
She is apparently
 
I think saying "she works on LQG" is a pretty broad brush regardless
 
vzn
5:20 PM
@bolbteppa btw what are you working on anyway? :P
 
@ACuriousMind Yo
 
@vzn reading wikipedia articles and saying random things about them
 
vzn
@0celo7 just found this you might enjoy it. remember, mathematicians are human :P mathoverflow.net/questions/282742/…
 
doing a side project when I should be writing my thesis
though right now my immediate "I should be doing X" is writing up model solutions for my students HW
I know one of my solutions looks wrong
 
@vzn string theory, if lqg was worth working on that would be great, but it's not taken seriously, especially in throwing away Lorentz invariance at times
 
Anonymous
5:23 PM
Got an outage again
 
Anonymous
This is weird
 
vzn
@bolbteppa lol you sound frustrated. or something. wrote up a blog once not long ago on how low-status rat race academia has become, with lots of 1st person horror stories. sympathize.
 
The truth about quantum gravity is that the actual theory probably won't matter all that much when we make physical measurements
since it will be tree-level stuff anyway
 
@vzn I bet you could write a better essay by going back to the anti-intellectuals of the 60's and 70's or before
 
I'm guessing most quantum gravity will give the same results for any experiment we can hope in the near future
 
5:26 PM
I wonder a bit about that.
I mean, you could've guessed the same for QCD
 
vzn
@bolbteppa maybe. havent heard about that. academia has become very corporatized/ profit oriented and thats more recent & ties in with current "neoliberalism/ globalization" trends etc
 
Though I guess that's not a great example, given how much work it takes to probe protons and neutrons
 
We don't have a lot of particles bound by gravitation I'm afraid
 
yeah
i mean, one can handwave about black holes
 
Hopefully we'll get some interesting results from cosmology
 
5:29 PM
@vzn there is a name for people talking about math/physics who mock modern physics, academia, the 'rat race', all the while going on about theories considered wrong/failed, it's amazing these anti-intellectual arguments pretend the non-profit-oriented universities whose goal is to further research are secretly the profit oriented fat cats, this is typical 60's/70's anti-intellectualism
 
but that'd require me to pretend to be knowledgeable about black hole stuff and noooope
 
vzn
@bolbteppa lol did you check how much your university president makes lately? and how much compared to a few decades ago? am not antiuniversity or antiacademia, far from it, have a BS myself, plz refrain from tearing down straw men. yeah theres a lot of mocking going on in this room at times, some of it a "projection" etc
 
@Semiclassical @nitsua60 are you busy ? I have a question from chemistry I need to ask.
 
Anonymous
Since when are SemiC/nitsua chemists
 
@Blue I didn't know they weren't but the question I have to ask must be easy peasy for them.
 
5:34 PM
wow did I mess up these integrals in the solution I wrote
 
@vzn what does the salary of a university president have to do with anything, this is just another anti-intellectual distraction aimed at demeaning those scary universities who just so happen to further the kinds of research you call "emptyhanded-verging-on-clueless" while ignoring the flawed theories you seem to like, while not understanding any of the math/physics of any of it, is it "emptyhanded-verging-on-clueless" to say theories you are incapable of understanding are "emptyhanded"?
 
I'm almost impressed by how badly I did.
 
vzn
@bolbteppa lol just posted some relating to my own "theories." close to 500pp written by academics/ Phds (eg phd thesis! nearly ½ decade old!) and notice nearly zilch response in here. because almost nobody around here really gives a ---- about really cutting edge science. unless maybe some bigshot is talking about it. or whatever. (dont know really...)
 
@Blue quick question .Why is $Zn^{2+ }$ size greater than $Cu^{2+}$ size ?
 
Anonymous
I don't remember
 
@Blue hmm thanks , I thought so.
 
@vzn if there was hope for LQG that would be great, as with your other "theories", and if there was anything to them, those fat-cats wanting more papers would, by your own logic, jump on the opportunity, but they don't, why are they ignoring it if there is so much opportunity for publishing and results? (We know why, don't we, hmm)
 
Anonymous
@JohnRennie I need to generate around a 100 text files with separate names from within a loop in a C code. I'm thinking of naming them like Distribution1.txt, Distribution2, and so on. itoa()is not a standard function for converting ints to strings. So any alternatives?
 
Anonymous
Hmm, I think sprintf() will work
 
Anonymous
Trying
 
5:54 PM
@Slereah Yo
 
sprintf(s, "%03i", i);
 
@Tanuj I'm in and out most of the day, and haven't touched chem since HS. Feel free to shoot away with your question!
 
@ACuriousMind Do you know your stuff on the worldline formalism
 
@Slereah I have...approximate knowledge of it.
 
Do you happen to know if it is usable for, say, free scalar theories with arbitrary states
and what does it correspond to, from the worldline perspective?
Is it an sum over all possible assemblage of worldlines?
From zero particles to infinitely many
 
Anonymous
5:57 PM
`char str[20];
sprintf(str, "SizeDistribution",p);
strcat(str, ".txt");`
 
Anonymous
Does this look okay?
 
and how does one deal with the boundary conditions
 
Anonymous
What is the 03 there?
 
What's the equivalent of $\phi(x, 0) = \phi_0$ from the point of view of point particles
 
sprintf(str, "SizeDistribution%03i.txt",p);
 
5:58 PM
And also if we want to deal with vacuum energy issues, does one also have to sum over loops?
 
@Slereah What do you mean by "arbitrary states"?
 
@Blue Assuming p is your integer.
 
Anonymous
Wow. That's a cool hack :D
 
@ACuriousMind Well if, for instance, I want to consider that the initial boundary is a Gaussian state
 
Anonymous
%03 ensures maximum of three digit in there
 
5:59 PM
%03i zero pads i.e. "001", "002", etc
 
What would that correspond to in the worldline formalism?
 
Anonymous
@JohnRennie Awesome, that'll do!
 
Do we just look at the Foch space rep of it, and translate this to point particles?
 
rob
@Blue Minimum, yes? '%03i' doesn't truncate four-digit integers.
 
But those only give us the numbers and momentum, not the initial positions
 
Anonymous
6:00 PM
@rob Oh, I see
 
Anonymous
Interesting. Never learnt about this one
 
Anonymous
C does seem to have some cool hacks
 
C is entirely cool hacks :-)
 
A lot of the worldline formalism stuff jumps straight away to gauge fields with little regard for the finer points
 
Anonymous
:)
 
6:01 PM
Well, entirely hacks anyway
 
@Slereah Why would you think it works any differently than in the standard formalism? You compute the amplitudes for particles of definite momenta, then use linearity, i.e. schmeatically for a Gaussian $\lvert \psi\rangle = \int \exp(-p^2)\lvert p\rangle$ you just use that $\langle \psi \vert q\rangle = \int \exp(-p^2) \langle p \vert q\rangle$
 
Does anyone know this reaction Propanal + NH2CONHNH2 +HCl + sodium acetate ?
 
@ACuriousMind But the boundary conditions don't work exactly the same, though, since it's path integral methods
 
What boundary conditions?
In the worldvolume formalisms, states are insertions of vertex operators, not boundary conditions.
 
What we have is something of the form $$\int \frac{dT}{T} \int_{x(0) = x_1}^{x(T) = x_2} e^{S}$$
but what does a vertex mean for a physical state, though?
Any realistic state would be a sum of infinitely many diagrams
This is hard
 
6:15 PM
@Slereah what
 
Well consider the Gaussian state
 
When I say "vertex operator", I just mean the $\exp(\mathrm{i}xp)$ operators you insert in the worldvolume path integral for a scalar particle of momentum $p$, for instance.
 
Gaussian state would correspond to a Foch state containing infinitely many excited states
 
So what does that have to do with a "sum of infinitely many diagrams"? Diagrams do not represent states.
 
I guess more a diagram with infinitely many particles, would be more the case
 
6:18 PM
No
 
What would a Gaussian state look like then?
 
Forget about the worldline formalism for a moment and just think about how you'd do it ordinarily - compute the amplitudes for the states of definite momenta, then use linearity.
@Slereah I don't understand what you mean by "look like". You can't "see" the states in the worldvolumes.
For instance, in string theory/worldsheet formalism, which I'm more familiar with, you just have "markings" on the world sheet where the appropriate vertex operators for the particles have to be inserted.
But you don't see in the 2D drawing which states are inserted, they could be anything.
 
guess I should read some more string theory
I suspect people who write worldline stuff assume that the reader is familiar with string theory
 
@Slereah Sure they do - the whole idea of the worldline formalism comes from string theory
 
apparently it's based on st in a lot of ways
even though Feynman had the gist
 
6:22 PM
Yeah it is fairly similar to Feynman's idea towards the end of Feynman-Hibbs
 
vzn
@bolbteppa "fat cats" is your word and has about that )( much relation to anything said by me. (almost nobody in science is "getting rich, " quite to the contrary) very big ideas take a long time to catch on because physicists move in herds not unlike cattle and all other humans. string theory is a huge example of that dude. :P ... ps read that link just posted by me on many worlds theory and relation to bohr...
 
'I never called physicists a bunch of sheep... I never said those low-status neoliberal profit-oriented professors, especially the presidents, were fat cats... "you sound frustrated", not me' come on man this is going to make the MWI theory any less ridiculous either
 
vzn
@bolbteppa lol university presidents dont publish papers. and papers are not worth much money are they? aka easily worth less )( than dime a dozen. the MWI link expalins scientific culture wrt adoptance of new theories... (ps am not a MWI adherent whatsoever, think it verges on scifi "woo"...)
 
hey @Acuriousmind long time no type
 
@Obliv hiya
 
6:35 PM
Can you guide me in approaching a limit?
 
That sounds...ominous
 
lol
 
@vzn imagine you learned a bunch of math and physics and started converting this energy into actual work on entropic gravity, LQG, all this stuff, and it made sense, imagine how much of a famous outsider advancing humanity you'd become since the neoliberal shills are focusing on their paychecks and the heirarchy, the field is wide open to you, the books are there, the math is easy if you keep at it, you can do it
 
it might not make sense without context but i'll type it out anyway
 
Just post the limit and we'll see what we can do about it
 
6:36 PM
No physics makes sense, @bolbteppa
It's all a scam
 
$$\lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{2K(m) + 1}{|\dfrac{(1-2^i)S_i(m)}{2^i}|} = $$
 
vzn
@bolbteppa look if you want to (continue to) mock me, go ahead, its even ~½ )( funny at times, just dont pretend you give a ---- about real physics when you do it
 
@bolbteppa @vzn I'd advise both of you to stop this conversation now, it's clearly not productive.
@Obliv Well, you're right, that doesn't make much sense without context ;)
 
@vzn the only barrier to you getting to the real physics, while I am off doing the neolib-shill physics, is learning the math and physics, I advise you study the background material justifying these theories you are interested in
 
vzn
@bolbteppa agreed with ACM this can be carried out elsewhere if you have any seriousness about new physics ideas not already entirely what youre working on. (holier-than-thou string theoryâ„¢) otherwise whatever
 
6:37 PM
@Slereah obligatory Neumann quote 'you just get used to it etc...'
 
@bolbteppa Funnily enough, that quote is about math, not physics!
 
@acuriousmind darn haha. So, $K$,$S_i$ are infinite sequences. $i$ determines some of the elements of $S_i$ (if you want me to explain more let me know. I'm taking the limit of the ratio of a growth function and a decay function.
 
(We all know it's the math stopping these guys from learning advanced physics, which is why you don't have 'N = 4 SYM cranks' you just have Cantor cranks :p)
 
@Obliv Well, without knowing the form of the $K$ and $S_i$, I'm not sure what you expect to be able to say about that limit
 
6:40 PM
There'd be a lot more of this:
haha
 
@bolbteppa is he the guy 't Hooft talks about
 
Okay okay. $K$ is the infinite sequence of odd natural numbers. $S_i$ defined as infinite sequence mapped by $F: \mathbb{N} \to S_i$ where $F(i) = 2^i \mathbb{N}$
 
I think this is too recent for him to be the actual guy, but definitely an intellectual relation
 
@acuriousmind basically the multiples of $2^i$
 
@bolbteppa did he discover the fact that null coordinates can be inverted to get back the original coordinates
but not realize what he's doing
 
6:42 PM
@Obliv I understood what $K$ is. I didn't understand what $S_i$ is.
 
@Slereah He discovered that $A = A$ in that video I think
 
that too
But apparently that's a problem
 
They all go on about null coordinates, null geodesics
 
I mean if he found out $t'' = 0$
that would be an issue
 
3 messages moved to Trash
 
6:43 PM
@acuriousmind for some $i$, $S_i$ becomes an infinite sequence thats members are made up of multiples of $2^i$.
 
but this is pretty expected behaviour
 
I don't really know if taking the limit in that context makes sense actually.
I think I'm supposed to make a sum? gonna think about it one sec
 
@Obliv Can't you just write down a formula for $S_i(m)$? Is it $S_i(m) = 2^i \cdot m$?
 
oh no he has a new theory on black holes from yesterday haha
 
@bolbteppa Is it gonna be that black holes don't exist
That's usually where cranks go
 
6:45 PM
It's scary how susceptible one's mind is to this kind of thinking, I went through some insane thoughts trying to make sense of spinors, e.g. about the basis orientation and all this stuff, or where QM came from
 
That's because spinors are also nonsense
That's why you should stick with classical mechanics
Although...
Newtonian mechanics is also nonsense, with the bucket problem
So best avoid physics altogether
 
I genuinely haven't heard any of this Mach bucket stuff since basic intro Newtonian Mechanics, I thought that would keep coming back
 
@acuriousmind oh god I have to find $$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{2K(m) + 1}{|\dfrac{(1-2^i)S_i(m)}{2^i}|}$$ I think..
 
People kinda stopped caring about classical mechanics weirdness when GR and QM appeared
Then there were enough QM and GR weirdness to keep people occupied
 
His problem seems to be $r = 2m$ in Schwarzschild, for the past couple of years that seems to be the insurmountable issue, e.g. why those coordinates don't exist
 
6:48 PM
I have no idea what the Mach bucket is but I find Norton's dome troubling enough already
 
Nobody tells him that even Minkowski space can have "singularities" with the right coordinates
@ACuriousMind Do you know the Space Invader scenario?
 
@acuriousmind oh yeah $S_i(m)$ is basically $2^i \cdot m$
 
It's even stupider
 
In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large-scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote: You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your...
 
but for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$, making it a sequence
 
6:49 PM
also
Isaac Newton's rotating bucket argument (also known as Newton's bucket) was designed to demonstrate that true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies. It is one of five arguments from the "properties, causes, and effects" of true motion and rest that support his contention that, in general, true motion and rest cannot be defined as special instances of motion or rest relative to other bodies, but instead can be defined only by reference to absolute space. Alternatively, these experiments provide an operation...
 
@Obliv Okay, so $K(m) = 2m + 1$ and $S_i(m) = m2^i$. What's your problem in finding the limit?
 
They seemed like huge issues at the time :p
 
@Slereah Unless you mean the arcade game, no
 
@ACuriousMind Space invader is basically like
Take a force of the form $F(x) = \tan(x)$
 
Polar coordinates $r = 0$ be damned
 
6:50 PM
As it is unbounded, you get the particle disappearing at infinity in finite time
It's even worse if you take the time reversed scenario, where a particle that didn't exist before comes from infinity
 
I'm not sure I can accept unbounded forces as meaningful.
 
wait @acuriousmind $K(m)$ is the element at index $m$ in the sequence of $K$, likewise $S_i(m)$ is the element at index $m$ of sequence $S_i$.
they're not functions
 
A sequence is just a function $\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R}$.
 
ok okay okay you're right nvm
 
@ACuriousMind Well then don't worry about Norton's dome either :p
 
6:53 PM
And in your case they even trivially extend to functions on $\mathbb{R}$, unless I misunderstood the sequences.
 
From the description: "This is the form of my theory in 2018, and the most current description I have with regards to all the research I have accumulated for roughly a decade" this is a decade's worth of evidence trying to understand $r = 2m$, a decade, omg
 
@Slereah Why not? Nothing about Norton's dome strikes me as ludicrous as "infinite force"
 
@acuriousmind my problem is when I try to solve the limit i get an indeterminant form
$$ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} \dfrac{2m + 1}{|\dfrac{(1-2^i)m}{2^i}|}$$
 
Well, first observe that you can drop the abs by $\lvert 1 - 2^i \rvert = 2^i - 1$.
Also, there shouldn't be a $2^i$ in the denominator of the denominator anymore, it should cancel against the $2^i$ of $S_i(m) = 2^i m$.
Then just reduce the fraction by $m$, and use $\lim_{m\to\infty} 1/m = 0$.
 
@ACuriousMind Well I suppose it's a concern if you're in a pre-atomic theory era
But then again Norton's dome is from like the 60's
We knew pretty well that reaction forces weren't really there
 
6:57 PM
@acuriousmind how do i do that again? I forgot algebra
reducing the fraction part
oh i rewrote the limit wrong
wrote $m$ instead of $2^i m$ when replacing $S_i(m)$
 
plus really Norton's dome is an issue that shows up in pretty much all theories
 

« first day (2695 days earlier)      last day (2236 days later) »