Mass being converted to energy IS the earth being forced a distance away over a duration of time. Energy = ((force x distance) / time) x time
The sun can’t lose mass internally, it can only lose mass by that mass leaving the sun. If it didn’t leave then the sun did not lose it. If it left the sun then the sun lost mass. Simples!
No. There is no “attraction.” Being “attracted” means it is moving towards the sun, but it isn’t. What you are describing is the motion that results from a NET FORCE. If you want to assume mass has an attractive force called gravity then the net force would be between the “pull” earth has on the sun, and the “pull” the sun has on earth. There is only one possible outcome in that scenario if they are both “pulling” and that is that they get closer together. But as we know, they are NOT getting closer together they are getting farther apart from each other. If gravity worked like you describe then they would pull each other together and that simply isn’t the case.
Maybe it’s not worth debating but… I don’t think this is true. In the case of the sun, though, I agree the energy is radiated off (in the form of light as opposed to planets), so I’m collapsing further thoughts, feel free to ignore; call it a planted flag in case it becomes relevant in the future.
Collapsed Section
The mass decrease happens at the moment that mass is converted to energy. To say that differently:
Think of a sphere surrounding the sun about an inch off its surface, and M be the total mass within the sphere at time T0. Now suppose there’s a fusion reaction on the surface of the sun, and it sends a photon out from the sun. Suppose at time T1 that photon has traveled half an inch, so it is still within our sphere.
My claim is that the mass within the sphere at time T1 is less than M, even though the products of the fusion are still within the sphere. The mass has been converted to energy, and the total mass within that region of space has decreased while the total energy has increased.
It’s fine if you want to use the word that way. That’s not how I am using the word, and not how the word is generally used in the context of gravity. For present purposes, we can just use a different word to avoid the confusion.
Two forces can simultaneously act in different directions on the same object, right? As you suggest, let’s call the “net force” what determines the acceleration of the object. And the “net force” is the sum of the forces acting on the object.
The fact that the net force is to the right doesn’t mean that there is no force to the left, it just means that there’s a greater force to the right. And if the force to the left is gradually decreasing over time while the force to the right remains constant, the net force can start out pointing to the left, decrease to zero when the two forces are equal, and then point to the right.
Ah, I see what you mean. Sure, theories are constantly refined in response to new observations. Are any of these new observations better predicted by a theory that includes planets being born within stars and slowly migrating away from them?
Statistics smooths away the rough edges when it throws out the outliers/singularities (say, as anomalous). But life is about the outliers. And the one who is the reality in which the three body problem is a problem (for us) does not throw out the outliers.
“objects that cannot exist” - You are defining existence or real ontology as stable. You are ruling out three bodies as existing because they are not stable. You are defining stable as that which can be predicted with statistics(, right?). (If so,) Do you see the problem?
Please go back to the top and read the original post.
But to respond to the quoted part. Let’s say you are the Big/Small Everything to your daughter. Let’s say you disappear out of her life because you’re so big/small you subsume everything and cannot be located. How would you make yourself accessible to her without freaking her out, but also while making it obvious that you are you and not a counterfeit?
Side question: If AI does not know what it is going to say until the next word, can you please define a word in that context? Is there a word that needs no context? Is there a word that contains its own context? How about a musical note without a harmony sounding with it? How about a harmony without a musical note? How about a color correctly decoded/interpreted (or even existing) apart from a context of other colors?
There is no force “pulling” the earth away from the sun which you claim is greater than the “attractive force” that the sun has on earth. There is no attractive force and there is no force pulling the earth out away from the sun. There is simply the force of the sun pushing earth out. The “net” force is that the outward force that the sun exerts on the earth is greater than any opposing force pushing the earth in towards the sun. There is no “attractive” force, that would be a negative force and there is no such animal. There is simply a positive force which has direction.
Example:
force →
← force
Both are positive forces in different directions, and there is no such animal as force ← . That is nonsense.
I’m ruling them out because they’re point masses moving through perfectly empty and uniform space and unaffected by any outside force. That’s the setup of the three-body problem. It doesn’t and isn’t intended to be a system that exists in the real world; it’s a simplification, an idealization. It’s a thought experiment.
But, from the images in your post, I’m starting to think you’re talking about numerology and not math: ‘3’ isn’t just a number, it’s a symbolic reference to some special Trinity, and the “three-body problem” has Kabbalistic significance or something. Am I way off on that?
Rotate the center “circle” (barycenter) of a Venn diagram according to the golden ratio like a rose. Would it be the golden spiral? Make it happen like the transform Doohickey*, so all the limits bend accordingly. Like geodesics.
Best I can do.
From the beginning of the rotation, to ne’er reached end (for us) - the whole time”line”. Hence incomplete geodesics. This is a guess. This is only a guess.
I thought 3 Body Problem was a great show overall. It had some minor plot inconsistencies or obvious gaps that should have been explained, but otherwise it’s pretty cool. I look forward to the second season.
I especially liked the idea of using almost all of your available resources to make two planet-sized intelligent computers and then putting them into two subatomic particles by unfolding their hidden dimensions and then refolding them back up, quantum entangling those two particles together, and shooting one off at near-c while the other stays with your fleet. As a way or surveilling and fucking up the enemy you are slowly moving toward at more or less conventional speeds. Also the idea that you can time a series of hundreds of thermonuclear explosions in a row to propel a spacecraft faster and faster to achieve something like 10% the speed of light or whatever it was. Really cool ideas.
The ideas of “let’s cause the stars to blink” or “we no longer need to care about stopping their advanced science research because we no longer care about trying to help any of the humans” are pretty silly. As is the idea that they can get inside your mind and cause massive hallucinations but, despite apparently wanting to kill us all, they don’t simply do that all the time. Also the idea of the “Wallfacers” is kinda dumb. Still though, overall a great show.
