STM Videos, Documents, and News.

STM = Science, Technology, and Math

I’m just testing this seeing if it gets anywhere:

Post any scientific, mathematical, or technological videos or links to videos or suggestions to watch here and/or news.
And/or any documents you think peeps should read.

Discussion of any topics presented permitted! of those STM related of course and not outside the general forum rules.

NASA’s 4.26 minute post-Mayan apocalypse video was released 10 days early – video guardian.co.uk/science/video … ypse-video

The 500 Phases of Matter: New System Successfully Classifies Symmetry-Protected Phases

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 233120.htm

Super-Fine Sound Beam Could One Day Be an Invisible Scalpel

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 173955.htm

Deathbed theory dreamt by an Indian maths genius is finally proved correct - almost 100 years after he died
. Theory came to Srinivasa Ramanujan in a dream on his deathbed in 1920 - but has never been proved
. Discovery could now be used to explain the behaviour of parts of a black hole

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -died.html

kool

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … s-eye.html

…now that’d be very irritating :neutral_face:

image.jpg

I really could have done without that image… :confused:

:laughing:

…just be thankful it isn’t you :stuck_out_tongue:

The only illness I’ve had is a gluten allergy (which was brought on by stress) which then triggered a lactose allergy this year… and all that was bad enough, so I find what some bodies have to go through pretty tough going… the body can really go wrong when it goes wrong :neutral_face:

It’s hard to believe that not all that long ago we were still living in caves knowing more or less shit about the world around us.

buzzfeed.com/daves4/why-you- … ience-clas

So , you think knowing those stuff’s will really help you in living life peacefully ?
What about astronomers, who did not know much about astronomy or any other , but knew , what freedom was, and believed in freedom of speech.
But labor class scientists , who work in russian and iranian countries like space station , do they know anything about freedom of speech.
Should those things really matter in someones life.

Subject science is just one of the way of understanding things that happen , Each and every one is let to present their opinion.
These opinion, is no way given consideration as FACTS.They will be considered just as THEORIES.i.e., one of the possibilities or one of the CLOSEST POSSIBILITIES.
And nothing more than that.

Theoretically ,science (religion ?) , way of questioning and presenting is totally different from other way of understanding.
Because , when you really come to know about the truth hidden within Theory of relativity presentation, you would say that you really missed nothing.
Subject science just shows you how to analyze things in your life. It may be political , environmental , or home science.

guardian.co.uk/world/video/2 … time-video

Release the kraken. :confused:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken

Antihydrogen held for 16 minutes according to Scientific American June5, 2011.

scientificamerican.com/artic … 00-seconds

The absolutely most critical question in that is whether the anti-matter atom can maintain itself in normal space, although void of normal matter contact.

Without that bit of information, the rest is a “who cares” situation. Given the right environment, anything can be formed.

The degree of stability of an anti-matter atom in normal space will directly determine the “absolute” level of energy within normal space, “the affectance level of this region of space”. It is predictable that in very far outer space, such stability will be different. By measuring that stability in this “normal space”, we can know exactly where “absolute zero” energy/affectance is and have an absolute scale with which to measure all things.

It requires a high positive affectance field to sustain a large negative particle.

Is antimatter part of RM?

All particles are a part of RM and any particle of any ontological type; physical, mental, physiological, social,…whatever. RM covers ALL existence, potential and actual.

According to RM, any negative particle must necessarily be smaller than any positive particle within the same ambient space.
A positron can be formed such as to orbit a negaton, if and only if the region of space is sufficiently dense (high affectance/mass/gravity), else the negaton cannot form large enough to sustain an atomic structure.

But within that same high density space, very large protons are inherently easier to form. I would think it would take a very special ambient environment to prevent a positron from becoming a proton. Perhaps its capture into the orbit of a negative particle is sufficient. I haven’t really studied that.

What do you mean? A positron is the same size as an electron. An antiproton is the same size as a proton.

I’m not sure, but these two sentences seem to me to imply that RM can explain…anything. No?

The ambient space determines how large a particle will get. Positive and negative particles are not treated identically. Actually, its more true that they do not treat the environment identically. Thus when someone says that they have created a negative particle, especially a large one, it is critically important to know what environment they created it and in which it can be anentropic. That information directly leds to very serious baseline information.

RM can. But that doesn’t mean that I can.
RM is just an improved version of Science.
Just because Science knows a great many things doesn’t mean that a scientist knows much.

Well, if RM can explain anything, like…actually anything, then it’s not an improved version of anything. It’s useless if it can explain anything.

Think about it: if it can explain anything, then it predicts nothing. If I have a theory that can explain X and notX equally well, then the theory can make no prediction regarding X either way. And, in the case of RM, that X is…everything. It doesn’t predict anything if it explains everything.

It’s related to the concept of falsifiability – if it explains anything, then no matter what happens, RM still stands, right? Nothing can happen that could possibly be counter to RM, because whatever happens, RM can explain it. So…RM is unfalsifiable. It doesn’t make any predictions, there are no conditions under which it can be falsified, and so it actually says nothing whatsoever.

lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/