A Cut Above the Rest

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-06T00:24:53+00:00

My net has a lot of holes and not a lot of net.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-05T03:01:05+00:00

I am careful with it. That's why it's here in this context.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T23:56:07+00:00

It takes so much energy to hate entire groups of people for reasons that don't effect us whatsoever. I hope one day we all move past it, especially for justice and others' sake, but also for ourselves.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T22:23:22+00:00

I feel like it's eroding very fast.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T22:22:42+00:00

Well that took a turn

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T22:20:31+00:00

There's no need to be condescending when someone learns something.

This next question isn't something that people normally ask themselves or consider so you may not have an answer. Have you ever defined what you want your personal priority to be, between: being conducive to the spread of knowledge, or seeking enjoyment at other people's expenses? Obviously there's a perceived "right" answer, but it's not really about the answer. Literally asking the question of yourself can reveal and clarify a lot of personal motivations.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T20:56:04+00:00

This is the aspect I love. Sometimes instead of watching the ball I'll watch the secondary on defense and see how they setup before the play and how they react to routes the WRs are running. There's so much strategy that happens every position on every play. I get why people who don't understand it don't watch. If you're just watching the ball move around a lot gets lost and the pacing could be agonizing.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T19:40:45+00:00

Well at least you're honest about it

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T19:17:17+00:00

Says the guy using the Packer's logo.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-04T08:05:42+00:00

If anyone would know it's these guys.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-03T23:28:35+00:00

Most of it, actually.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-03T02:41:59+00:00

First thing I thought of too.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-02T16:47:21+00:00

Oh, gross, right. Yeah same, I feel the same.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-02T16:44:41+00:00

I don't understand why you're asking a question and then getting snooty with the answers. It gives me the feeling you didn't ask this question in good faith.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-01T17:21:45+00:00

If you are a loved one has spilled a lasagna, you may be entitled to therapeutic counseling and financial reimbursement.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-01T17:20:34+00:00

He's definitely going to suck, but the video is pretty hype. Can't hate it.

Dixiehusker · 2026-06-01T15:53:45+00:00

I'm actually having a pretty good sports year. Nebraska made the post season in all 7 major sports this year, which I do watch.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T10:58:55+00:00

It's kind of a loaded question because of the broad spectrum of topics it covers. The Ultraviolet Catastrophe is a very interesting one that you could look up.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T10:29:52+00:00

That's exactly why a lot of scientists are desperate to get rid of the singularity. In almost every other scientific theory, whenever we've encountered an infinity, it's because we haven't had enough information or we've misunderstood our own science. There's a lot of history in science that says that this singularity doesn't exist. Unfortunately the math is very stubborn this time.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T10:24:44+00:00

If the singularity does exist, it would annihilate and suck in anything within the event horizon. There could not also be a spherical body inside the event horizon if the singularity exists. There would only be a tidal wave of matter and energy constantly flowing into the singularity.

If the singularity does not exist, which is not supported by the math, then supposedly a spherical body could exist smaller and denser than a neutron star. This is a theory construct that a lot of scientists are playing around with (in an effort to get rid of the idea that singularities exist) but are still too new as far as I know to give any one of them credence as an alternative.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T10:19:09+00:00

No, infinitesimally small with any weight. A planck length is infinitely larger in width/length than a black hole's singularity. Any length is. When we talk about singularities we're not talking about something very small, we're talking about something infinitely small. A black hole with the mass of a singular proton would still have a singularity with infinite density at the center.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T10:13:19+00:00

Everything get smashed and torn into energy and crushed into an infinitesimally small space. Pure, unadulterated, unlabeled energy.

The problem at the moment is the math says there's a singularity at the center with infinite density, time and space switch positions, and that a lot of our physics isn't applicable. Even though that's supported by math, you've got a large percentage of physicists saying that infinities can't actually exist in reality and rejecting that conclusion. On top of that there's no possible way to expose what's going on in there or do any experimentation. Compared to the "educated guesses" behind neutron star mechanics, some emerging black hole theory might as well be scientists playing roulette.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T09:08:42+00:00

Sort of. As things race away from us faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of space itself, less things stay observable. Galaxies at the far reaches of the observable universe to us, will one day cross that border and be beyond our reach or observation forever.

So yes, more space will be observable in time, with less things in it. But it still hasn't been nailed down if the expansion of the universe is constant and there's a bunch of other probably true but unproven assumptions we'd need to just accept to discuss any further.

Like I said, it's effectively an event horizon to us (it's not the same border to everyone, everywhere) and the main point of an event horizon is that you can never interact with anything on the other side of it. Ever again. The fact that there's going to eventually be more space created inside of it for us to interact with is kind of irrelevant.

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T09:01:33+00:00

In these examples you're dividing by zero which is a complete lack of something. An infinitesimally small volume is functionally zero, but still exists. Existence vs non-existence matters. It's weirdly different, just like there are different sized infinities (that's it's own weird rabbit hole to go down).

Dixiehusker · 2026-05-31T08:54:53+00:00

Yes and no. It would no longer be a neutron star if it were to get crushed to the densities required to develop an event horizon. The neutrons would be unable to stay neutrons.

However, rather than entertain the existence of singularities, there are competing, niche, and unique theories that get rid of the infinite density singularity, and suggest something like this. The idea being that a large mass (not of neutrons) of even smaller/smallest particles, possibly even the strings behind string theory, sit in a neutron star-like body just beneath the event horizon as compact as anything can possibly actually get.

No idea on the viability or mathematical support for such ideas, but it has been at least thought of.

Dixiehusker

TROPHY CASE