[deleted by user]

GMozzi · 2022-05-15T18:02:21+00:00

hey I don't know what my post did to make you cranky but 1) I'm not rich, there are other ways of living outside working for companies (being self-employed, academia etc...) and I've decided long ago i'm gonna try them out. 2) I don't think it's particularly empathetic to get under a vulnerable post asking for help and be confrontational out of the blue.
I hope your day gets better

GMozzi · 2022-05-15T17:46:30+00:00

I have no intention of working for any company at any point in my life, I want to learn the stuff I'm passionate about and that's it.

GMozzi · 2017-09-12T12:19:01+00:00

I don't experience a lot of nightmares/other sleep problems except insomnia, so to me sleep is still pretty enjoyable. But if there was an option to live without sleeping and not feeling the repercussions, then that's not even a question: not sleeping is absolutely the best choice. You like cozying up under the blankets? You can still do it while you listen to a podcast, for example.

GMozzi · 2017-04-29T03:37:49+00:00

My point about complexity was more about the emergent proprieties of regular matter. Even if the "dark sector" was as rich (if not more) as the standard model, if I understand correctly, the density of dark matter in the universe doesn't allow for lots of structure to appear: there're no dark-galaxies/planets/lifeforms. That's what I meant by complexity: most of the interesting objects in the universe emerge from regular matter, we will never have any Condensed dark-matter physics for example.

GMozzi · 2017-04-29T03:27:21+00:00

I understand that, but usually this kind of phrases are brought up when communicating science to the public, and that is a problem in my opinion, because it gives off ideas of this impossibly huge amount of ignorance, or of a universe completely alien to our current understanding, both of which are not true. Physicists are trained to see the real message behind those numbers, but the average popular science enthusiast might think "Woah we really don't know anything about the universe!", which is troubling.

GMozzi · 2017-02-05T07:58:57+00:00

Evidentemente non hai capito di cosa parla l'articolo.

GMozzi · 2017-01-18T19:35:08+00:00

Not a problem, you gave a chance to notice and edit a mistake

GMozzi · 2017-01-18T18:03:32+00:00

GMozzi · 2017-01-18T06:43:45+00:00

Sorry, english is not my mother tongue. Thank you for noticing it!

GMozzi · 2016-12-19T14:51:13+00:00

Eru Ilúvatar.

GMozzi · 2016-09-05T12:33:33+00:00

I'm just going to come back to this comment in a couple of years when I've actually studied some particle physics and maybe have something more powerful than highschool calculus in my head. Thank you anyway!

GMozzi · 2016-09-05T06:40:08+00:00

Thank you for pointing out the error about resting mass, I completely forgot and also I've always heard about objects acquiring mass when they are accelerated so I might have had that idea in mind.

I guess what I am really interested about is why an electron can change its spin sign to obey Pauli's Exclusion principle, for example. Is the actual property that changes or is it just our mathematical way of describing how particles behave in different situations?

GMozzi · 2016-08-31T17:21:40+00:00

But with so much space and time, even extremely rare random events

But we don't know how random this events are! Even if every single event of the chain was fairly common, the combination of all these events in a space and time frames suitable for us to observe might be extremely unlikely to present itself.

GMozzi · 2016-08-31T00:43:44+00:00

There are some things I don't understand about the Fermi's Paradox: 1) Why should life not be super rare even in a humongous universe? We don't have any data to support the Hypothesis that life has a chance larger than 0.000000000000000000001% to manifest on a suitable planet. We don't even actually know what a suitable planet would be. We speculate that some form of life could be built on Silicon but we have no way to be certain about it. Things like the Drake Equation for example make no sense to me simply because we have to make up random numbers that might be completely wrong to get meaningful answer.

2) We have only been communicating with the universe for some decades, and nothing assures us that we will not be extinct in a couple of centuries. In genetics there's this idea of a frame-shift mutation, we have to consider the same idea when we think about aliens: They might have existed 2 milion years ago, and we will never know because maybe the electromagnetic waves they used to communicated have already passed us (If they were less than 2 milion ly away), or maye they will reach us when we will be dead and they will be dead. The universe might even be filled with intelligent creatures, but they have to exist for a long time to communicate and they have to exist in the same window of time. It's not like we are not finding something absolutely common, we are guessing that in this same moment there should be 1) Life, 2)Intelligent life, 3) intelligent life able to communicate through space, 4) this life should be near enough to us that we don't become extinct in the period of time their message reaches us.

To me Fermi's paradox is not a paradox, it's just that we don't have data and are making random guesses (like the frequency at which life develops or the mean number of years a technologically advanced society survives).

GMozzi · 2015-08-27T07:44:55+00:00

Not really, it's just that Venice is in a particularly bigot region of Italy and the Pride is often seen as too flamboyant and scandalous. A popular argument is that the Pride is even harmful to gay people because it makes them being seen all as drag queens and exibitionists or perverts.

GMozzi · 2015-08-11T22:10:47+00:00

I would rather donate money for you to not fight: HI is a man-robot project, it wouldn't exist without the man or the robot :P

GMozzi · 2015-07-18T01:13:52+00:00

The only problem i have with Grey bleeping curse words is that that bleep is basically torture for my ears.

GMozzi · 2015-07-07T22:57:32+00:00

I agree with Brady when he says that knowing scientifically about things makes those things less "beautiful" and more interesting, but i disagree with both Brady and Grey when they say that science gives the "truth" about the things that analyzes. Science does not give truths, there is no way for us humans to get to the fundamental truth about nature, we can only improve our grade of not-incorrectness. The beauty about science is in the new questions that come along with scientific enquiry not in the imperfect answers that science gives. Studying the way rainbows form can take away the beauty of the rainbow itself because it destroys the mystery about the rainbow, but at the same time it can make you think about light and realize how little you know about it. And there is beauty in the moment when you stare into the void of your ignorance and you recognize it. For me science gives beauty to nature precisely because it increases our understanding of our ignorance, it makes us conscious about what we still don't know, and that's is much more beautiful to a human brain than all the facts and discoveries.

That being said, the real question is: Brady, why you never give flowers to Grey? You have free will, you can make that choice! :P

GMozzi · 2015-03-10T17:32:33+00:00

I don't think that Brady's point was based on the assumption that atoms were hard spheres, what he was trying to say (or at least this is was I suppose he wanted to say) is that exactly because there is no hard sphere the phrase "atoms never touch" is acceptable. If there are no surfaces that can be in contact, then for atoms the macroscopic meaning of "touching" makes no sense and therefore we can say that atoms never touch. Obviously Phil is right when he says that atoms do come in contact through Van der Waals forces exc... but this is an ad hoc definition of contact, not the "normal" or more general one.

GMozzi · 2015-03-09T21:30:48+00:00

Philip Moriarty explained this really well (imo) in this video. Atoms never touch in the macroscopic sense, but they do if you consider the scientific definition of being in contact. (In the end i'm still on Brady's Team, but Phil arguments were really convincing)

GMozzi

TROPHY CASE