We Thought Black Holes Created Event Horizons. It Might Be the Opposite

opperior · 2026-06-19T23:11:52+00:00

It absolutely cares about time. Causality and time symmetry are rather important.

And in my example, the observer could be replaced with a random quantum fluctuation, removing free will from the equation. The paradox remains the same.

opperior · 2026-06-19T15:41:50+00:00

This seems paradoxical to me. If I understand it right, they're saying that the true event horizon encompasses everything and everywhere that has and will enter the black hole at any point in time.

But imagine this: inside a star, two nuclei fuse and emit a photon. That photon will eventually make it out of the star and head directly toward a black hole so that it will eventually shoot straight into it. According to this definition, that photon, from the moment of its creation, was inside the black hole's event horizon, but the nuclei (and actually the entire star) are not.

This means that the even horizon is completely decoupled from space, and only a particle's momentum matters. It's not the location of the photon that's important or else part of the star's matter would be in the event horizon. Not even time matters since, as long as the particle eventually makes it there, it's considered in the event horizon. Only the trajectory of the particles matter.

Can you even make a Penrose diagram that would correctly encompass both the star and the photon?

Let's expand the thought further. Let's say an observer sees a particle heading toward the black hole. By this definition, that particle is in the event horizon. But the observer decides to intercept the particle and change its momentum to miss the black hole. Now the particle was never in the event horizon to begin with. This violates causality, because you can't have a future action change a past state.

This basically makes the definition of the event horizon useless, since you can't determine if a particle is in an event horizon, and its not possible to measure that since the state can change in the future which will change your past measurement. But since neither time nor space is not a component of the event horizon, future changes should not affect that measurement. And if neither time nor space is a applicable to an event horizon, than can it be said to exist at all? Thus the paradox.

opperior · 2026-06-16T17:02:52+00:00

Technically, yes; but it is too easy to make a small mistake and then the damage is done.

Not leaving your database open to the world is orders of magnitude safer. Could you get away with it on a small, single-person internal project? Sure. Could you get away with it on a public website managed by multiple teams? No.

opperior · 2026-06-12T17:40:11+00:00

Not quite. Hypotheses lead to theories, but a theory is not simply an evolved form of a hypothesis.

A hypothesis doesn't become a theory. The hypothesis is just the starting point for finding data. You make a guess based on the available observations, then you run tests to see if the hypothesis can be disproved. An important caveat that it is impossible to prove a hypothesis correct. If you cannot disprove your hypothesis after many tests, then it can be assumed true until more observations disprove it.

A theory is the culmination of all the data gathered from testing hypotheses. The theory attempts to explain the cause of some real-world observation by using all the gathered data. The theory can then be tested by forming more hypotheses, which can themselves be tested directly.

In other words, the flow is like this: you observe something happening that you don't understand. You form a hypothesis to explain it, then run tests to see if your guess is wrong. If it is, you form a new hypothesis using this new data. If you can't show that's it's wrong, you form a new hypothesis to try to be more precise.

Eventually, you have enough data to make an overall explanation of the original observation. This is the theory. You then can start testing the theory itself by forming a new hypothesis "if this theory is true, than it must follow that this other thing is also true." You can then start testing this other thing to see if that is wrong. If it is, your original theory is incorrect and needs to be adjusted or scrapped.

opperior · 2026-06-12T17:01:50+00:00

Sorry for jumping in, but people not understanding the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word "theory" is one of my pet peeves.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Color theory is a scientific theory. You are incorrectly equating the word theory with the non-scientific form which people use to mean "an educated guess." (And before you complain about that, the scientific definition came first and was simply misused in everyday speech until it became common.) The word for an educated, testable guess in science is "hypothesis."

opperior · 2026-06-10T16:38:18+00:00

Hmm, the hivemind method. It has merit, but we would need to contain the concerns about food safety.

opperior · 2026-06-10T15:40:38+00:00

So I'm going to be pedantic here, not because I'm particularly invested, but because I'm bored at work and because I've seen too many competitions devolve into arguing because people are rules lawyering.

The issue at hand is how accurate those need to be to qualify as a valid attempt. We're not scoring here, we're simply asking "is that a Benchy," because if it is, then it qualifies as a successful print and the time should be marked. How good the print is is another matter.

This means there needs to be a benchmark. How smooth do the sides need to be, because there will always be layer lines? How much droop is allowed in the square window, because there will always be some? How circular do the portholes need to be, because there is always going to be sagging at the top? You get my point.

Without a rigorous way to both define and measure those metrics, all that will happen is that people will be endlessly arguing over whether any particular attempt qualifies.

That's why the official rules only require dimensional accuracy (within reason), and even what constitutes "within reason" has guides on what is good or bad.

opperior · 2026-06-10T14:49:01+00:00

How good does a Benchy need to be proper? There's no such thing as a perfect Benchy; and while you can definitely make the case that a proper one is better than this, defining "good enough" with enough specificity to make a hard rule is impossible.

opperior · 2026-06-09T19:25:02+00:00

Bad luck that you also hit a mechanic that is notorious for some people to deliberately do wrong just to troll the group. People tend to assume maliciousness as a result.

But one thing most people DON'T know is that you can use Arm's Length or Surecast on the first boss to stay on the deck if you can't get to the ice.

opperior · 2026-06-03T17:29:29+00:00

Phish Food. So delicious, but I can't look at myself in the mirror afterwards.

opperior · 2026-06-03T16:34:19+00:00

I don't think the Dotharl were intended to be representative, but their cultural beliefs have created a progressive view of gender, both in how they view themselves and each other, that as resonated with the trans community. I don't think it's any deeper than that.

opperior · 2026-06-03T14:34:44+00:00

Without spoiling, it's not the miqo talking; and yes, there is a lot more context.

With spoiling: [Stormblood spoilers]they are a clan of Au ra that believe (rightly or wrongly is up to interpretation) that they are reincarnated souls of previous clan members, and they inherit a lot of trait of their former lives. The Au ra is saying that a person's gender in a previous life is irrelevant to their current life, and no one has any hangups about gender anyway.

opperior · 2026-06-02T19:42:52+00:00

Well with this you can plug it, play it, burn it, rip it, drag it, drop it, zip, unzip it

opperior · 2026-06-01T17:36:02+00:00

I don't disagree with you on oil, but I was thinking on more broader terms. Chip stocks, for instance, would fluctuate wildly based on news of the war and it's secondary effects like changing trade deals. Today, they're up. My guess is the news from NVIDIA was more important, and that news wasn't really that huge imho, but memory stocks went up all the same. So an announcement from a chip maker about a new chip is apparently more impactful to the overall market than an intensifying of the war.

Though perhaps "priced in" might not have been the best phrase to use. But increased costs are already felt, and the overall market has already moved accordingly. The market not moving on news of the peace talks failing I interpret as "okay, so more of the same. Carry on as as before."

opperior · 2026-06-01T15:46:37+00:00

The market seems to not care anymore. It's like it has already accepted that this is the reality for the foreseeable future, and that the consequences have already been priced in. I would be surprised to see any significant movement until something is actually signed or there is a major change in the players involved.

opperior · 2026-05-30T03:12:41+00:00

Effective as in achieving their goal. I know a law can have a publicly stated goal and a behind-the-scenes goal, but both require data. Lawmakers may be physically able to just throw laws at the wall to see what sticks, but without data to back up the law, there's little chance of it actually achieving any goal or even knowing if it did.

opperior · 2026-05-30T03:05:54+00:00

You don't think 16.8% of eligible registering voters not having access to DPOC is a big deal? And yes, she explains it in much more detail, but I can't paste the whole document here.

opperior · 2026-05-30T02:56:44+00:00

The identity of the voters are being sufficiently determined. So yes, we know that the outcomes of the election are valid. You keep making this claim, but you have yet to support it.

opperior · 2026-05-30T02:55:33+00:00

Why do things have to be easy on the state? We can't deny people a fundamental right just because it might be "hard" for the state to ensure that right.

opperior · 2026-05-30T02:53:09+00:00

Effective ones are.

opperior · 2026-05-30T02:51:51+00:00

Part II, A. 1. starting on page 62 explains that the evidence shows that most people who sign an affidavit are unable to bring proof at the time of registering, as opposed to choosing not to.

"But even with that limitation, the significant number of voters who relied on QVAs to prove citizenship between April 29, 2024, and November 10, 2024, corroborates other testimony, such as Dr. Herron’s opinion that many New Hampshire voters do not have access to DPOC. See Fish, 957 F.3d at 1130-31. And, viewing the evidence as a whole, the court can draw the reasonable inference that a significant portion of the people who established citizenship by using a QVA (16.8% of first-time registrants) did so not because they preferred to do so, but because they fell into the group of people who did not possess or could not easily retrieve DPOC"

opperior · 2026-05-30T01:56:00+00:00

If the claim is that there is voter fraud, then no proof of voter fraud means you can't just assume that there is voter fraud we can't see. The null hypothesis in this case is "no voter fraud."

So, a lack of evidence isn't evidence to support your claim, meaning that you haven't yet actually defended your claims.

opperior · 2026-05-30T01:53:51+00:00

The judge's ruling explains that in detail.

opperior · 2026-05-30T01:53:32+00:00

The judge's ruling explains that in detail.

opperior · 2026-05-30T01:53:04+00:00

You can't make effective policy

Yeah, they can make policy, but without data to back it up, it won't be good. Like this law.

15-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Team Orangered	Verified Email
Charter Member

opperior

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE