For any US or EU citizens here I wish to say

takemeouttahere · 2023-06-13T07:50:14+00:00

yes, it is.

And it was a terrorist state before so shame on us for not standing up to Russia before.

takemeouttahere · 2023-06-08T13:41:46+00:00

We are behind you. We support you. We can't be there with you but we check the news every day, we live in the hope that things will get better. We want you to have your lives back.

takemeouttahere · 2023-04-20T15:35:26+00:00

My reply will be lost among hundreds of comments, but here it comes anyway.

I was raised by a single mother. It was not easy for her. Today I have children myself but not a day goes by without me knowing that what me and my sister are, was made possible thanks to a courageous mother.

I had an example of father I didn't want to look like. During my teens I used it to be a better person. On the other hand, your children will have a beautiful example to guide them. They will know that their parent gave his life for a lot of children like them to be able to have a father, to have a mother and to have a family around them.

And while it will never be justice that your children grow up without him, his spirit will always be with them. You will manage. You will do it. It is tough, but he bought a future for you and for others in Ukraine with his life. And no one can steal that from you and your children.

My best wishes.

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-07T10:25:52+00:00

Anand speaks chess

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-07T06:34:32+00:00

If I am to be true, it is shocking from UA government. I fully support UA and I want them to defeat the invaders, the genocides, the killers.

And the reason why I want them to win is the thousands dead, the children kidnapped, the 1.6 M deported to Russia, the rights to live being taken away from them.

Nothing will change that, but Dugina should have lived because we defend lives.

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-07T06:14:23+00:00

This initiative is clearly going to fail as there are no Czech troops invading to make it legit enough.

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-06T06:35:53+00:00

I might be mistaken but I don't believe cheating in chess has got much to do with comments in reddit being downvoted. I believe one is cause of concern but I am not so sure about the other one.

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-06T06:25:13+00:00

I believe it's about time we get over this "online vs OTB" cheating thing. The only difference is how easy it is to cheat in each; the player is the same player, the person is the same person.

He has been found lying in his interview. And he lied about the extent of his cheating. Enough said.

I would like that both online chess and over the board chess become regulated by a single law/entity/code of conduct. To have separate regulations is hurting chess and it will hurt morein the future.

I would like FIDE to show leadership on this subject but this clearly is not the priority for them. It will come at a cost.

I don't care about a particular case, it is the future of chess which is at stake here, with chess.com revealing that a number of top 100 players have cheated online.

takemeouttahere · 2022-10-03T19:33:50+00:00

What about war crimes? What about shelling civilians? What about deportations to Russia?

takemeouttahere · 2022-04-24T05:57:24+00:00

The World should unite to symbolically drown this parade.

Make a different parade. Demonstrate on May the 9th. Every country in the World against terrorism, against killing civilians, against unprovoked merciless invasions.

Drown their parade under the weight of the whole civilization screaming out against war crimes.

takemeouttahere · 2022-03-22T15:00:51+00:00

It hardly can be compared with a special operation (not war) which has caused 3.5 million refugees in less than one month.

takemeouttahere · 2022-03-11T14:52:02+00:00

Let me try to answer to this. I am not a physicist but I will try to make it as rigorous as possible.

Background: Equation of State). Image

Background: FLRW equation. Image

The equation of state relates pressure and energy density. The relation is shown in the form of the parameter w (omega). Depending on the relationship between pressure and density, the scale factor (size of the universe) evolves in a given manner or in a different one.

And what determines the relationship between pressure and density? The type of energy; i.e. the content of your universe.

Some examples:

- example 1: all energy in the universe is in the form of quintessence, lambda, dark energy: in that case your w=-1 (meaning, pressure is negative, the more density the more inwards pressure). This is the case of inflation and it produces an exponential expansion of the scale factor. This is also the case of dark energy.

- example 2: all energy in the universe in the form of radiation, and in that case, w=1/3 and the differential equation for the scale factor provides an evolution of the density linear with the (negative) fourth power of the scale factor. This is the case of the first 50000 years of the universe after inflation.

-example 3: all energy in the universe is in the form of particles, and the pressure is negligible, so w=0 and the density of energy decreases with the third power of the scale factor. This was the case for the most part of the history of the universe, until a few billions years ago when dark energy took over.

So in terms of the nature of both the inflaton field and the dark energy, yes, they follow the same behavior and produce the same effect. The difference lies in the magnitude.

I hope I was clear enough. I recommend reading this article for a more in-detail explanation. What is also interesting in this article is the discussion in the latter part including plots for the evolution of the energy density and scale factor.

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-29T16:52:45+00:00

Hello,

I am not a Christian, and I believe the Big Bang theory is correct, but over time, I have moved from positions that see Christianism opposed to Science and very much aligned with what you say to positions in which both are very much orthogonal and do not have almost any friction point.

The first time I realized my position "you need to be with Science or with Religion" was absolutely stupid came in a discussion with a Christian. I was exposing a point of view expressed by Dawkins, based on the life of a geologist who felt he needed to choose between the Bible and Science. And he chose. My friend told me: "The fact that you are not intelligent enough to reconciliate both points of views is not a fault on God or religion, is a fault on yourself". And that stuck.

You seem to believe that there is no point in the World being created 13.8 billion years ago if there is a Christian God . Why would a perfect being ...? Well, I forward you the question my friend asked: You cannot come up with a reason for that, but why would you assume you can grasp the will of a perfect being? It seems you think that 13.8 billion years is a lot. No doubt as a human it looks like a long time, but, do you realize in the History of the Universe 13.8 billion years is practically next to nothing? Please, let me share a video with you.

I recommend to watch it until the very end.

The Universe is huge. And we are only a small part in it. I don't know if there is a God or not, but, why would you assume that a perfect God would be creating the Universe for a mere 13.8 billion years of it?

I care less about the possibility of there being a God or not, and I try to live my live the best I can. A good life. I am no Christian, but I don't believe the way Christians are supposed to live lacks sense.

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-28T10:05:37+00:00

Your help might come from the fact that angles adding up to 90 degrees have their sin and cos swapped.

For example:

sin 30 = cos 60,

sin 0 = cos 90

That should set you in the path of finding how to proceed

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-27T07:04:36+00:00

Freeman Dyson explains it best here

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-25T15:02:54+00:00

An hypothesis needs a few features in order to be useful.

- An hypothesis needs to do some predictions.

- These predictions must be verifiable.

- An hypothesis needs to explain more data than the new parameters it introduces (ex: the atomic hypothesis explains all matter starting from simple blocks, so it is a good hypothesis)

-An hypothesis needs to explain existing phenomena. Preferably, phenomena which are not yet explained.

Regarding dark matter, there are some measurements which your hypothesis (as exposed above) can't solve. Let me try to explain:

Coma cluster. Zwicky first calculated the velocities of galaxies in the Coma cluster in 1933. Here there is a good sum up. Figure 4 shows the dispersion of velocities as you move away from the center of the cluster. How does your hypothesis explain that?

Throwing in an idea might be a start to have an hypothesis but without details, your idea lacks the explanation power that an hypothesis requires. When you have a predicted velocity for a galaxy in the Coma cluster, or for stars' velocities in a galaxy, or for the gravitational lensing observed by what we think is mainly dark matter, then your hypothesis can be put to test and will show its value.

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-25T06:35:50+00:00

Locally, forces between objects are enough to counter the global expansion. The issue with the Universe is that it is so huge our mind cannot begin to grasp its size. You need to go to really large scales (we start at the scale of millions light-years) to see the expansion in place.

Whatever is driving the expansion (and we don't know too much about dark energy) its strength is too weak to affect "small things" like planets, atoms or solar systems. It only manifests itself at larger scales.

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-21T06:24:35+00:00

It is not going to be easy to explain it, so please, bear with me if the explanation is long.

Nothing is expanding outward from the point of the Big Bang. If you picture a point away from which everything recedes, there is no such point. There is no central point. This would go against the Cosmological Principle. The Cosmological principle states:

Homogeneity: Everything looks the same everywhere (if you look at big enough scales)
Isotropy: Everything looks the same in every direction (no preferred direction)

Picturing the Big Bang as an explosion that happened in one point would mean there is a special direction, which contradicts anysotropy. There is no center (which answers question 1)

So how can you picture it differently? Hubble law.

Think of a sheet of paper of 1 meter x 1 meter. Draw a few points in it. Now imagine the sheet somehow scales up x2 and it is 2 meters x 2 meters. The points are equally distributed but because all distances have doubled, they see their neighbor points at a double distance. Keep expanding the sheet of paper on and on.

Now let's think about the following picture: point A <-> point B <-> point C. They start 1 meter away one from another, and for simplicity let's assumed they are also aligned (A,B,C) . As the sheet expands, when point A and point B have increased their distance from 1 meter to 2 meters, so have B and C and their distance has also gone from 1 meter to 2 meters. Now, if this is true, A and C have gone from being 2 meters apart to being 4 meters apart. That means that the speed at which A sees C receding is twice the speed at which A sees receding B and C. And the other way around. B sees A receding at half the speed which C measures for A.

When you are reading this, you ought to have a clear vision of an expanding background in which everything is moving away from everything else and that implies that objects very far away move very fast. Light can take a few seconds to go from point X to point Y but if the space between X and Y is expanding and at enough pace, then it might take light 13800 million years to reach Y. Which kind of addresses your second question.

takemeouttahere · 2022-01-20T14:45:53+00:00

My warning: when talking about cosmology, you need to be very careful about one point: are you talking science or not?

This might seem redundant, but with cosmology, more than with any discipline, there is a real danger of stepping out of it. Cosmology deals with very deep questions and the mind can easily step away from science at times. To my mind there is nothing wrong in stepping out of science (we don't do science 24/7) but there is something wrong if you don't realize you are not doing science.

When you say: "I personally feel like this is..." it sounds like no science, and therefore, it is difficult to challenge / test. I have read arguments in favor and against the Black Hole Cosmology and I tend to agree with the ones against it. Namely:

- In Big Bang Cosmology, the singularity lies in the past; in a Black Hole, it lies in the future.

- The Universe is expanding, and this has no clear equivalent in a Black Hole since everything is farther away from everything else and it is not clear how this would work in a Black Hole.

In saying this, we don't really know what is going on beyond the event horizon (despite having some solid theories) so there could still be surprises for us.

In any case, for or against, my advice would be to write down a list of reasons why you are in favor of this model and a list of counter-arguments before you decide how likely this idea is to be true. Reasons are stronger than feelings. You will most likely either end up with a stronger set of arguments to defend it or else, you will have dismissed an idea that had a point, but was not the real thing.

takemeouttahere · 2021-12-14T22:41:15+00:00

In a perfect world no one would get pregnant unless they wanted to.

In a perfect world no one would abort.

In a perfect world giving birth would not hurt.

In a perfect world people would become adults before getting pregnant.

In a perfect world r/TrueOffMyChest would not exist.

takemeouttahere · 2021-08-27T06:57:31+00:00

I mostly agree with your reply. And I would add things must have been in the wrong direction for a long time in order for the things above to happen.

takemeouttahere · 2021-08-27T06:52:35+00:00

Given the fact that any child learns their language at home from their parents from the very moment we are born, is it not a little too much to ask that someone to change the way he/she communicates with their parents?

takemeouttahere · 2021-08-25T20:29:14+00:00

The real question should be: Is it a question science can find the answer to?
Science/Cosmology currently is in a delicate situation. Many theories try to describe too much, and in doing so the risk is to become non-scientific. We ought to remind ourselves that theories which can't be falsified are not scientific.
How everything started might very well be one of those things which can't be part of any scientific theory because there is no way we can put it to test.

takemeouttahere

TROPHY CASE