Space – Is something in the universe traveling faster than the light?

Of course!

In our universe, the speed is limited by the arrangement of photons as a regulator half-b method of 2 parts, where the second wavelength is. Reasons for light restrictions are as follows.

Speed ​​is hot if it is allowed to exceed what we understand to be the most popular sunshine speed. This can lead to another event that only affects BigBangBurn, Burn. Faster than the alleged intentional limit, which is dangerous for repairs.

The second reason for light constraints is that certain radiations travel together to a destination and upon arrival can separate and dispense the radiation that is to be used in certain areas of each rocket planet core, as each planet has a life in the original order from Earth includes Sun to last as Mars.

The speed is limited by the wavelength, as a Maglift train drives equally.

Troff, when Troff is one magnet at a time, the train falls forward over a magnet, because the next one is turned on to push it over his gaze up and forward, before falling into the next troff and once again the next magnet keep pushing the train up and forward … over and over and over and over again.

The ability of the light to transport its energy rests on the many points and also the initial is troff when peeking for troff after peeking for troff, and it constantly makes its own power with the help of a few different points in another Article to be mentioned.

Therefore, I see speed and have made this clear as my own endeavor.

Light is not speed and speed is certainly not easy.
Take out the protective clothing and you only have speed. Invisible in its pure way, it is not governed by anything.

It is a pure matter of infinite time and would be a gift within the initial dimensional state of the witch from which the second dimension was torn out, namely that the universe in the witch we tend to live.

A single particle reached a constant for the primary time within the origin of our origin and also to exceed the mean of it beyond that limit and without interruption. I think constant was achieved under a small one. It will be excised for another 12 seconds before a part of my theory gets burned and also the void that we tend to decide that our universe is currently alive.

So, constant in less than a second. Twelve seconds later, it's impossible to avoid being immediately seen everywhere in the sky. Therefore, it is quickly visible everywhere and seems to stand still.

These are identical particles in the earth's core.

It's like in heaven.

The appearance of a liquid core can be a misunderstanding. The matter bounces back and forth between the Core Granite Prison of the Rock Planet style and purpose, and is destroyed by this description.

So fast it seems to be a full liquid core.

It's just an illusion that you're rocking everything at the same time.

This leads to dynamic gravity in the USA.

It should be a governable perspective on the rest of the method of our universe.

If you are interested, I would recommend reading other relevant articles
2019 Travel amazing technology trends

unity – Should a `Vector2.Rotate (float angle)` method in a universe turn clockwise in a counterclockwise direction?

I'm doing a 2D game in Unity and from what I understand The convention is that an angle of 0 is up and by increasing the angle, the object is rotated counterclockwise,

By the way, I have made this assumption by myself the rotation.z Value in the inspector window of a transformation. If it is 0, the object is transform.up points towards positive y. Increasingly rotation.z turns the object counterclockwise, d. H. the object transform.up Point to a negative X at 90 degrees. Let me know if this is wrong.

Given the convention where increasing the angle counter-clockwise, what should be my extension method Vector2.Rotate(this Vector2 vector, float angle) do? My question is if that works Vector2.up.Rotate(90) would result in a clockwise or counterclockwise rotation, where would be clockwise Vector2.right and counterclockwise would give Vector2.left,

At first it seemed to me an initiative that this would be the case obviously rotate clockwise. It's a positive number, so it turns clockwise. I am not sure where this bias comes from, but with Rotate(90) feels like it should turn right (clockwise).

After thinking about it, I think it makes more sense to do so Rotate(90) turn counterclockwise. Since the universe assumes a higher / positive angle that results in a counterclockwise rotation, the method must also adhere to this rule. But for some reason, it does not seem intuitive to me that I would need to call rotates with a negative number to spin clockwise. Rotate(-90) // clockwise,

Feedback, anecdotes, ideas or conventions highly appreciated, thanks!

Set theory – Enlargement in Godel's constructible universe

Given two ordinal numbers $ alpha < beta $When you look at the subsets of Godel's constructible universe, you say that $ L_ beta $ is a $ Sigma_n $ End extension of $ L_ alpha $ (and $ L_ alpha $ is a $ Sigma_n $ elementary submodel of $ L_ beta $), written $ L_ alpha prec _ { Sigma_n} L_ beta $if for all $ Sigma_n $ formulas $ varphi $.
begin {align}
L_ beta models varphi iff L_ alpha models varphi
end

Given such amounts $ L_ beta $ There are results that showed Jensen and others with Skolem functions and that help us construct elementary submodels $ L_ alpha subset L_ beta $, However, I found it difficult to find results that could do the opposite, namely, construct end extensions $ L_ delta supset L_ beta $,

Are there such general results about the final extension of Godel's constructible sets?

And in particular, let ($ zeta $. $ Sigma $) is the least ordered pair $ L_ zeta prec _ { Sigma_2} L_ Sigma $as characterized by Welch with infinite Time Turing machines or Harrington with $ Sigma_2 $ Truth sets:

Can we find an ordinal number? $ kappa> Sigma $
so that $ L_ Sigma prec _ { Sigma_2} L_ kappa $ ? And if so, we can continue this series of final extensions $ zeta, Sigma, kappa ldots $ ?

mp.mathematical physics – Are Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis and Seth Lloyd's cosmological model compatible?

I was interested in the cosmological model of Seth Lloyd (which states that the universe is or at least similar to some kind of quantum computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe, https://arxiv.org/ abs / quant-ph / 0501135) for a long time.

I was wondering if this model was fully compatible with Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, in the sense that Lloyd's model would suggest all the universes proposed by Tegmark

I found some clues that suggest this is the case:

I found a short review written by Lloyd on Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe":

"In Our Mathematical Universe, the renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a journey through the past, present and other universes. With clear language and clear examples, Tegmark gives us the measure not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes. The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone."

In addition, Lloyd's model not only suggests the existence of computable universes, as stated here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4456.pdf. (This article is believed to agree with the unpredictability of physics.)

So could Lloyd's cosmological model be able to "produce" all the universes proposed by Tegmark (hence all mathematical structures)? Is the LLoyd model only compatible with our laws? Or is it compatible with a set of laws (a set of math)?

Computability – Questions about Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe?

I am now interested in the cosmological model of Seth Lloyd (which states that the universe is a computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ 0501135) a long time ago. While researching on this topic, I found an interesting article written by Hungarian author Zoltán Galántai (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01754.pdf)

I was wondering if you would answer a few questions about the article. It would be very helpful if one of you could find some time to answer them.

  1. In Zoltán's article he compiled a table listing the possible types of calculations. In type "C3" he says:
    "Computing based on different constants – in some cases it is impossible to interpret Lloyd's equations for them"
    What does he mean exactly? Would Lloyd's cosmological model be compatible with that? Would his model be applicable to a universe with this kind of calculation?

  2. He also created a table that shows the possible types of computational universe based on the speed of light. In type 3 (U3) he says that calculation is impossible because the speed of light would be zero. However, if this universe had a structure that resembled a wormhole or some other type of instant communication (perhaps a kind of teleportation system or another) a kind of quantum entanglement that would be superluminal) could light not transmit information without having to move at all? Could this not allow a calculation? Could Lloyd's model be applied to a static (c = 0) universe? I mean, would this model be able to "produce" this kind of universe?

Software Center – Krita outdated version in Ubuntu Disco Universe

Good night everyone,

I just installed Ubuntu 19.04 from scratch because I had problems with it. In the Ubuntu Software Center there are two ways to install Krita, one from the Snap Store and one from the Ubuntu Disco universe. Prior to reinstalling Ubuntu, I had Krita installed from the Disco Universe source, assuming this second source did not change during reinstallation. Now, after reinstalling, this second source has Krita 4.1 and not 4.2, which is the latest version, but before reinstalling, this second source had the latest Krita. Is there a way to update this Ubuntu Disco Universe Repository to have the latest version?

Thanks for your help.

Is the universe expansion actually losing contraction and has a limit if the full-length value is reached?

Your question contains many invalid statements.

They do not apply any special theory of relativity to the expansion of the universe. They use the general theory of relativity, which under certain circumstances allows for a gravitational expansion. In the general theory of relativity there is no term like "value of full length".

If you want to know how the extension works, just ask – do not ask invalid questions.

,

Neural Networks – Stephen Wolfram and Gerard & Hooft suggest that literally all cellular automata are a universe?

Both Stephen Wolfram and Nobel Laureate Gerard & # 39; s Hooft believe that the universe is a cellular automaton.

As far as I know, Hooft has developed a number of frameworks to create different models of Cellular Automata, and Wolfram has also proposed a framework in which network nodes can create different Cellular Automata universes.

Both have proposed specific models of cellular automata to describe our universe (or they work in a description of cellular automata that can be fully applied to our universe) thinking that these authors think that literally every type of cellular automaton is a universe equivalent.

For example, Stephen Wolfram, in his book A New Kind Of Science, Chapter 9, defines a set of network nodes that could be able to reproduce all models of cellular machines. But I am not sure and I would need someone who knows this field better to confirm this

Does anyone here know that this is correct? Does anyone here know that this works well enough to tell me if these physicists believe that every Cellular Automata model corresponds to a universe?