Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.
The belief that mass is not a source term for gravity is absurd, and also non-physical.
Even if you don't completely buy Weir's science, he gets into imagining what chemistry and physics apply to varies scenes.
Maybe in the book. In the movie there is no science.
Although I don't think I can come up with ANY plausible explanation for the magical bugs.
There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor
There most certainly is. Density-- mass per unit volume-- is the (0,0) term of the stress-energy tensor.
Energy density, yes.
Which is also mass density. Multiply by c to keep the units straight. (If you're a physicist, you just set c=1, and the units don't matter.)
I guarantee, if you have a mass density of M kg/m3 and you put it in Einstein's field equations, you get gravitation.
A fun movie, but the movie wasn't in any way hard science fiction. I don't think there was any real science in it, other than the distances to various stars. It was hand-wavium from beginning to end.
But, heck, that's par for the course for film science fiction. If you try to find the science in "Dune" or "The Last Jedi", good luck.
in his actual papers on relativity mass does not "create gravitation." Energy, momentum and some off-diagonal terms like stress and pressure gravitate. There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor
There most certainly is. Density-- mass per unit volume-- is the (0,0) term of the stress-energy tensor.
If the launch fails at a point where it is say 50 miles up, and the reactor has been turned on prior to launch.
The conops says that the reactor doesn't get turned on until after it's successfully placed in a high orbit.
A good feature of nuclear reactors is that they aren't dangerously radioactive until after you turn them on.
Here's a case of a very experienced journalist getting caught by including made-up quotes that had been hallucinated by the AI he'd used to summarize research information: https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Vandermeersch added: “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”
When even experienced journalists fail to find AI hallucinations, you really can't expect unpaid volunteers to do better.
it means that arms can be regulated, but cannot be banned
Banning is a form of regulation. "v. to govern or direct according to rule"
Yes. To be precise, banning is a form of regulation which the amendment forbids. Regulation OTHER than banning is not forbidden.
Wikipedia is choosing to die. There is a lot wrong with a lot of what people are doing with GenAI but it is also super useful.
Unfortunately, even the best LLMs sometimes make up information ("hallucinate"), and the stuff they make up is deliberately crafted to appear exactly like real information. This is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia.
If Wikipedia were written by paid professionals, you could plausibly put in place protocols to check and verify, and fire the ones who fail to check properly, but even paid professionals have been seen to let hallucinations through. As it is, as an encyclopedia that it is put together by volunteers, forbidding AI is pretty much a forced choice.
https://www.evidentlyai.com/bl...
https://arize.com/llm-hallucin...
https://thisweekinsciencenews....
But a question to ask is, was it actually a robot? Or was it just a remote teleoperated by a human?
You aren't that interesting either and yet you found a way to look interesting with sock puppet accounts, maybe they'll just do the same.
The problem is that a sock puppet uses an actual human to operate it, while bots run with little or no need for human effort. So a human can turn out a handful of posts with sock puppets, while bots can be churn out thousands and thousands of posts, swamping any system with slop.
No it doesn't.
"Root: The term derives from the Latin regula ("rule, regulation, pattern").
Let me verify: you are actually denying that the root of regulus is regus, genitive case of the Latin rex, "king"?
https://www.latin-is-simple.co...
https://www.wordhippo.com/what...
2) When the black hole does feed, it produces a lot of high energy activity just beyond the event horizon, which pushes material away before it can cross.
For reference, that is known as the "Eddington limit" (on the rate of black hole accretion).
You're being practical, not logical. Logically the 2nd amendment implies that the right to own arms should not be restricted.
No.
Logically, it means that arms can be regulated, but cannot be banned.
That is because the term regulated didnt mean that back then. One of the problems with a living language. Go look it up this is widely known.
Regulated, from the early 15th century, means according to rules, from the Latin root Regis, "of the king".
The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.
