i_no_can_eat

Can you elaborate on what constitutes a vacuous proof?

> I'm terrible at grammer

Also pretty bad at spelling.

What a lovely country.

> Southern europeans tip

No we don't. In Portugal, Spain, and Italy it's not common nor expected.

My comment was specifically about those alternative "dark stars" hypothesis. Is there one with a formation scenario?

The difference is that we have theorerically sound formation scenarious for black holes under very broad conditions, and we have absolutely no model for a formation scenario of such an exotic dark star.

The sea was angry that day, my friends

> If they have paid to register for your conference, it’s your duty to write those letters.

I should probably have made it clear that I'm talking about conferences without registration fees.

Very interesting to know, thanks. Let me then ask: if getting a tourist visa is simpler, is there any problem in asking for a tourist visa even if your intention is attending a conference?

> Painting an entire country as large and diverse as India with just one brush dipped in personal anecdotes is just flawed and biased thinking.

I don't think that my comment did that. I'm precisely acknowledging that such bias already exists, and that the situation is indeed unfair.

There is another side to this. Whenever I have organized conferences, I end up receiving lots of requests for invitation letters, typically from researchers in India, for Visa purposes. I absolutely understand this, and I have always done my best to accommodate these requests. But this is time-consuming, and it is very annoying when those researchers (who are sometimes also scheduled to speak) never show up, and never bother giving advance notification.

I have since been told that this is a scheme that some people use just to get a VISA for Europe, and then use the time for vacation once they have all paperwork in order. This creates a bias against researchers from these countries (I have been told by colleagues not to accept requests to speak at conferences from researchers in India because they will "never show up"). Annoyingly, my own experience does somewhat confirm this "advice", and it is extremely unfair for the people that genuinely are interested in traveling to attend conferences.

There is no misconception. The only class of theories that I'm aware of that have MOND as their non-relativistic limit are TeVeS, and these have been ruled out by experiments. If you have something else in mind, please provide a paper reference.

^ This is just a load of rubbish. It makes absolutely no sense. Thanks for proving my point.

You started this discussion saying "LIGO, VIRGO, and NANOGrav experiments and observations proved that speed of light in vacuum is NOT constant". This is completely absurd, as anyone who works in the field will tell you.

I never said you're too stupid to understand. What I said, and maintain, is that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts involved. If you want to have a proper discussion, you need to first properly study general relativity, and refrain from making ridiculous assertions about things you are obviously not an expert on.

The problem in this discussion is that you don't have an understanding of the concepts involved. You haven't properly understood the LIGO experiments and you clearly know nothing of general relativity. There really is no point in continuing this further.

The LIGO/VIRGO experiments proved no such thing. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of these experiments.

That the speed of light is constant in vacuum is one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity. The results of LIGO/VIRGO are so far fully compatible with GR.

> For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.

Care to elaborate?

TeVeS theories have many problems. Among others, they have been ruled out by observational data [1,2].

[1] https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041050

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06168

I never mentioned dark matter. My only point is that any modern gravitational theory needs to do at least as well as general relativity. That means (among others): explaining the precession or Mercury; describe black holes; predict gravitational waves. So if MOND is to be taken seriously, it needs to do all of that. That's all, really.

Fluid dynamics is not a fundamental theory, but an effective model, as you said. The point here is that MOND can't explain something that GR has been able to explain for 100 years (precession of Mercury). So any serious gravitational theory needs to at least that for serious consideration.

Exactly. And the well-posed gravitational theory that has MOND as a limit has not yet been found. So why is MOND considered as anything but an effective model?

Can you explain the precession of Mercury with MOND?

Precisely. They way I see it, MOND is a useful effective theory. But it is beyond me how people still think of it as a fundamental theory when the closest that anyone ever came up of a general-relativistic version of it is a total mess. As it is, MOND fails solar system tests. So at best, it's a useful effective model for some galactic-scale phenomenology, which would need some fundamental explanation.

and in this proposal, who will be tasked with replicating the work?

Does inter-universal Teichmüller theory have any application outside of this supposed proof of the abc conjecture?

In general, you're correct

One thing that rust doesn't (yet) have is a strong presence and toolbox for usage in scientific computing. In scientific computing, when speed matters, Fortran/C/C++ still very much rule and rust won't take their place anytime soon. Julia has a better chance at that, in fact.

immutable means that you set them only once, typically at runtime. Not that they have the same values always, everytime you run.

This guy has been making these claims for years now, and as far as I see no serious researcher takes him seriously. I've also seen no credible paper published. This looks like classic crackpot stuff to me.

> with the exception of knowing that the first term of the sine and tangent expansions when the argument is in radians is just X.

There are more terms in the expansion that you can use, that's the whole point of using an expansion...

> Solving physics problems using the expansion of an unknown function in the Taylor series has nothing to do with knowing which is the Taylor series of the sine function.

I hope you're aware that the sine function appears quite often in Physics problems.