I was reading a novel that features a man falling into a black hole, and it mentioned the common notion that we'd never see the man actually pass the event horizon because, due to general relativity, clocks asymptotically slow to zero as one approaches the event horizon.

So with the right optics, we'd be able to see the man falling into the black hole forever. This is creepy, so in the novel people decided to abandon the black hole and just leave it be.

Lower on the same page, however, it was mentioned that they plan to leave it be until the black hole evaporates.

Well, evaporation via Hawking radiation takes a finite amount of time. A particle falling toward the black hole takes an infinite amount of time. So what happens to the still-present particle/man falling into the hole when the hole finally evaporates?

I've been reading far too long and it's late and I'm tired, so I apologize if the question is dumb. Thanks a bunch if I can read an answer in the morning!

I genuinely want to learn mathematics, physics, programming, computer science, and AI. I want to build a career in computer science, pursue AI research, and hopefully do a PhD someday. But lately, I've been feeling increasingly demotivated.

The problem is that I rely on AI to learn almost everything. Whenever I have a question, I ask GPT. Whenever I don't understand a concept, I ask AI to explain it. And the more I learn this way, the more I wonder: What's the point of learning anything when AI will always know more than I ever could?

Even the most basic AI models seem to possess more knowledge than I could acquire in a lifetime. And with new models becoming increasingly capable, I keep wondering whether the knowledge I'm working so hard to gain will even matter in the future.

With GPT-6, Claude Opus 5.5, Gemini 4, and other models competing to become more capable, it feels like the gap between human intelligence and AI capabilities will only continue to grow.

I want to understand the mathematics behind AI, learn physics, become a better programmer, and contribute to actual research. But sometimes I question why I'm putting in the effort when AI can explain concepts faster, write code better, and potentially solve problems that I might spend years learning to solve myself.

And even when I genuinely want to learn, I'm confused about what I should prioritize learning and whether any of it will remain valuable by the time I become proficient.

I'm not necessarily saying that learning is useless. I genuinely love the idea of understanding how things work. But I'm struggling to reconcile that curiosity with the feeling that AI might eventually outperform me at almost everything I want to become good at.

For those of you studying computer science, mathematics, physics, or AI, how do you deal with this feeling? How do you stay motivated to learn when AI is advancing so rapidly? Do you think deep technical knowledge will still matter for people pursuing AI research and PhDs, or should we be approaching learning differently now?

I'm researching a hypothetical scenario in which a region of the Earth's ozone layer becomes severely depleted and, for reasons outside the scope of the question, cannot recover naturally.

Assuming this depletion persists for twenty years, what would be the consequences for the environment and human populations beneath it?

I'm particularly interested in:

• The effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on human health.
• The consequences for agriculture, wildlife and local ecosystems.
• Whether people could continue living in the affected region by adopting protective measures.
• Whether the effects would remain geographically concentrated or spread into neighbouring regions.

For geographical context, imagine the depletion is initially concentrated over New Mexico and the wider American Southwest.

I'm aware that a permanently localised area of ozone depletion may not be physically realistic. I'm primarily interested in the consequences if such a condition were somehow maintained.

I don’t mean in judging way, I’m a guy myself. It’s just interesting. By abnormal I don’t necessarily mean necessarily bad, just abnormal.

For example, foot fetish. It’s almost entirely exclusive to men.
Yes women like hands but not to that extent.

Or most crimes. Why do men commit more crimes? Aggression from testosterone sure, but planning an entire robbery and shit is a whole has a whole mental thoughts behind it.

Looksmaxxing. Have you seen a single Looksmaxxer girl? It’s supposed to be girly thing but men there literally die to look pretty. Girls usually on average do more average surgeries, but those few % of guys who do as well literally replace their entire identity.

80% suicides are men too.

Not even that but every known ever influential historical figure was a man. From war criminals to generational talents.

Like girls in comparison are more chill and healthy. Is there a scientific explanation?

Hi friends, I really need some advice on something. My friend and I recently started a social media page focused on educational content and STEM. Even though it's only been a month, I im not sure im seeing any results. So I wanted to know what YOU all would want to see. Like what kind of topics, what kind of explanation would you not skip past on Instagram regarding STEM, and do you prefer in-depth explanations or just brief explanations?

Would prefer any and all help! This is something I want to expand

Ignoring the fluid, pressure and resistance issues 0 gravity causes, like, lets act like the person doesnt have blood pressure problems after being in space. If someone aged years without the influence of gravity, would skin still sag? Wrinkes would appear of course because of loss of collagen and creasing with costant movement, but would it sag? If so would it sag less? Would it sag in a way that even adding gravity back the deformation would look different?

Based on my understanding, most scientists in the early 1600s were young earth creationists. By turning their beliefs into testable hypotheses and testing them, scientists slowly stopped being young earth creationists.

I think I heard that scientists dropped the young earth idea in the 1730s, but I’m not sure about that and don’t know much else. I’m curious when scientists had evidence to fully reject each biblical literalism or other Christian doctrine, such as:

• Flat Earth
• Earth as the center of the universe
• Young earth
• Global flood
• Ancient people living for hundreds of years
• Adam and Eve (two people as ancestors of all living humans)
• Creation (in current form of earth)
• Special creation of humans
• Etc.

Are there any books or YouTube video series that address the specific topic of when the science was so overwhelming that only the anti-science religious zealots could hold certain views? or that generally discusses the history of this trend?

Not trolling. Keep seeing it come up in wellness spaces and have no idea if it is actually different from regular water or just marketing

I’m currently studying science theory and research methodology and my professors and my text books have really been hammering in that there’s a lot of flaws in the current system.

The problem seems to be that scientific progress isn’t the only incentive at play. Researchers also need to make a living, secure funding, publish papers, and advance their careers. These incentives can encourage questionable research practices, even without outright fraud. Academic journals have their own incentives, too, and the pressure to publish novel, attention-grabbing findings can come at the expense of scientific rigour. Peer review was suppose to be a solution to a lot of the issues in how research is conducted but I’ve learnt that they are often also very poorly conducted because the journals have an incentive for quantity over quality.

A lot of people understand that we have to trust experts since it would be ridiculous to assume we know more than them. But a lot of people don’t know about the above mentioned issues which leaves the door open for bad actors to take advantage of that using perceived expertise. Especially since the experts who are easily found tend to be more interested in fame rather than scientific rigour. Jordan Peterson for example, he is by far the most famous psychologist alive but most psychologists would probably agree that he isn’t the best expert in the field to get your information from (I don’t know much about him or psychology so I’m not making my own claim here, just an example I’m aware of).

So this leads to my question: what’s the best bang-for-your-buck strategy for learning about a subject when you don’t have the time or interest to become an expert yourself?

I want to invest some time upfront in figuring out whom to trust so that I can rely on their judgement afterwards, rather than constantly having to evaluate every individual claim myself.

I’ve subconsciously developed this framework throughout my life:
I assess experts until I find 2-4 in a field that I deem trustworthy. Ideally they have some opposing opinions so I get a more nuanced total picture. When assessing I look for red flags like overly confident, chasing fame, money etc. And I look for green flags like intellectual honesty (like admitting when they don’t know the answer and acknowledging counter arguments).

How do you approach this? Do you have a better strategy or are there particular methods you use to identify trustworthy experts?

That didn't happen in the 80s and 90s, but NOW time passes very quickly and it's not just my feeling, many agree with this.

Are they getting ready to hibernate? Or is it because they're old and no longer have much energy?

It's a bit annoying because I open the window and try to scare them for them to flee... but they just stay on the table.

Earlier today, at work, I was talking to a friend about various subjects, and eventually, we got onto the topic of dreams.

Basically, we were talking about how crazy it is that our brains are so complex that they can create entire stories, complete with dialogue, characters, and settings. Even though these stories are created by our own minds, we have no idea what's going to happen in a dream. There are no spoilers.

We started doing some research because one question led to another, and I want to share these questions with you guys to see what you think and whether there are any answers.

First, we compared the way dreams form and unfold to movies, because the whole experience feels almost like a screenplay written and directed by our subconscious. But how did people make sense of dreams and interpret them before movies and television existed?

Do dreams have a reason to exist? I mean, an evolutionary purpose? Why does our mind create stories while we sleep? Why can't it just process information silently?

Have dreams also evolved alongside humanity? Are there any ancient records that might offer clues about how developed or complex dreams were in the past?

Sorry if these questions sound silly or don't make much sense. I'm just a girl who overthinks things a little too much.😅🙏🏻

What if earth was a hollow ball and everything on its surface just flipped on the inner side. And let’s say we can turn on the light in the middle on/off. What sort of cool things will I be able to see beyond the horizon and in the sky? Horizon here means imaginary horizon, since I assume there won’t be any actual horizon in this case.

P.S. the question is about optics and how far will we be able to see in case I was not clear. Can you see NYC from Philadelphia? Considering the atmosphere is present around the inner surface

Hey everyone, after reading Project Hail Mary, I started wondering: why don’t we build massive solar farms across a small percentage of the Sahara Desert and use that energy to power the world?
The desert gets enormous amounts of sunlight, but could a project on this scale actually change the Earth’s climate?
Would it affect rainfall, temperatures, wildlife, or ecosystems? Could it even create environmental problems that outweigh the benefits?

Like, if we had the technology and money to do this, would it be a brilliant solution to the world’s energy crisis, or could we end up creating a bigger problem?
What do you think?

Thank you!!

If your memories, habits, beliefs, and preferences are shaped by genetics, childhood, culture, and experiences you never consciously chose, how much control do you really have over the person you become?

Have psychologists found evidence that meaningfully separates our deliberate choices from the unconscious processes that influence them?

I’m interested in scientific research, not just philosophical opinions.

Question derived from my comment in my own post here in another subreddit here :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/s/S9QLfSIV7M

Basically if humans can build tolerance to cold,heat , altitude, g force accelerations, snake venom , pain, electric shocks , spice, alcohol, caffeine, drug dosages, etc. why not haze specifically?

So my school is hosting a science competition with engineering projects and I have no idea what to build.

And there's a team building a scale particle accelerator showing how electrons collide(the team got 2nd place last year).

I really need some advice on what to build, please.

I'm interested in the relationship between the heart and brain in human thought and decision-making. I understand that current neuroscience identifies the brain as central to these processes, but I would like to understand how signals originating in the heart influence cognition, emotions, and conscious experience.

What evidence distinguishes the influence of cardiac signals on mental processes from the neural mechanisms responsible for generating thoughts and decisions? Are there any significant unanswered questions in this area?

The replication crisis revealed that many landmark studies, particularly in the soft sciences, could not be reproduced. This makes me wonder: are we still building knowledge on a potentially unreliable foundation?

Although research practices have become more rigorous, we haven't systematically replicated every older study. Consequently much of today's research may still rely on findings that have never been properly verified. Like building a house on a faulty foundation, even perfectly conducted research can lead us astray if its underlying assumptions are wrong.

I'm new to science theory so I might be missing something fundamental here. But it seems to me that if influential findings turn out to be false or exaggerated, all subsequent research that relies on them would likely be affected?

Alongside varying paranoia, this will generally always happen for me. I don't think I've *always* experienced the tingling sensation when thinking about dreams either, which is especially odd to me.

I’ve been thinking about this mostly in relation to astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial life.

A lot of what we look for is based on things we already understand. Which makes sense, because you have to start somewhere.

But what happens when something doesn’t fit the categories we currently use?

For example, we can collect an enormous amount of data from space, but our methods of analyzing it are still built around certain expectations of what we’re looking for.
I know scientists already investigate unexplained observations and use AI to find patterns in existing data. But how far can that approach actually go?

How do researchers test whether their methods are missing something important, especially when they don’t know what that something would look like?

And is there a point where better analysis isn’t enough because we simply don’t have the right measurements in the first place?

I’d be interested in hearing how people working in science actually approach this problem.

At small scales ballistics is a lot trickier due to proportionately higher air viscosity and such; vehicles would have different traction, a 1/4~1/2 ton tank wouldn't sink into the mud as easily... on the flip side I think aircraft would be more reliable, but I think navies might be impossible.

The entire age of exploration might have even been impossible, I don't see how a 1/6th scale anything could safely cross the ocean - so we gotta employ some magic to get up to the modern era of warfare.

Furthermore, biology might need some tweaking - I want to ignore something like lower brain size being a factor, but do want to include things like muscle power, endurance, and breathing such as in the nature of toxic gasses.

Of course, only the laws of physics matter for how inventive people might be, unmanned vehicles could be the same size we have now and our 1/6th scale scientists would probably come up with the same designs, right?

...

And what if we go even further? What about 1/24th scale? Would it even be possible to have lethal ballistics at that scale? Or does it invert at some point where a full sized elastic slingshot primed by tiny trucks could be WMD? I'm having trouble even imagining things at that scale.