Time is an attribute of how the human mind/brain perceives the universe. There is no way of untangling the psychology of perception from the study of physics at the quantum level. But there is probably no way of convincing most persons who have invested effort in reading and learning about quantum mechanics that this is so. I understand that the few persons who have invested a LOT of effort into learning physics have an understanding of this entanglement, though they probably describe it in different terms.
I am NOT saying that physics is somehow wrong. It isn't. But physics at all levels, from QM to the pure classical physics of Newton, is built up on abstractions of how we perceive the world around us, and those abstractions by definition are only pieces of reality seen from particular points of view. In other words, and has been said many times before, the observer is an integral part of the event being observed.
Time is usually best seen as an attribute we bring with us to each and every one of our observations. As such, it belongs more to the psychology side of the psych/physics entanglement than to the physics side.
One man's pull is another man's push. All parent post indicates is that the poster is demonstrably deficit in his understanding of relativity; he is hopelessly mired in his classical universe with its "objective observer".
The problem is in poster's head. His model of the universe lacks the fluidity necessary to a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, where the mind must be trained to jump with agility between incomplete and flawed models of Reality, staying poised on the knife edge of each one for only the brief moment where it suggests something useful before dancing to the next model. He could maybe benefit from listening to the Sugar Beats: "I can't believe I used to think that what I thought was happening is really going on".
What we know for sure is that if we live in a simulation, the programmer is one crazy dude.
That statement seems like the product of a sexist mind. An alternative phrasing that might get you further with the chicks, and may lead to some fascinating insights:
As it says on Albert's sweatshirt: Quantum Mechanics: the dreams stuff is made of.
Now if someone would dream up the interaction between Unruh radiation and gravity waves, we can get on with making kewl hoverboards, flying cars, and all kinds of antigravity devices. We just need the theoretical physicists to dream a little harder. If they do that, we wouldn't have to sweat so much.
...more coffee... need more coffeee... too early to do slashdot.... where's the damn coffee?
I, too, live in the Pacific Northwest, and I have encountered the problem with reading the screen when outside. But I have found the solution:
Wipe the screen against your shirt cuff. This will distribute the raindrops into a thin sheet of water that makes it easier to read the screen's contents.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
No, that's wrong.
While the battle to decrease fossil fuel use was lost before it had begun-- for the reason you cite-- there are personal and public reasons for calling your position a "heads up the ass" posture:
Personally, if Hansen et al might be right, then it would be prudent to NOT investment your retirement savings in that condominium project in south Florida. Multiply you by all the potential investors, and that is going to affect real estate values, today. Not years later, but today.
Publicly, if Hansen might be right, then opposing the ballot measure to fund a ten year multi-million dollar project for waterfront improvements would make a lot of sense, since that waterfront might well be submerged before the work has paid for itself.
There are serious right-now, today and not tomorrow, reasons for thoroughly studying what Hansen and the other experts are warning about.
Frankly, it seems to be a matter of whether you consider the distant future to be when you are twenty or thirty years older than you now are. Or whether to you the distant future is the year after next year. Your position is consistent with the view of a younger person who regards a decade as a third or more of the life that he has so far lived, and has no concept of responsibility for decisions that will affect your kids' and grandkids' lives. Short-sighted. Git offa m' lawn!
Obama will nominate someone in the next 30 - 60 days. If the Senate Republicans screw around with blocking the nomination "just because", that is likely to torpedo any hope they have of a Republican White House. No matter who they nominate.
The true conservative leaders of the GOP are going to be sweating bullets as they try to figure out what to do.
Fourth of all, this site needs to list who moderated each comment. It should show the username of the moderator, and what rating was given. If somebody's deemed responsible enough to moderate, then they should be willing to have their name attached to any and all moderation they do.
I disagree with rest of AC's comment, but this point should be considered. With the present lack of accountability, the moderation system is too much abused.
Anecdotally, there appears to be a variance in the average intelligence of Slashdot's comments that is related to the USA academic year. Slashdot gets dumber in the early Fall, recovers somewhat around the time of study for mid term exams, gets dumber during the Winter break, etc.
This suggests that one way of improving Slashdot would be to prevent persons under the age of 25 years from making comments. But that might be difficult to enforce. Blacklisting persons who are enrolled students in certain schools (Princeton, Yale, Stanford, etc) would also be effective, but also difficult to enforce.
An enforceable policy would be to start all newbies with a karma score of -1 (negative one), to be increased automatically on the 3rd anniversary of their join date, or by merit of their posts (the usual). Most of us who care enough to not want to see the garbage could filter at zero and above-- which should be the default anyway.
Or do it up proper and get rid of the undercarriage, and have the plane mate with an electrically driven cradle on the runway. We've got the technology to do that now. The only thing to fear is fear of a new idea.
We also have the technology to convert passenger and cargo jets to drones, flown by operators on the ground. Get rid of the flight crew. Each airport would have its own corps of operators specialized in landings and take-offs at that airport, with hand-offs to regional operators who manage the high altitude flying.
All of today's jet planes are internal combustion engines. Steam locomotives are not ICEs. Steam jets are not ICEs, but there are no coal burning, steam jet airplanes that I know of.
('Twould be a neat steampunk idea though. Maybe do it up in Blender)
Maybe I'm too cynical for slashdot. But I think these daughters, and their lawyer, are seeking to benefit not from a dead relative but from defendants with deep pockets who are likely to pay them to shut the fuck up and settle out of court.
I'm no fan of current copyright law. But I really dislike the mud sucking bottom dwellers who file lawsuits seeking not to win but to walk away with a fat settlement. I hope that CBS and Warner recognize that if they handle the publicity right, the cost of dragging this suit through the courts can be offset from the value added to the "Big Bang Theory" from an increase in viewership.
Agreed. "Incestuous words" puts a whole new spin on oral sex and only proves the adage, that if it can be put on the Internet, there will be porn of it.
This librarian has found a way to create thesaurus porn, but thesaurus porn does not satisfy any of my particular perversions. So I have not read his article.
The idiot is the a**hole who buys equipment or software without first determining if the product is suitable for its intended purpose. There are standards in place for towing hitches (Category I through Category III, etc) so the idiot who buys a truck or a trailer with a non-standard hitch system has fully earned his right to pay a fool's tax. The same with software, since although there are fewer recognized standards, the Internet with all its forums makes it easy enough for someone who hasn't yet learned the where the pitfalls are to borrow the expertise of others.
Failure to do your homework and thus lock yourself into somebody's walled garden is not the fault of any OS. It is solely the fault of the purchaser. Parent poster's inability to recognize the difference between being in Microsoft's walled gardens and using a computer that is desktop ready is a serious limitation, but one he will probably outgrow, in time. Yes, those within the walled garden are currently using desktop ready systems. But so are a lot of other people on the other side of those walls, where the view of the real world is much larger.
Some people need to unshackle themselves, step out of the cave, and look around. There is much more going on than Windows' puppet and shadow show will ever put before your eyes.
some manufacture don't care if their consumer stuff doesn't work with linux
Too true. But that conflates the concept of being "ready for the desktop" with being "idiot proof". No operating system can protect its user from stupid purchasing decisions.
To put that another way, no desktop ready operating system can compensate for a user who is not desktop ready.
Car analogy: Persons in the market for a 2.5 ton crew cab pickup truck can that can tow a 10,000 lb camping trailer should not be purchasing top of the line Lexus or Porsche products based on the quality of their entertainment systems.
I have been the "goto geek" for several dozen computer users for the last 25+ years. Most of these users have no technical savvy and no interest in what goes on in the box. They want to mess with their photos, use FaceBook et al, shop on line, do YouTube, etc. They go to me when they get in trouble. They are most definitely computer users.
About half of them are now using Ubuntu and various FOSS software. Thois group has no more trouble with their usual uses than those who continue to buy Windows upgrades, Windows security patches, and commercial software. The only difference I see (apart from the obvious savings) is that the Ubuntu/FOSS users more often call for help because they have downloaded something from the Ubuntu repositories that will expand their capabilities and need help in understanding something that is entirely new to them. In contrast, the Windows users are more reluctant to try anything new and their problems mostly involve regaining functionality after some newly bought upgrade has wrecked their old way of doing things. Example: The Ubuntu user wants me to show him how to get started with a vector graphics art package like Inkscape while the Windows user needs help in getting his photo galleries working since his last Windows upgrade.
Ubuntu and similar Linux distros are definitely ready for the masses. But as Linux distros with good quality repositories are adopted, the role of the computer support geek shrinks. That is very threatening to those who have invested a lot of their ego into Windows expertise. And even more threatening to those who want to make a living off of fixing other people's problems with proprietary software. People threatened by these kinds of changes to their inflated egos and income streams make a helluvalot of anti-Linux noise.
Rocket technology has advanced far enough at this point that relatively simple and cheap rockets could be used to drop spent fuel rods on the Moon. This converts the problem from waste disposal to long term warehousing since eventually someone will make use of the material.
I think its time to do a cost and risk comparison study between Yucca Mtn and lunar storage. Lunar storage has the obvious risk associated with a launch failure, but it would be possible to develop abort procedures that would minimize the risk. And the risks associated with processing spent fuel rods, which over a hundred years would likely be greater, would be avoided.
Good long term storage of spent nuclear fuel is probably rocket science. But easy rocket science: one way trips without bothersome life support or complicated maneuvers.
Since the advent of computers and large data sets of accurate birth records, it is now possible to develop falsifiable astrological hypotheses. This would be inexpensive research. But I doubt that this will be done in the next decade or so, since the scientific community is too strongly invested in its irrational prejudice against astrology.
There are more agnostic Sikhs who do believe in blending w/ the mainstream, while retaining other more religious aspects of their faith.
Good point.
That the kid was prominently described as "Sikh" in the article suggests that there was something in his appearance that marked him as clearly different from Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. I'm pretty sure that if he had looked like a Methodist the situation would have been defused much more quickly, probably without involving the cops.
Sometimes I think the USA would be a better place if Texas had remained an independent nation. I have met a couple of broad-minded persons from Texas, but they tend to say "I'm from Texas... as far from Texas as I can get." Yeah, I'm biased. But of itself that doesn't make me wrong.
At the age of 12 he would be a couple of years too young to wear a turban or carry a ceremonial blade. Sikh boys of that age would, however, have long hair tied up in a bun and covered by a head cloth. So those things would have fed the rampant xenophobia of the Texans involved. The kid was some kind of long haired hippy towel head.
The Sikh way is highly tolerant of other religions and beliefs, and profoundly pacifist. These factors along with his appearance quite likely made him an outcast in his peer group, and teachers and school administrators may well have recognized him as some kind of weirdly disruptive influence.
I do not understand why the police held him for three days. What possible justification could there be for that? There is a gross systemic failure there.
I don't know enough about string theory, or for that matter cosmology in general, to comment about that part of parent post.
I do know enough about astrology to know that the scientific method could now be applied to its core concepts. It just won't be, because it is not real easy to do, and because the prejudice against astrology in the scientific community is very strong.
One approach that could be done now that was not possible until the last few decades would be to find some birth center that recorded times of birth in a consistent manner for several decades, take all the birth records for a few decades and reduce them to only date and time (thoroughly anonymous). Then compose a set of random dates and times of similar size with the same start and end points. Use software like Astrolog (that can be automated to work on large data sets) to generate horoscopes for each date/time in both data sets (using the birth center location for longitude and latitude). The random set is now representative of all possible births at the birth center, while the other is the subset of births that actually occurred. As anyone involved in obstetrics will tell you, births are not uniformly distributed over time: there will be periods of many births in a day or a week and times of many days with few if any births.
If there is anything to astrology, there will be significant statistical differences between the two sets of horoscopes. However these probably will not be blatantly obvious or they would have been noticed before now. There might, for instance, be more of a particular type of relationship between Sun, Moon, and Ascendant in the subset of birth charts than in the random charts. We don't care what the astrological significance of any findings are-- that might be the subject of further research. We are only interested in whether we find a significant difference between the moments when a real birth occurred and what the random sample of potential births shows.
It sounds like your ability to express yourself in your native language is much better than your ability to express yourself in English. That seems reasonable. Perhaps as you learn how to express yourself well in English your prejudice against the English language will decrease. And make no mistake: you are clearly prejudiced in this matter since you are judging English's semantic carrying capacity before you even know how to use its flexible syntax to deliver your meanings in a satisfactory way.
Hint: English is less structured and logical than many other languages but instead provides the tools to construct new expressions on the fly, as the need is encountered. This makes it ideal for today's Internet as new concepts from foreign cultures or research can be easily assimilated into the mainstream language. I don't see this advantage disappearing any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on!
Time is an attribute of how the human mind/brain perceives the universe. There is no way of untangling the psychology of perception from the study of physics at the quantum level. But there is probably no way of convincing most persons who have invested effort in reading and learning about quantum mechanics that this is so. I understand that the few persons who have invested a LOT of effort into learning physics have an understanding of this entanglement, though they probably describe it in different terms.
I am NOT saying that physics is somehow wrong. It isn't. But physics at all levels, from QM to the pure classical physics of Newton, is built up on abstractions of how we perceive the world around us, and those abstractions by definition are only pieces of reality seen from particular points of view. In other words, and has been said many times before, the observer is an integral part of the event being observed.
Time is usually best seen as an attribute we bring with us to each and every one of our observations. As such, it belongs more to the psychology side of the psych/physics entanglement than to the physics side.
One man's pull is another man's push. All parent post indicates is that the poster is demonstrably deficit in his understanding of relativity; he is hopelessly mired in his classical universe with its "objective observer".
The problem is in poster's head. His model of the universe lacks the fluidity necessary to a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, where the mind must be trained to jump with agility between incomplete and flawed models of Reality, staying poised on the knife edge of each one for only the brief moment where it suggests something useful before dancing to the next model. He could maybe benefit from listening to the Sugar Beats: "I can't believe I used to think that what I thought was happening is really going on".
What we know for sure is that if we live in a simulation, the programmer is one crazy dude.
That statement seems like the product of a sexist mind. An alternative phrasing that might get you further with the chicks, and may lead to some fascinating insights:
She dreams, therefore we are.
As it says on Albert's sweatshirt: Quantum Mechanics: the dreams stuff is made of.
Now if someone would dream up the interaction between Unruh radiation and gravity waves, we can get on with making kewl hoverboards, flying cars, and all kinds of antigravity devices. We just need the theoretical physicists to dream a little harder. If they do that, we wouldn't have to sweat so much.
I, too, live in the Pacific Northwest, and I have encountered the problem with reading the screen when outside. But I have found the solution:
Wipe the screen against your shirt cuff. This will distribute the raindrops into a thin sheet of water that makes it easier to read the screen's contents.
The sweeping paper, 52 pages in length and with 19 authors
RTFA. Pay attention to the first sentence in the second paragraph.
Persons who bother to RTFA before they comment usually manage to avoid looking like such a drivelling idiot.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
No, that's wrong.
While the battle to decrease fossil fuel use was lost before it had begun-- for the reason you cite-- there are personal and public reasons for calling your position a "heads up the ass" posture:
Personally, if Hansen et al might be right, then it would be prudent to NOT investment your retirement savings in that condominium project in south Florida. Multiply you by all the potential investors, and that is going to affect real estate values, today. Not years later, but today.
Publicly, if Hansen might be right, then opposing the ballot measure to fund a ten year multi-million dollar project for waterfront improvements would make a lot of sense, since that waterfront might well be submerged before the work has paid for itself.
There are serious right-now, today and not tomorrow, reasons for thoroughly studying what Hansen and the other experts are warning about.
Frankly, it seems to be a matter of whether you consider the distant future to be when you are twenty or thirty years older than you now are. Or whether to you the distant future is the year after next year. Your position is consistent with the view of a younger person who regards a decade as a third or more of the life that he has so far lived, and has no concept of responsibility for decisions that will affect your kids' and grandkids' lives. Short-sighted. Git offa m' lawn!
Obama will nominate someone in the next 30 - 60 days. If the Senate Republicans screw around with blocking the nomination "just because", that is likely to torpedo any hope they have of a Republican White House. No matter who they nominate.
The true conservative leaders of the GOP are going to be sweating bullets as they try to figure out what to do.
Fourth of all, this site needs to list who moderated each comment. It should show the username of the moderator, and what rating was given. If somebody's deemed responsible enough to moderate, then they should be willing to have their name attached to any and all moderation they do.
I disagree with rest of AC's comment, but this point should be considered. With the present lack of accountability, the moderation system is too much abused.
Or maybe it's all just a hopeless mess.
Yes.
.
Anecdotally, there appears to be a variance in the average intelligence of Slashdot's comments that is related to the USA academic year. Slashdot gets dumber in the early Fall, recovers somewhat around the time of study for mid term exams, gets dumber during the Winter break, etc.
This suggests that one way of improving Slashdot would be to prevent persons under the age of 25 years from making comments. But that might be difficult to enforce. Blacklisting persons who are enrolled students in certain schools (Princeton, Yale, Stanford, etc) would also be effective, but also difficult to enforce.
An enforceable policy would be to start all newbies with a karma score of -1 (negative one), to be increased automatically on the 3rd anniversary of their join date, or by merit of their posts (the usual). Most of us who care enough to not want to see the garbage could filter at zero and above-- which should be the default anyway.
Or do it up proper and get rid of the undercarriage, and have the plane mate with an electrically driven cradle on the runway. We've got the technology to do that now. The only thing to fear is fear of a new idea.
We also have the technology to convert passenger and cargo jets to drones, flown by operators on the ground. Get rid of the flight crew. Each airport would have its own corps of operators specialized in landings and take-offs at that airport, with hand-offs to regional operators who manage the high altitude flying.
All of today's jet planes are internal combustion engines. Steam locomotives are not ICEs. Steam jets are not ICEs, but there are no coal burning, steam jet airplanes that I know of.
('Twould be a neat steampunk idea though. Maybe do it up in Blender)
I would suggest that they temporarily replace their theme song (which I like) with "Soft Kitty". That would be one way of making lemonade.
Maybe I'm too cynical for slashdot. But I think these daughters, and their lawyer, are seeking to benefit not from a dead relative but from defendants with deep pockets who are likely to pay them to shut the fuck up and settle out of court.
I'm no fan of current copyright law. But I really dislike the mud sucking bottom dwellers who file lawsuits seeking not to win but to walk away with a fat settlement. I hope that CBS and Warner recognize that if they handle the publicity right, the cost of dragging this suit through the courts can be offset from the value added to the "Big Bang Theory" from an increase in viewership.
Agreed. "Incestuous words" puts a whole new spin on oral sex and only proves the adage, that if it can be put on the Internet, there will be porn of it.
This librarian has found a way to create thesaurus porn, but thesaurus porn does not satisfy any of my particular perversions. So I have not read his article.
besides, tl;dr.
The idiot is the a**hole who buys equipment or software without first determining if the product is suitable for its intended purpose. There are standards in place for towing hitches (Category I through Category III, etc) so the idiot who buys a truck or a trailer with a non-standard hitch system has fully earned his right to pay a fool's tax. The same with software, since although there are fewer recognized standards, the Internet with all its forums makes it easy enough for someone who hasn't yet learned the where the pitfalls are to borrow the expertise of others.
Failure to do your homework and thus lock yourself into somebody's walled garden is not the fault of any OS. It is solely the fault of the purchaser. Parent poster's inability to recognize the difference between being in Microsoft's walled gardens and using a computer that is desktop ready is a serious limitation, but one he will probably outgrow, in time. Yes, those within the walled garden are currently using desktop ready systems. But so are a lot of other people on the other side of those walls, where the view of the real world is much larger.
Some people need to unshackle themselves, step out of the cave, and look around. There is much more going on than Windows' puppet and shadow show will ever put before your eyes.
some manufacture don't care if their consumer stuff doesn't work with linux
Too true. But that conflates the concept of being "ready for the desktop" with being "idiot proof". No operating system can protect its user from stupid purchasing decisions.
To put that another way, no desktop ready operating system can compensate for a user who is not desktop ready.
Car analogy: Persons in the market for a 2.5 ton crew cab pickup truck can that can tow a 10,000 lb camping trailer should not be purchasing top of the line Lexus or Porsche products based on the quality of their entertainment systems.
I have been the "goto geek" for several dozen computer users for the last 25+ years. Most of these users have no technical savvy and no interest in what goes on in the box. They want to mess with their photos, use FaceBook et al, shop on line, do YouTube, etc. They go to me when they get in trouble. They are most definitely computer users.
About half of them are now using Ubuntu and various FOSS software. Thois group has no more trouble with their usual uses than those who continue to buy Windows upgrades, Windows security patches, and commercial software. The only difference I see (apart from the obvious savings) is that the Ubuntu/FOSS users more often call for help because they have downloaded something from the Ubuntu repositories that will expand their capabilities and need help in understanding something that is entirely new to them. In contrast, the Windows users are more reluctant to try anything new and their problems mostly involve regaining functionality after some newly bought upgrade has wrecked their old way of doing things. Example: The Ubuntu user wants me to show him how to get started with a vector graphics art package like Inkscape while the Windows user needs help in getting his photo galleries working since his last Windows upgrade.
Ubuntu and similar Linux distros are definitely ready for the masses. But as Linux distros with good quality repositories are adopted, the role of the computer support geek shrinks. That is very threatening to those who have invested a lot of their ego into Windows expertise. And even more threatening to those who want to make a living off of fixing other people's problems with proprietary software. People threatened by these kinds of changes to their inflated egos and income streams make a helluvalot of anti-Linux noise.
Rocket technology has advanced far enough at this point that relatively simple and cheap rockets could be used to drop spent fuel rods on the Moon. This converts the problem from waste disposal to long term warehousing since eventually someone will make use of the material.
I think its time to do a cost and risk comparison study between Yucca Mtn and lunar storage. Lunar storage has the obvious risk associated with a launch failure, but it would be possible to develop abort procedures that would minimize the risk. And the risks associated with processing spent fuel rods, which over a hundred years would likely be greater, would be avoided.
Good long term storage of spent nuclear fuel is probably rocket science. But easy rocket science: one way trips without bothersome life support or complicated maneuvers.
Since the advent of computers and large data sets of accurate birth records, it is now possible to develop falsifiable astrological hypotheses. This would be inexpensive research. But I doubt that this will be done in the next decade or so, since the scientific community is too strongly invested in its irrational prejudice against astrology.
There are more agnostic Sikhs who do believe in blending w/ the mainstream, while retaining other more religious aspects of their faith.
Good point.
That the kid was prominently described as "Sikh" in the article suggests that there was something in his appearance that marked him as clearly different from Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. I'm pretty sure that if he had looked like a Methodist the situation would have been defused much more quickly, probably without involving the cops.
Sometimes I think the USA would be a better place if Texas had remained an independent nation. I have met a couple of broad-minded persons from Texas, but they tend to say "I'm from Texas... as far from Texas as I can get." Yeah, I'm biased. But of itself that doesn't make me wrong.
At the age of 12 he would be a couple of years too young to wear a turban or carry a ceremonial blade. Sikh boys of that age would, however, have long hair tied up in a bun and covered by a head cloth. So those things would have fed the rampant xenophobia of the Texans involved. The kid was some kind of long haired hippy towel head.
The Sikh way is highly tolerant of other religions and beliefs, and profoundly pacifist. These factors along with his appearance quite likely made him an outcast in his peer group, and teachers and school administrators may well have recognized him as some kind of weirdly disruptive influence.
I do not understand why the police held him for three days. What possible justification could there be for that? There is a gross systemic failure there.
I'd mod you up if I had points at the moment. Insteadm\, I'll just say "Well played, sir!"
I don't know enough about string theory, or for that matter cosmology in general, to comment about that part of parent post.
I do know enough about astrology to know that the scientific method could now be applied to its core concepts. It just won't be, because it is not real easy to do, and because the prejudice against astrology in the scientific community is very strong.
One approach that could be done now that was not possible until the last few decades would be to find some birth center that recorded times of birth in a consistent manner for several decades, take all the birth records for a few decades and reduce them to only date and time (thoroughly anonymous). Then compose a set of random dates and times of similar size with the same start and end points. Use software like Astrolog (that can be automated to work on large data sets) to generate horoscopes for each date/time in both data sets (using the birth center location for longitude and latitude). The random set is now representative of all possible births at the birth center, while the other is the subset of births that actually occurred. As anyone involved in obstetrics will tell you, births are not uniformly distributed over time: there will be periods of many births in a day or a week and times of many days with few if any births.
If there is anything to astrology, there will be significant statistical differences between the two sets of horoscopes. However these probably will not be blatantly obvious or they would have been noticed before now. There might, for instance, be more of a particular type of relationship between Sun, Moon, and Ascendant in the subset of birth charts than in the random charts. We don't care what the astrological significance of any findings are-- that might be the subject of further research. We are only interested in whether we find a significant difference between the moments when a real birth occurred and what the random sample of potential births shows.
It sounds like your ability to express yourself in your native language is much better than your ability to express yourself in English. That seems reasonable. Perhaps as you learn how to express yourself well in English your prejudice against the English language will decrease. And make no mistake: you are clearly prejudiced in this matter since you are judging English's semantic carrying capacity before you even know how to use its flexible syntax to deliver your meanings in a satisfactory way.
Hint: English is less structured and logical than many other languages but instead provides the tools to construct new expressions on the fly, as the need is encountered. This makes it ideal for today's Internet as new concepts from foreign cultures or research can be easily assimilated into the mainstream language. I don't see this advantage disappearing any time soon.