Didn't you get the memo? Culture is now so hypersensitivized to everything that any positive mention of anything, however slight, must automatically constitute an endorsement of it. Ambivalent dismissal is the new acknowledgement.
Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that if we didn't have the DMCA, the safe harbour provisions would be unnecessary. I don't think it can be called a "godsend" just because infrastructure providers are protected from being harassed.
Actually, they had prototypes of the hardware and software that were converging. J Allard estimated that they could've had a product shipped before the iPad came out.
But here's the irony—the lead argument constantly given was that it didn't integrate well with a corporate workflow (despite the irrelevance thereof to the purported target market.) If WinRT can't do something as essential as join domains, it's not much better.
What the... No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there's a distance that grows at a rate of 2c according to a specific given reference frame, and that it's useful. This growth occurs in both Newtonian physics and GR, despite the differences between the two, and you're barking up the wrong tree.
That's great, and all, but it doesn't really affect what I'm talking about. For some reason mentioning relativistic speeds at all makes everyone here foam at the mouth and worry about things like when we are able to perceive the motion has happened, or what the objects look like from the moving frame—none of that matters; the ships are still moving and we'll still be able to eventually verify that they moved as we said they did. And that fact has its uses: for example, you'll get superior broadcast times if you put a transmitter in the middle of the two ships rather than at one of them, and you can guide a ship to its docking bay on a giant space station twice as quickly if both are moving in opposite directions. What we perceive doesn't matter one bit—we can replace that with mathematical expectations, determined in advance.
If the vehicles accelerate and decelerate instantly, and stop moving after a fixed period of time t according to the observer's frame of reference, the distance between them will have changed by 2 * c * t, regardless of how long it takes for light to get anywhere or how they perceived movement. This is much more important than the time dilation and distorted observations witnessed by the pilots or other craft, and was my original point. (It even has applications.)
Stand outside the beams. Witness that the distance between their leading edges grows at greater than c. Spend rest of day thinking about potential applications.
Time dilation only affects the impatient. There are still numerous advantages to being able to make your relative velocity with another object appear to be 2c to an independent observer. You won't—for example—be any later for lunch.
This is acceptable for (a) sufficiently short periods of time or (b) when no one's in either moving ship (or if they're in suspended animation) and hence there is no one around to care.
Okay. So simply have them stop when a year has passed from the non-moving ship's perspective instead. The passengers may not like having gone through two years of waiting for one light year of travel, but from the stationary ship's perspective, the other two ships have put two light years between them in the span of one. That still has its uses—especially if, say, there are no living passengers aboard either of the moving ships who would complain, and we're just delivering ore to an automated factory, or storing cargo in a designated bay.
At any rate, TFA reveals that the warp engine design in question theoretically permits travel at up to 10c with no dilation at all.
Alright, I can accept that. So what would happen if you had a shuttlecraft moving at c in one direction, a space station moving at c in the opposite direction, and an independent observer witnessing both these events? Would the shuttlecraft appear to move past the surface of the station at 2c, or not? What would happen to time inside the station and the shuttle, and what would it matter?
The velocity of one minus the velocity of the other. If the vector describing the movement of one beam is [c, 0, 0] and the other is [-c, 0, 0], then the difference between them is [2c, 0, 0]. The distance between the photons (let's pretend they're particles to keep this simple—I really prefer using spaceships for this kind of thing) in each beam increases at a rate of 2c. They will reach targets placed x metres away from the starting position in half the time it would take a single beam of light to shine from one target to the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you get the memo? Culture is now so hypersensitivized to everything that any positive mention of anything, however slight, must automatically constitute an endorsement of it. Ambivalent dismissal is the new acknowledgement.
TFS mentions "many of these solutions." Maybe those?
Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that if we didn't have the DMCA, the safe harbour provisions would be unnecessary. I don't think it can be called a "godsend" just because infrastructure providers are protected from being harassed.
I don't want to scare you, but there are already dozens of those.
Well, yeah. It's a touch interface. What did you expect?
A place where beautiful window frames and bizarrely spartan, giant, anaemic "X"es coexist in harmony.
Actually, they had prototypes of the hardware and software that were converging. J Allard estimated that they could've had a product shipped before the iPad came out.
Woah, woah, woah. You can't say that. That implies they knew what they were doing.
But here's the irony—the lead argument constantly given was that it didn't integrate well with a corporate workflow (despite the irrelevance thereof to the purported target market.) If WinRT can't do something as essential as join domains, it's not much better.
What the... No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there's a distance that grows at a rate of 2c according to a specific given reference frame, and that it's useful. This growth occurs in both Newtonian physics and GR, despite the differences between the two, and you're barking up the wrong tree.
Wait, what? So what excuse do they have for killing the Courier?
That's great, and all, but it doesn't really affect what I'm talking about. For some reason mentioning relativistic speeds at all makes everyone here foam at the mouth and worry about things like when we are able to perceive the motion has happened, or what the objects look like from the moving frame—none of that matters; the ships are still moving and we'll still be able to eventually verify that they moved as we said they did. And that fact has its uses: for example, you'll get superior broadcast times if you put a transmitter in the middle of the two ships rather than at one of them, and you can guide a ship to its docking bay on a giant space station twice as quickly if both are moving in opposite directions. What we perceive doesn't matter one bit—we can replace that with mathematical expectations, determined in advance.
If the vehicles accelerate and decelerate instantly, and stop moving after a fixed period of time t according to the observer's frame of reference, the distance between them will have changed by 2 * c * t, regardless of how long it takes for light to get anywhere or how they perceived movement. This is much more important than the time dilation and distorted observations witnessed by the pilots or other craft, and was my original point. (It even has applications.)
Stand outside the beams. Witness that the distance between their leading edges grows at greater than c. Spend rest of day thinking about potential applications.
You can still stand in a location and see the distance between two objects grow at 2c. That's got plenty of uses.
Little did I realise how much trouble saying 'velocity' instead of 'speed' would cause.
No, I'm just measuring the rate at which the distance between them expands. I can do that from the first frame of reference.
I'm glad we understand each other.
Time dilation only affects the impatient. There are still numerous advantages to being able to make your relative velocity with another object appear to be 2c to an independent observer. You won't—for example—be any later for lunch.
What... is your point?
This is acceptable for (a) sufficiently short periods of time or (b) when no one's in either moving ship (or if they're in suspended animation) and hence there is no one around to care.
It's okay. We can just pretend there's instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. It's sufficient for the needs of the thought experiment.
Okay. So simply have them stop when a year has passed from the non-moving ship's perspective instead. The passengers may not like having gone through two years of waiting for one light year of travel, but from the stationary ship's perspective, the other two ships have put two light years between them in the span of one. That still has its uses—especially if, say, there are no living passengers aboard either of the moving ships who would complain, and we're just delivering ore to an automated factory, or storing cargo in a designated bay.
At any rate, TFA reveals that the warp engine design in question theoretically permits travel at up to 10c with no dilation at all.
Alright, I can accept that. So what would happen if you had a shuttlecraft moving at c in one direction, a space station moving at c in the opposite direction, and an independent observer witnessing both these events? Would the shuttlecraft appear to move past the surface of the station at 2c, or not? What would happen to time inside the station and the shuttle, and what would it matter?
The velocity of one minus the velocity of the other. If the vector describing the movement of one beam is [c, 0, 0] and the other is [-c, 0, 0], then the difference between them is [2c, 0, 0]. The distance between the photons (let's pretend they're particles to keep this simple—I really prefer using spaceships for this kind of thing) in each beam increases at a rate of 2c. They will reach targets placed x metres away from the starting position in half the time it would take a single beam of light to shine from one target to the other.