I'll take the second point first. And believe me I'm no expert, I mearly take an interest in Astronomy and I've read quite a lot on the subject.
If you 'look' behind you as you enter a black hole you see the light that was entering immediately behind you so you see the static universe as you normally would. But as with a lot of complicated maths and physics, human language and common experience can't really serve as a metaphor for what is going on. It's an unfortunate answer to a great many questions.
Your first question I'm not too sure about, it is a very insightful question. After a black hole is formed then yeah, time slows down to a crawl *if* there was any way to look in (past the event horizon). But I don't really know how to explain the fact that as it creates a sigularity time should slow down. I think an important concept to understand is that there is no universal clock. Imagine everyone in different gravity wells running along different percieved time-scales and you be along the right tracks. Really I'm in over my head though!
Try here for an excellent podcast on black holes and the notes page has a ton of links. This is were I get most of my Astronomy info. The podcast really will stretch your immagination!
Time appears slow to the outside observer, for the object crossing the horizon it's business as usual, super fast acceleration, stretched out and sucked into oblivion. Lovely:)
Well OK, I can see your point but it is unusual for a game to work if you just copy over the files. Normally you would need to re-install from the CD so is this not effectivly swapping the disc for an Internet connection? It doesn't limit the number of installs and it doesn't in any way affect your rights. I presume it's just for data collection. Which you may take exception to.
Fair enough but loads of games can't simply be copied across and still run. That's the norm not the exception. It not working after re-installing windows, I'm sure, is a bug not DRM. Just reinstall the game, your rights are not affected.
Yeah, I have to agree with you here. I would also say that the PC has been a proving ground for many a console feature. If EA demonstrate this can work then perhaps in future games will tie themselves to your console in much the same way only because of the nature of firmware updates pushed from the manufacturers they could switch this on mid-cycle of their console to try it out. EA have a lot of leverage in the industry and I'm sure a lot of publishers would love 100% closed platforms. If we allow PCs to become 'closed' then consoles will quickly follow.
This may of course be wild paranoia and speculation, I haven't really thought this argument through:)
I don't know exactly how it works or even if this is total mis-information but honestly the DRM is non-existent as far as the end-user is concerned. Sure, you use their server to download the game but you are free to do whatever you like after that. This is the same as needing a CD to install the game only instead it's needing the internet. Would you complain that a game has DRM because it comes on a CD?! I may have missed the point here becasue it's 8 in the morning:)
They abide by their Gamers Bill of Rights, do you really think they'd be so stupid as to release that at a time when there is a massive backlash against EA (a calculated move) when they were in breach of the 'Rights' themselves?!
So I went home and investigated this a little bit more and it turns out my original point still stands. Radation shielding is still a very important consideration, this time to protect the pilots from the nuclear blasts going off out back.
There are also several other reasons this would not be a good technology such as people looking at the rocket take off would be blinded etc
I found this video very informative on the subject and it explains some of the problems with the idea. The guy (the son of one of the project founders) also explains how he is selling the plans he has back to NASA. So all we have at present is some drawings and a few proof of concept prototypes which are in no way definitive. That does not equal a tech existing and I think there are quite a few obvious problems which when you think about it are quite considerable obstacles.
Actually, you are right. The more I read about this the more I think it is a valid idea. One of the main problems seems to be that they would have to launch from Antarctica to avoid the more deadly isotopes created from spreading but they have very short half-lives so they would not pose a problem if the launch pad was far away
Add to that the 0.1 - 1 figure is old anyway and the technology to make cleaner bombs exists now as does the ability to make the nuclear bombs lighter and smaller. This seems like a pretty good idea actually. I stand corrected.
It does seem a shame that the word 'nuclear' seems to have buried this idea for a rocket. However you would have to guess that NASA, ESA, Japan et al must have looked into this and discounted it for some other reason.
I may be misguided but you would have thought the Russians at the peak of their power wouldn't have minded going into the middle of Siberia and nuclear blasting a rocket off to the moon.
From the Author of Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship:
"At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much."
I think that if exploding nukes underneath spaceships had been a valid and sensible idea then it would have been revisited post-cold war. It seems the amount of fallout makes this technology redundant.
Offtopic: Since I started posting to Slashdot (last week) I have been appaled by the uninformed responses I have had to posts I linked references on. It has really opened my eyes to the quality of comment on here.
I refer you again to the Outer Space Treaty, weapons in orbit are allowed but the use of the moon or planets for anything other than peaceful purposes is expressly forbidden. I'm not saying it will never happen, just that it is very unlikely considering the agreement in place at present.
Project Orion is designed to go back to the Moon. It is a modular build in an attempt to future proof it. I suggest you look it up and read about the technical difficulties involved but just to get you started:
Under Stage II, a new Block II CEV would be developed, suitable for interplanetary flight.
Market forces would also be a much better driving force. As it is the way things are going the race to Mars will result not in exploration bases, but military ones, official 'stake claimers' with a mandate to keep it for whichever country gets there first with a large enough force..
Also I think you'll find that you are wrong concerning military bases on the moon. If you read the basic outline of the Outer Space Treaty and have a look at the huge numbers of countries that have ratified it you'll see that any attempt at a military operation would be met with global outrage.
Of course that might not stop some coutries trying but unlikely really.
The tech to get to Mars does and does not exist. There are still major problems to get around such as shielding the occupants from radiation. We know how to do it but it is prohibitively expensive. The best shield we have is water but that is just too costly to ship up to space in the quantities required. There are experiments on-going into new materials but we don't *really* have the tech yet.
Actually I remember hearing recently that if you want to spot a loner/Columbine Candidate then you should look for kids that play no video games at all. Not playing games excludes children from their peers and can isolate them or it may that they lack the social skills to go play round at their friends. A healthy kid plays.
OK this is probably going nowhere because you have your belief and I have my science. As you said the great thing about the Internet is that you can just roll on with your life. But This thread in general amazes me the amout of psudo-science and mystical (in my opinion) BS.
This is a place for nerds and you're obviously a reasonably intelligent guy so that is why I am even more incedulous. You are breaking the laws of Physics man! Does this not interest you in any way?! Are you not facinated by the world of science blindly stumbling along in the wrong direction? Are you not slightly ashamed that you don't have the guts to go and show scientists something that would re-ignite their passion and send the world on a new direction of understanding? If you don't like Randi then screw him, go show your skill to someone else. I implore you, please! I would *love* some sort of major leap/revoloution in the understanding of the world to happen in my life-time. To you it is a parlour trick but what is the mechinism by which this works? Can we use this to help drought stricken nations dig wells? Can we use this in construction to avoid subsidence? There must be a ton of applications for which we can use this.
My advice to you would be to grow a pair and step up to your responsibilities. Randi might be a high-profile show man but there are plenty of institutes which would unreservedly protect your identity and dignity. Go to a charity FFS!
Ok, there is no proof at all here to back-up your claims so let's be sure we are talking about something completely unscientific. Let me just pose an alternate hypothesis. Firstly, how often did your Grandmother 'beg' people not to go somewhere? Did she frequently ask people to stay home, do their chores, not attend concerts, not drive their motorbikes etc? If she did then statistically it was going to happen that she 'predicted' an accident. Secondly, how much of this is false memory. Grandma said "I don't think going to see a rock band is a good idea" then after the fact it is remembered as "Remember I warned you about something ominous going to happen!!!". It's all anecdote and heresay, *not real evidence*.
As for your last point about losing your dignity well that is patently absurd. You would be lauded for your skill if this was actually provable! I would personally be amazed and extremely interested in your abilities but this would not mean I wished to demean you. If you can really do that then why do you not want $1M? Give me one good reason why you should hold the scientific community back by not demonstrating your abilities and letting them try to understand it. Give me one good reason why you should not pick up this $1M and request that your identity not be broadcast. It would be enough simply that Randi's challenge was proven by someone, he could explain but no personal details would be necessary.
How immoral to keep this an unproven secret! C'mon! Think of all the Physics that could be done to improve the world if we could find out the mechanism by which this works. Any psychics reading this (or tuning in by some other unknown means) then please be aware that you have blood on your hands! Crime, natural disasters, road accidents, disease. How heartless to let all these people die so you can spin the wheel at vegas (sans enjoyment because you know the outcome).
Use a lawyer and a non-disclosure contract? As has been stated above, surely, just once, in the modern age someone would have the common decency to let the world of skeptics know that there is actually a mechinism whereby the future can be told. C'mon, how immoral to let those scientists waste their time on modern Physics! Pulease, if you actually thought about disproving your argument for 1 min you could probably think of a few ways to prove your psychic ability whilst remaining hidden and a few damn good reasons to do it AND a mutitude of damn good reasons why it is immoral not too. Heartless psychics!
If this was your fear then why would you ever go public at all? Or are you suggesting that everyone with *real* abilities hides in the shadows whilst it is only shams who seek attention? So through fear people *never* prove their abilities? Why not go through a lawyer signing contracts to ensure non-disclosure of your identity, prove it to three of the world's top scientists (whom I'm sure you could trust as it would ruin their careers to break a contract such as this) and then after the massive outburst of fear and rage from the common man has died down we can start to discuss how best to use psychics?
Slashdot Mirror
...and this might begin to answer your question but I still find it hard to understand!
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q4
I'll take the second point first. And believe me I'm no expert, I mearly take an interest in Astronomy and I've read quite a lot on the subject.
If you 'look' behind you as you enter a black hole you see the light that was entering immediately behind you so you see the static universe as you normally would. But as with a lot of complicated maths and physics, human language and common experience can't really serve as a metaphor for what is going on. It's an unfortunate answer to a great many questions.
Your first question I'm not too sure about, it is a very insightful question. After a black hole is formed then yeah, time slows down to a crawl *if* there was any way to look in (past the event horizon). But I don't really know how to explain the fact that as it creates a sigularity time should slow down. I think an important concept to understand is that there is no universal clock. Imagine everyone in different gravity wells running along different percieved time-scales and you be along the right tracks. Really I'm in over my head though!
Try here for an excellent podcast on black holes and the notes page has a ton of links. This is were I get most of my Astronomy info. The podcast really will stretch your immagination!
http://www.astronomycast.com/black-holes/episode-18-black-holes-big-and-small/
Time appears slow to the outside observer, for the object crossing the horizon it's business as usual, super fast acceleration, stretched out and sucked into oblivion. Lovely :)
Well OK, I can see your point but it is unusual for a game to work if you just copy over the files. Normally you would need to re-install from the CD so is this not effectivly swapping the disc for an Internet connection? It doesn't limit the number of installs and it doesn't in any way affect your rights. I presume it's just for data collection. Which you may take exception to.
Fair enough but loads of games can't simply be copied across and still run. That's the norm not the exception. It not working after re-installing windows, I'm sure, is a bug not DRM. Just reinstall the game, your rights are not affected.
Yeah, I have to agree with you here. I would also say that the PC has been a proving ground for many a console feature. If EA demonstrate this can work then perhaps in future games will tie themselves to your console in much the same way only because of the nature of firmware updates pushed from the manufacturers they could switch this on mid-cycle of their console to try it out. EA have a lot of leverage in the industry and I'm sure a lot of publishers would love 100% closed platforms. If we allow PCs to become 'closed' then consoles will quickly follow.
This may of course be wild paranoia and speculation, I haven't really thought this argument through :)
I don't know exactly how it works or even if this is total mis-information but honestly the DRM is non-existent as far as the end-user is concerned. Sure, you use their server to download the game but you are free to do whatever you like after that. This is the same as needing a CD to install the game only instead it's needing the internet. Would you complain that a game has DRM because it comes on a CD?! I may have missed the point here becasue it's 8 in the morning :)
They abide by their Gamers Bill of Rights, do you really think they'd be so stupid as to release that at a time when there is a massive backlash against EA (a calculated move) when they were in breach of the 'Rights' themselves?!
So I went home and investigated this a little bit more and it turns out my original point still stands. Radation shielding is still a very important consideration, this time to protect the pilots from the nuclear blasts going off out back.
There are also several other reasons this would not be a good technology such as people looking at the rocket take off would be blinded etc
I found this video very informative on the subject and it explains some of the problems with the idea. The guy (the son of one of the project founders) also explains how he is selling the plans he has back to NASA. So all we have at present is some drawings and a few proof of concept prototypes which are in no way definitive. That does not equal a tech existing and I think there are quite a few obvious problems which when you think about it are quite considerable obstacles.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/george_dyson_on_project_orion.html
Although to be fair, the tech doesn't actually exist :)
Actually, you are right. The more I read about this the more I think it is a valid idea. One of the main problems seems to be that they would have to launch from Antarctica to avoid the more deadly isotopes created from spreading but they have very short half-lives so they would not pose a problem if the launch pad was far away
Add to that the 0.1 - 1 figure is old anyway and the technology to make cleaner bombs exists now as does the ability to make the nuclear bombs lighter and smaller. This seems like a pretty good idea actually. I stand corrected.
It does seem a shame that the word 'nuclear' seems to have buried this idea for a rocket. However you would have to guess that NASA, ESA, Japan et al must have looked into this and discounted it for some other reason.
I may be misguided but you would have thought the Russians at the peak of their power wouldn't have minded going into the middle of Siberia and nuclear blasting a rocket off to the moon.
From the Author of Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship:
"At that time we were exploding something like 100 megatons a year in the atmosphere and Orion would have added about 1 percent. And for good reason we decided even that was too much."
http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/books/library_projectorion_020709.html
I think that if exploding nukes underneath spaceships had been a valid and sensible idea then it would have been revisited post-cold war. It seems the amount of fallout makes this technology redundant.
From TFA:
"Japan is hosting an international conference in November to draw up a timetable for the machine."
and a favorite quote of mine:
"We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
-Oscar Wilde
Offtopic: Since I started posting to Slashdot (last week) I have been appaled by the uninformed responses I have had to posts I linked references on. It has really opened my eyes to the quality of comment on here.
Sources please!
I refer you again to the Outer Space Treaty, weapons in orbit are allowed but the use of the moon or planets for anything other than peaceful purposes is expressly forbidden. I'm not saying it will never happen, just that it is very unlikely considering the agreement in place at present.
Project Orion is designed to go back to the Moon. It is a modular build in an attempt to future proof it. I suggest you look it up and read about the technical difficulties involved but just to get you started:
Under Stage II, a new Block II CEV would be developed, suitable for interplanetary flight.
-Wikipedia (emphasis mine)
Market forces would also be a much better driving force. As it is the way things are going the race to Mars will result not in exploration bases, but military ones, official 'stake claimers' with a mandate to keep it for whichever country gets there first with a large enough force..
Also I think you'll find that you are wrong concerning military bases on the moon. If you read the basic outline of the Outer Space Treaty and have a look at the huge numbers of countries that have ratified it you'll see that any attempt at a military operation would be met with global outrage.
Of course that might not stop some coutries trying but unlikely really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q4856.html
Agreed, lets get everyone in space and start sharing knowledge. Cooperation off the planet might lead to more on it.
Actually I remember hearing recently that if you want to spot a loner/Columbine Candidate then you should look for kids that play no video games at all. Not playing games excludes children from their peers and can isolate them or it may that they lack the social skills to go play round at their friends. A healthy kid plays.
So why not just use toilet roll as a capacitor?
This is a place for nerds and you're obviously a reasonably intelligent guy so that is why I am even more incedulous. You are breaking the laws of Physics man! Does this not interest you in any way?! Are you not facinated by the world of science blindly stumbling along in the wrong direction? Are you not slightly ashamed that you don't have the guts to go and show scientists something that would re-ignite their passion and send the world on a new direction of understanding? If you don't like Randi then screw him, go show your skill to someone else. I implore you, please! I would *love* some sort of major leap/revoloution in the understanding of the world to happen in my life-time. To you it is a parlour trick but what is the mechinism by which this works? Can we use this to help drought stricken nations dig wells? Can we use this in construction to avoid subsidence? There must be a ton of applications for which we can use this.
My advice to you would be to grow a pair and step up to your responsibilities. Randi might be a high-profile show man but there are plenty of institutes which would unreservedly protect your identity and dignity. Go to a charity FFS!
As for your last point about losing your dignity well that is patently absurd. You would be lauded for your skill if this was actually provable! I would personally be amazed and extremely interested in your abilities but this would not mean I wished to demean you. If you can really do that then why do you not want $1M? Give me one good reason why you should hold the scientific community back by not demonstrating your abilities and letting them try to understand it. Give me one good reason why you should not pick up this $1M and request that your identity not be broadcast. It would be enough simply that Randi's challenge was proven by someone, he could explain but no personal details would be necessary.
How immoral to keep this an unproven secret! C'mon! Think of all the Physics that could be done to improve the world if we could find out the mechanism by which this works. Any psychics reading this (or tuning in by some other unknown means) then please be aware that you have blood on your hands! Crime, natural disasters, road accidents, disease. How heartless to let all these people die so you can spin the wheel at vegas (sans enjoyment because you know the outcome).
Use a lawyer and a non-disclosure contract? As has been stated above, surely, just once, in the modern age someone would have the common decency to let the world of skeptics know that there is actually a mechinism whereby the future can be told. C'mon, how immoral to let those scientists waste their time on modern Physics! Pulease, if you actually thought about disproving your argument for 1 min you could probably think of a few ways to prove your psychic ability whilst remaining hidden and a few damn good reasons to do it AND a mutitude of damn good reasons why it is immoral not too. Heartless psychics!
If this was your fear then why would you ever go public at all? Or are you suggesting that everyone with *real* abilities hides in the shadows whilst it is only shams who seek attention? So through fear people *never* prove their abilities? Why not go through a lawyer signing contracts to ensure non-disclosure of your identity, prove it to three of the world's top scientists (whom I'm sure you could trust as it would ruin their careers to break a contract such as this) and then after the massive outburst of fear and rage from the common man has died down we can start to discuss how best to use psychics?