No the speed of light is constant.
as said before, in something else than the vacuum, it looks differently, but this is an illusion
what is a medium, that is not vacuum ? how is it ? atoms are mostly made out of vacuum
photons don't have some particular 'friction-like' problem when going through any such material
what happens is that, as the electromagnetic wave front 'enters' the medium, it does what it is there for, and it accelerates electrically charged particles if any.
those (electrons in general, mostly bound to their atom) will oscillate in response and create an EM field on their own like new sources
those sources will interfere with the original source and create a new overall pattern that we would call 'this is light traveling in this medium'
This new wave is what can be seen as light going slower than c in this particular medium.
Hmmm no, sorry I probably didn't word it correctly, but this is the part I didn't miss.
I was trying to say that I disagree with this part and hinted at counter examples where dealing with complex numbers 'per se' (instead of as some sort of useful but still artificial tool) lead to deep insights/discoveries/predictions/... that would have been, indeed, very artificial if not counting on the 'complex nature of things' being manipulated.
Assuming this was the argument, I was asking if I was missing something
Your parent said 'delimited' by punctuation. That is not the same thing has not having any space inside a sentence so as to delimit words.
spaces also delimit keywords in python just as in a great many other languages so this is not even a point
Your parent was talking about spaces having a value at the sentence value, which does happen in python, unfortunately, but, thankfully nowhere else that I am aware of.
There is no interference pattern when you shoot just one. it does not need to interfere with itself.
The 'wave' part of the particle is not so much 'the particle itself taking the form of a wave', it's the probability amplitude that if you measure it, it will be in this or this particular place.
the interference pattern only appears when you shoot many many many particles, so, in a way, you could think about the particles interfering with themselves in the past and the future which is even weirder, but that's not what happens. The interference comes from the probability wave, and it's nothing short of amazing
This is not exactly correct. Unlike other sensing organs, the eyes actually are the brain. look it up
(I have no opinion for the rest of the argument so I am not trying to counter anything, just pointing this detail out)
Thank you very much kind sir ! This is very helpful
(not on sarcasm mode, nor in the 'thank god someone else thinks like me' one (ok a little too maybe:)) but I didn't know the rule well and had mostly an intuitive feeling about it without never thinking clearly about which one to choose)
Diplomacy ? ha !
My favourite position is # 68
which stands for... "you go down to it and I owe you one"
badam... zing... sorry sorry, but on the plus side I won't be there all week...
That's still not it (I think)
Suppose you can indeed build a magical perfect copy of yourself.
Well, which one are you ?
I guess none of the copies want to die
Now you make a better copy of yourself that is basically immortal
But you have to die in the process or to die later knowing that somehow "this other thing is -you-" how conforting, *you* are still going to die
So how do you want to die ?:)
You are correct
The first link is quite bogus too and does a terrible job of explaining the "principals" (*sigh*) of the 3D technology vision without GLASSES technology of the future is now...
The glass you can put on a screen enables two different images to be sent to the correct eyes "as it would happen with two polarized images (and of course wearing glasses)" but that's it and it confused your parent
But in other places it is common theft, err innovation practice to do something well known *on a computer* or *over the internet*
Why wouldn't we accept to extend that concept to do things *in the mountains* ?
I'm not you' parent poster, but I respectfuly (because I really see your point but I think it's wrong) disagree
I think what is being "inconsistent" here is the data itself on which the "consistent" program relies to give the meaningful answer.
That being said , I completely understand that the end perception is the one you describe.
That's not a simple math correction (but that's a correction)
A simple math correction would give Ironman-man=(Iron-1)man
So there we go, Manganese man !!
:) I'm not the poster you are asking that question to
But I, for one, do use vi(m) to post on/. (or anywhere else for that matter)
This is thank's to this very nice firefox addon
You might want to try it:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank's and thank's for linking to the original, this is pure gold :)
No the speed of light is constant. as said before, in something else than the vacuum, it looks differently, but this is an illusion
what is a medium, that is not vacuum ? how is it ? atoms are mostly made out of vacuum
photons don't have some particular 'friction-like' problem when going through any such material
what happens is that, as the electromagnetic wave front 'enters' the medium, it does what it is there for, and it accelerates electrically charged particles if any.
those (electrons in general, mostly bound to their atom) will oscillate in response and create an EM field on their own like new sources
those sources will interfere with the original source and create a new overall pattern that we would call 'this is light traveling in this medium'
This new wave is what can be seen as light going slower than c in this particular medium.
Well, that doesn't really set them apart from the (young ?) human population, so I would take that as an encouraging comment :)
Hmmm no, sorry I probably didn't word it correctly, but this is the part I didn't miss.
I was trying to say that I disagree with this part and hinted at counter examples where dealing with complex numbers 'per se' (instead of as some sort of useful but still artificial tool) lead to deep insights/discoveries/predictions/... that would have been, indeed, very artificial if not counting on the 'complex nature of things' being manipulated.
Assuming this was the argument, I was asking if I was missing something
Uh ?
Hello Hermite ?
Hello Pauli ? Heisenberg ?
Hello Dirac ? (say hi to the positron)
Am I missing something ?
mostly
Yes it is, and I am counting the minutes until rankmyhack.com is hacked to begin with so as to show bogus (well not that bogus in the end) scores...
Fortunately, the Belgian government doesn't exist, so this is the perfect solution :)
LOLDL : This is mostedl definitedeliedl the bestedl answer that couldedl have been givendl :)
Your parent said 'delimited' by punctuation. That is not the same thing has not having any space inside a sentence so as to delimit words.
spaces also delimit keywords in python just as in a great many other languages so this is not even a point
Your parent was talking about spaces having a value at the sentence value, which does happen in python, unfortunately, but, thankfully nowhere else that I am aware of.
There is no interference pattern when you shoot just one. it does not need to interfere with itself.
The 'wave' part of the particle is not so much 'the particle itself taking the form of a wave', it's the probability amplitude that if you measure it, it will be in this or this particular place.
the interference pattern only appears when you shoot many many many particles, so, in a way, you could think about the particles interfering with themselves in the past and the future which is even weirder, but that's not what happens. The interference comes from the probability wave, and it's nothing short of amazing
You are totally spot on !
This is not exactly correct. Unlike other sensing organs, the eyes actually are the brain. look it up
(I have no opinion for the rest of the argument so I am not trying to counter anything, just pointing this detail out)
It would mean it has to do more work than a faster device
Thank you very much kind sir ! This is very helpful :)) but I didn't know the rule well and had mostly an intuitive feeling about it without never thinking clearly about which one to choose)
(not on sarcasm mode, nor in the 'thank god someone else thinks like me' one (ok a little too maybe
Diplomacy ? ha !
My favourite position is # 68
which stands for... "you go down to it and I owe you one"
badam... zing... sorry sorry, but on the plus side I won't be there all week...
That's still not it (I think) :)
Suppose you can indeed build a magical perfect copy of yourself.
Well, which one are you ?
I guess none of the copies want to die
Now you make a better copy of yourself that is basically immortal
But you have to die in the process or to die later knowing that somehow "this other thing is -you-" how conforting, *you* are still going to die
So how do you want to die ?
Perfect answer, hopefully the point is made.
You are correct
The first link is quite bogus too and does a terrible job of explaining the "principals" (*sigh*) of the 3D technology vision without GLASSES technology of the future is now...
The glass you can put on a screen enables two different images to be sent to the correct eyes "as it would happen with two polarized images (and of course wearing glasses)" but that's it and it confused your parent
But in other places it is common theft, err innovation practice to do something well known *on a computer* or *over the internet*
Why wouldn't we accept to extend that concept to do things *in the mountains* ?
I'm not you' parent poster, but I respectfuly (because I really see your point but I think it's wrong) disagree
I think what is being "inconsistent" here is the data itself on which the "consistent" program relies to give the meaningful answer.
That being said , I completely understand that the end perception is the one you describe.
That's not a simple math correction (but that's a correction)
A simple math correction would give Ironman-man=(Iron-1)man
So there we go, Manganese man !!
:) I'm not the poster you are asking that question to /. (or anywhere else for that matter) :)
But I, for one, do use vi(m) to post on
This is thank's to this very nice firefox addon
You might want to try it
this is hilarious, awesome, not so untrue, just as cynic as I like it to be
thanks
We ran out of pigeons :(
(the messenger flying ones, not the paying ones (heaven forbids !!))