The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.
If QM gravity is false, QM is false. If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.
Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.
Basically, they work off state changes. Caesium atoms that generated pulses of radiation as they changed energy level, the wobble of aluminium atoms, the motion in a quantum gas of strontium.
They do not, and never have, work(ed) from radioactive decay.
Ultimately, G must be derivative, a consequence of some deeper theory. And it may well be that this accounts in part for the errors in measurement. If forces are to be unified, each force derives from a single common theory that can generate the somewhat bizarre strong nuclear force as well.
Another likely source of errors is relativity. Relative velocity changes relative mass, relative time and relative distance. How to avoid Newtonian assumptions?
Also, how to measure velocity accurately enough to not change things at the fifteenth or sixteenth decimal point? The act of measuring changes the system, as does the gear used to make the measurement.
Time measurements are a problem, as the more accurate the clock, the greater it impacts the gravitational field. So a clock good enough to measure time accurately enough to give us the precision needed is a clock that isn't an inert part of the experiment but a direct contaminant.
I'm sure some of this is explained in the article in Nature, but it does show the difficulty.
If any of these forces could explain gravity, it would be unified by now.
That's how we have the electroweak force. We do not have the electrogravitational force.
Gravity cannot be unified with the other forces with standard physics. We know this. It requires superstrings or other new physics. And even then nobody actually has a grand unified theory.
Anyone on Slashdot who claims otherwise had best produce the Nobel prize in physics and Fields medal in mathematics, because it's going to require just as many discoveries there.
Occam is also whitespace sensitive, as part of the logic for determining design bugs. I don't mind it, although it's not everyone's preference. Occam is one of the few languages in which programs are provable, so I'm careful about arguing about design defects.
Java is ugly, horrible to write in, bloated and incredibly slow. Threading is a pain, indeed everything is a pain. It's not pure OO and it has a crappy format for databases.
I state it because it is correct. There is no distinction in law between an ISP and any other telecoms carrier. This is the law. You can deny it as many times as you like, this was settled in the 1970s (check the posts if you want). I have no time for those who weren't there.
A commercial vendor would supply either statically linked binaries or dynamic libraries with install+LD_LIBRARY_PATH if a different version. Eliminates concerns with distro and gui.
Systemd has helped code for legacy rd.d scripts, so you only need rc.d and a check.
Applications don't interact with file systems, they interact with the abstraction API.
The Internet is Common Carrier. Providers are regulated under that. There is no provision for regulating services because the Republicans decided not to give a shit about users when Europe debated data protection. Quite the opposite, they demanded the right to be an exception.
You get to argue about services when you stop voting such people in.
Slashdot Mirror
That is true. If and only if QM is false. QM specifically prohibits any such interpretation, which causes a severe problem.
The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.
If QM gravity is false, QM is false.
If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.
Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.
There seems to be some confusion over them. Since they're impacted by G and since you need them to measure G, they're an important part of the story.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
https://www.sciencealert.com/p...
Basically, they work off state changes. Caesium atoms that generated pulses of radiation as they changed energy level, the wobble of aluminium atoms, the motion in a quantum gas of strontium.
They do not, and never have, work(ed) from radioactive decay.
It doesn't work off radioactive decay. It works off the spin of ultra-cooled atoms.
Ultimately, G must be derivative, a consequence of some deeper theory. And it may well be that this accounts in part for the errors in measurement. If forces are to be unified, each force derives from a single common theory that can generate the somewhat bizarre strong nuclear force as well.
Another likely source of errors is relativity. Relative velocity changes relative mass, relative time and relative distance. How to avoid Newtonian assumptions?
Also, how to measure velocity accurately enough to not change things at the fifteenth or sixteenth decimal point? The act of measuring changes the system, as does the gear used to make the measurement.
Time measurements are a problem, as the more accurate the clock, the greater it impacts the gravitational field. So a clock good enough to measure time accurately enough to give us the precision needed is a clock that isn't an inert part of the experiment but a direct contaminant.
I'm sure some of this is explained in the article in Nature, but it does show the difficulty.
If any of these forces could explain gravity, it would be unified by now.
That's how we have the electroweak force. We do not have the electrogravitational force.
Gravity cannot be unified with the other forces with standard physics. We know this. It requires superstrings or other new physics. And even then nobody actually has a grand unified theory.
Anyone on Slashdot who claims otherwise had best produce the Nobel prize in physics and Fields medal in mathematics, because it's going to require just as many discoveries there.
Manafort doesn't run Google, so is not a part of this debate, perhaps. Google has not been proven guilty, at least not of censoring Trump.
Occam is also whitespace sensitive, as part of the logic for determining design bugs. I don't mind it, although it's not everyone's preference. Occam is one of the few languages in which programs are provable, so I'm careful about arguing about design defects.
Crystal is one of a shrinking number of environments I've not worked in. And I respect Bruce enough to try it.
I've seen faster COBOL.
Java is ugly, horrible to write in, bloated and incredibly slow. Threading is a pain, indeed everything is a pain. It's not pure OO and it has a crappy format for databases.
It's so bad, performance frameworks moved off it.
The identifier at the start of his code block.
Could be worse. Occam-Pi is beautiful and elegant in every respect bar syntax. Same goes for Oberon 2.
Why new frameworks? So long as the ABI is fixed, you can link frameworks in any language to apps in any other.
Address: 147 Rassilon Way, Gallifrey.
Years of experience with Julia: 729
It's not something you can differentiate, though.
Besides, this pun run is unstable at every point.
Cheezburger add-ons aer abailable from awl gud kittehs.
So Trump bought the site?
But has Netcraft or Guinness Book of World Records confirmed it?
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Something the Witchfinder General has no concept of, not his Salem Witch Trial friends.
Well, it depends on whether you're talking absolute real or modulus.
The modulus is the square root of the sum of the squares of real and imaginary. His imaginary brightness is impressive.
I state it because it is correct. There is no distinction in law between an ISP and any other telecoms carrier. This is the law. You can deny it as many times as you like, this was settled in the 1970s (check the posts if you want). I have no time for those who weren't there.
A commercial vendor would supply either statically linked binaries or dynamic libraries with install+LD_LIBRARY_PATH if a different version. Eliminates concerns with distro and gui.
Systemd has helped code for legacy rd.d scripts, so you only need rc.d and a check.
Applications don't interact with file systems, they interact with the abstraction API.
The Internet is Common Carrier, by act of Congress.
What legislation, exactly, is needed?
The Internet is Common Carrier. Providers are regulated under that. There is no provision for regulating services because the Republicans decided not to give a shit about users when Europe debated data protection. Quite the opposite, they demanded the right to be an exception.
You get to argue about services when you stop voting such people in.
On the basis that the Internet was established in the 1970s under Title 2.
There is nothing else required. Bush had no authority to overrule Congress.