In fairness to Timothy, I wrote the summary. But without realtime video and telemetry, you can't fly out of sight. So my summary is, in fact, correctly stated (currently requires visual contact, HAM license would allow remote operation)
Sorry there, little dude. You are obviously more creative than most cranks but you still score pretty high on Baez's 17pt scale. Let's see if we can't point you in the right direction.
Starting with some algebra. If R'=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), then (R'^2)*c^2+v^2=c^2. You forgot a term. Remember this sequence: simple math FIRST, then general relativity. The other way around just needlessly complicates things.
Second, your formula doesn't even support your statement that all objects travel at the speed of light. This is a nonsensical statement and I suppose it only figures that it needs nonsensical math to back it up, but wow you take it to extremes.
You cannot derive gravity or any other aspect of general relativity using Trigonometry and Newton. Sorry. I wish you could. Grading papers would a cinch, instead of worrying about Levi-Civita connectors, holonomic coordinate bases and Reimannian manifolds.
In all honesty, I am glad you are interested in physics. You should really pursue it. Portland State has some decent courses that I'm certain they would let you audit. Just remember to start with the basics before that GR class; I recommend analysis and topology as a pair of definite prerequisites.
As an observer, you cannot perceive more than one point of gravity (or any other light-speed wave) at a time. In other words, you perceive the effects of gravity as a point source.
If you want to argue that space and time are quantized, I am afraid that I cannot engage you in a discussion as you will have to assume a radical reworking of mathematical analysis to fit observational data. If you have some reason to assume this quantization, I will listen, otherwise you are engaging in a bit of intellectual masturbation.
We are not talking about energy differentials as the gravitational energy is the result rather than the cause of space-time distortion. Without energy differentials, no quantum foam, no Hawking Radiation "spray." You need to be extremely careful when positing these sorts of causal structures.
See above
Velocity is measured as a fraction of the speed of light, relative to any observer. Since all observers see the speed of light as the same speed in their own reference frame, it is a useful measurement. It remains unproven that anything, including your moving object, can violate this.
Again, you are arbitrarily quantizing space and time. No matter what the university drop-out on the cover of Wired magazine said, there is no evidence for this. Postulates without evidence mean nothing. Since all observational evidence points to time and space being continuous, your argument has no point.
No. That is wrong. Binary star systems have no need of "wakes" to produce the observed eccentricities. Just non-instantaneous information exchange.
Since no one has yet been able to rectify a quantized space-time with observation, I would have to say that I am skeptical that this breakthrough will come in a slashdot posting.
Sorry for jumping on you like that. Fishbach must have been misquoted by the journalist because that is a blatantly false statement. Although the Casimir effect calculations above absolute 0 do take into account radiation, that is a correcting factor, not the effect itself. For a lay explanation of the Casimir effect, see this article on Physics Web.
Sorry, but you are misinformed. Gravity does not warp space-time, gravity is the warping of space-time.
So, no, you will not see a "wake" of gravity because you are an observer, you will be affected by the gravity of the object at a point. Since the object itself cannot move faster than the speed of light, the gravity well will always be able to restore faster than the object moves.
You may be thinking of frame-dragging, which is a different phenomenon.
BTW, what moderator decided that this comment was "Interesting"? What I wouldn't give for a "-1, Uninformed" mod.
No, no, no, no. String theory is attempting to explain the observations of angular momentum of hadrons. Specifically that they appeared to be directly proportional to the square of their energies.
Casimir force has nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with the force of photons striking an object. You are undoubtedly confused and I can't even begin to guess from where you gleaned this information. The Casimir force arises from the relative density of quantum vacuum fluctuations of the space between two very close objects and the space outside of the objects. As you said, quite advanced for a high school class, but don't let that prevent you from spreading disinformation in/. posts.
Sure you can learn just what kind of supercomputer NSA has operating. Just head on over to https://www.nsa.gov/applyonline/index.html and let them know you are interested.
It has been noted that the design of this website needs work. Let me reiterate that and add some specifics.
Color. Forget the dithering. It renders horribly on LCD monitors and low-refresh rate CRTs.
Search. Wow does that search need work. A google "site:math-atlas.org" thingy will work better.
Navigation. Some may not agree with me but tables would be a definite plus on this site. Keep a sidebar visible so that I can see where I am and easily click around.
Overall, kudos for the content and generally improving the web.
To wit: no consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency. In other words, at some point, you have to make an axiomatic statement from which to base the rest of your reality. Call your basis reality if you like but that doesn't make it any more "true." In the end, it is only based on a bunch of axioms about numbers. You have to take them on faith. The best you can ever hope for them is to be self-consistent.
But look at the beauty of a distant spiral galaxy. Who ordered that? Who ordered the galaxy, and the beauty, for that matter? Scientists shouldn't even presume that they are capable of understanding that question if they are going to approach it quantitatively, the way they do physics.
Whoa! For two degrees in astronomy, you sure seem clueless. Why would you not want to understand a question? It is inherent in your question's formulation that beauty is a qualitative question and as such can only be understood in terms of human perception. Patterns exist around us because they are a stable organization of units. This reverse entropy signals stability and we like stability because it signals viability. Thus where we see pattern, we see "beauty."
As to why galaxies exist (or as you say "Who ordered that?"), the question remains open but that doesn't stop people from trying to understand how the universe as we perceive it came about. If we find out that we are just a bunch of vibrating, interconnected branes, the implications for understanding things beyond our immediate perception are enormous. The same cannot be said for merely ascribing these things to a personification. By doing that, we learn nothing and humanity is worse off for having closed an avenue of inquiry before it was explored.
And, yes, you chose your words to antogonize but in so doing, you were wrong in a number of points. Constructive misleading is not constructive, only misleading.
Uh? The appendix? How about male nipples? Personally, I think the best argument against intelligent design is the fact that there are people like you running around without a clue to their name who, as grok points out, insist on negative proofs. If we were intelligently designed, one would imagine that we would have been designed intelligent. You are proof positive that this is inherently not the case.
Remember kids, if you can't currently explain a discrepancy, you need to stop looking and ascribe the phenomenon to supernatural powers. Definitely don't question the supernatural because it's super. See? It's right there in the name. You can't hope to understand it so worship it instead.
Undoubtedly someone will notice that this comment might equally well apply to those who "worship" Darwinism. That would be true. The key difference is, of course, that Darwinism can be understood and is continually being updated to reflect what we observe. Therein lies the key difference: we can update Darwinism to make it more correct. It's awful hard to update received wisdom.
Thankfully, Kansas and Ohio are leading the charge against the atheistic forces of E-Ville that seek to make critical thinkers out of our population. I'm sure that they will also "balance" their curricula to include classes that critically analyze received wisdom.
Replying to onesself seems like bad form but just a correction (helpfully pointed out to me):
FreeBSD KLD allows for dynamic loading and unloading of device drivers as modules. This remains a non-OO system and retains the performance hit when you have a large number of calls accessing the driver.
While FreeBSD provides greater objectification of bus resources than its predecessor, there remains much work to do before the bus throughput approaches Darwin's level.
Don't get me wrong, BSD is a great system and the 5.0 changes were truly astounding when I look at what I used to run on 4.1. That said, Darwin's developers learned a lot from BSD's mistakes and in turn, *BSD developers seem to be watching Darwin's development and taking a number of cues from Darwin's (very different) solutions to common problems.
Good job. You succeeding in translating zealot-speak into zealot(prime)-speak. Your comment is unfortunately uninformed.
Darwin maintains BSD compatibility but impliments a number of different approachs to core systems. For instance, the driver subsystem in Darwin is IOKit, an object-oriented system that allows for dynamic loading and unloading of device drivers (indeed, whole classes of drivers). BSD currently lacks this ability. Try coding a new driver for BSD and you will find yourself re-coding whole sections of pre-existant code that must then be loaded into the kernel side-by-side, increasing memory usage unnecessarily.
Consider as well that Darwin is not a pure microkernel system. A number of subsystems are loaded into Mach, which allows for faster communication between the components.
I would not claim that one system is arbitrarily better than the other but to claim that they are the same is pure garbage. You appear to just be quoting some equally uninformed/. poster.
When did RMS get an account on/.? Although, I must admit, the username is appropriately chosen.
To clear up your obvious confusion, please read the GNU group's distinction then ask yourself, do you really think the poster meant free software as in software that doesn't cost anything or free software as in software that gives you freedoms.
The distinction is important and you cavalierly mix Open Source with Free Software. Bad, bad, bad.
So I read a number of posters stating that the lack of games for Mac will drive people away. I am amazed by this claim for two reasons.
First, if a game is decent, chances are, it exists for the Mac. Nearly all major games (Warcraft (I-WoW), Call to Duty, NWN, SW KotOR, Sims, etc.) have Mac versions that equal their Windows counterparts (not emulation). Second, who is running away from Linux because of the lack of games?
In all fairness to people buying these computers, it is about user experience. If the Macintosh delivers a better user experience, people will switch. The halo effect of the iPod is to show people what a well-designed machine feels like. Since (IMHO) the Macintosh has a much better experience, along with all of the accoutrements of a *nix under the hood, I had very little heartburn over switching.
Incidentally, the main use of my Mac is collision modelling in FORTRAN. Thank goodness for gfortran. The POSIX-compliant version is much more stable than its Windows counterpart and neither it nor g95 require MinGW on Darwin (obviously).
Finally, Darwin has the ability to compile the *nix OSS that we have all come to love. I keep a recent build of Apple's X11 on my machine and have yet to run into a tgz that didn't compile cleanly or with minimum tweaking. For those who love their OSS but don't like to work their own code, there are a couple decent package managers for the Mac as well (i-Installer, Fink, etc).
The typical comment seems to go like this: "The disks never existed, therefore the people shouldn't have been fired."
There are a dozen scenarios that could involved non-existant, classified disks for which people should be fired.
-Person A creates a record of a disk, intending to classify a piece of media. Then doesn't. They forget to record the disk as destroyed.
-Person B repeatedly writes inspection reports stating that the non-existant disk in fact exists. This indicates that they are not actually doing their job of inspecting.
-Person C repeatedly signs off on the inspection reports that Person B writes, thus affirming the existance of a non-existant disk.
Regardless of the fact that the disk never existed, all three people should be fired. First, they were not doing their jobs. Second, and more importantly, they facilitate the work of people like Aldrich Ames. By not immediately reporting the disk missing (or non-existant) any could have stolen the disk, sold its contents and come back for more without anyone noticing.
Have you tried to drain the Thinkpad's built-up capacitor charge? Some people recommend freezing it, but I think it works better to just take out the battery and then hold down the power button for a couple minutes.
You have this interesting way of conceding points, one-by-one, by ceasing to argue about them and re-directing to a new point that you think you can win. And by interesting, I mean annoying.
Unfortunately, this trait also forbids you from ever admitting that you made a mistake or even researching your positions. Too bad.
I wish you the best of luck and hope that ignorance thing works out for you.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe 2000timeline.php http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/facts /recount_timeline. html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/m agtime line.htm
Should make interesting reading for you. Pay attention to the part where it says when votes were counted. With less than 100% of the counties reporting, I will agree that there is statistical error in estimating the complete result. However, once results were in from all precincts, the number announced by Kathleen Harris was 307.
And, yes, the population that doesn't vote doesn't get a say in the matter. They may feel bad about it afterwards but it doesn't matter. And I never said that "every American who attempted to vote" had their vote counted. I said N=P. Thus no statistical margin. If you would like to change your argument to broaden your statement, please do so. It would be a relief to know that there is one less ignorant person in the world.
Absentee ballots on the 18th put Bush ahead in Florida by 930 votes. There is no "most likely" here; we know what happened. Your memory seems off. Perhaps you should check yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness to Timothy, I wrote the summary. But without realtime video and telemetry, you can't fly out of sight. So my summary is, in fact, correctly stated (currently requires visual contact, HAM license would allow remote operation)
Yeah, you're right man. That last comment was uncalled for. Consider it withdrawn.
Starting with some algebra. If R'=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), then (R'^2)*c^2+v^2=c^2. You forgot a term. Remember this sequence: simple math FIRST, then general relativity. The other way around just needlessly complicates things.
Second, your formula doesn't even support your statement that all objects travel at the speed of light. This is a nonsensical statement and I suppose it only figures that it needs nonsensical math to back it up, but wow you take it to extremes.
You cannot derive gravity or any other aspect of general relativity using Trigonometry and Newton. Sorry. I wish you could. Grading papers would a cinch, instead of worrying about Levi-Civita connectors, holonomic coordinate bases and Reimannian manifolds.
In all honesty, I am glad you are interested in physics. You should really pursue it. Portland State has some decent courses that I'm certain they would let you audit. Just remember to start with the basics before that GR class; I recommend analysis and topology as a pair of definite prerequisites.
- As an observer, you cannot perceive more than one point of gravity (or any other light-speed wave) at a time. In other words, you perceive the effects of gravity as a point source.
- If you want to argue that space and time are quantized, I am afraid that I cannot engage you in a discussion as you will have to assume a radical reworking of mathematical analysis to fit observational data. If you have some reason to assume this quantization, I will listen, otherwise you are engaging in a bit of intellectual masturbation.
- We are not talking about energy differentials as the gravitational energy is the result rather than the cause of space-time distortion. Without energy differentials, no quantum foam, no Hawking Radiation "spray." You need to be extremely careful when positing these sorts of causal structures.
- See above
- Velocity is measured as a fraction of the speed of light, relative to any observer. Since all observers see the speed of light as the same speed in their own reference frame, it is a useful measurement. It remains unproven that anything, including your moving object, can violate this.
- Again, you are arbitrarily quantizing space and time. No matter what the university drop-out on the cover of Wired magazine said, there is no evidence for this. Postulates without evidence mean nothing. Since all observational evidence points to time and space being continuous, your argument has no point.
- No. That is wrong. Binary star systems have no need of "wakes" to produce the observed eccentricities. Just non-instantaneous information exchange.
Since no one has yet been able to rectify a quantized space-time with observation, I would have to say that I am skeptical that this breakthrough will come in a slashdot posting.Sorry for jumping on you like that. Fishbach must have been misquoted by the journalist because that is a blatantly false statement. Although the Casimir effect calculations above absolute 0 do take into account radiation, that is a correcting factor, not the effect itself. For a lay explanation of the Casimir effect, see this article on Physics Web.
So, no, you will not see a "wake" of gravity because you are an observer, you will be affected by the gravity of the object at a point. Since the object itself cannot move faster than the speed of light, the gravity well will always be able to restore faster than the object moves.
You may be thinking of frame-dragging, which is a different phenomenon.
BTW, what moderator decided that this comment was "Interesting"? What I wouldn't give for a "-1, Uninformed" mod.
Casimir force has nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with the force of photons striking an object. You are undoubtedly confused and I can't even begin to guess from where you gleaned this information. The Casimir force arises from the relative density of quantum vacuum fluctuations of the space between two very close objects and the space outside of the objects. As you said, quite advanced for a high school class, but don't let that prevent you from spreading disinformation in /. posts.
Sure you can learn just what kind of supercomputer NSA has operating. Just head on over to https://www.nsa.gov/applyonline/index.html and let them know you are interested.
Overall, kudos for the content and generally improving the web.
OK, I'll bite. The statement that nothing is proveable is not metaphysics; that is logic. See Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleten ess_theorem
To wit: no consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency. In other words, at some point, you have to make an axiomatic statement from which to base the rest of your reality. Call your basis reality if you like but that doesn't make it any more "true." In the end, it is only based on a bunch of axioms about numbers. You have to take them on faith. The best you can ever hope for them is to be self-consistent.
Whoa! For two degrees in astronomy, you sure seem clueless. Why would you not want to understand a question? It is inherent in your question's formulation that beauty is a qualitative question and as such can only be understood in terms of human perception. Patterns exist around us because they are a stable organization of units. This reverse entropy signals stability and we like stability because it signals viability. Thus where we see pattern, we see "beauty."
As to why galaxies exist (or as you say "Who ordered that?"), the question remains open but that doesn't stop people from trying to understand how the universe as we perceive it came about. If we find out that we are just a bunch of vibrating, interconnected branes, the implications for understanding things beyond our immediate perception are enormous. The same cannot be said for merely ascribing these things to a personification. By doing that, we learn nothing and humanity is worse off for having closed an avenue of inquiry before it was explored.
And, yes, you chose your words to antogonize but in so doing, you were wrong in a number of points. Constructive misleading is not constructive, only misleading.
Uh? The appendix? How about male nipples? Personally, I think the best argument against intelligent design is the fact that there are people like you running around without a clue to their name who, as grok points out, insist on negative proofs. If we were intelligently designed, one would imagine that we would have been designed intelligent. You are proof positive that this is inherently not the case.
Undoubtedly someone will notice that this comment might equally well apply to those who "worship" Darwinism. That would be true. The key difference is, of course, that Darwinism can be understood and is continually being updated to reflect what we observe. Therein lies the key difference: we can update Darwinism to make it more correct. It's awful hard to update received wisdom.
Thankfully, Kansas and Ohio are leading the charge against the atheistic forces of E-Ville that seek to make critical thinkers out of our population. I'm sure that they will also "balance" their curricula to include classes that critically analyze received wisdom.
Where did they get the reference image?
FreeBSD KLD allows for dynamic loading and unloading of device drivers as modules. This remains a non-OO system and retains the performance hit when you have a large number of calls accessing the driver.
While FreeBSD provides greater objectification of bus resources than its predecessor, there remains much work to do before the bus throughput approaches Darwin's level.
Don't get me wrong, BSD is a great system and the 5.0 changes were truly astounding when I look at what I used to run on 4.1. That said, Darwin's developers learned a lot from BSD's mistakes and in turn, *BSD developers seem to be watching Darwin's development and taking a number of cues from Darwin's (very different) solutions to common problems.
Darwin maintains BSD compatibility but impliments a number of different approachs to core systems. For instance, the driver subsystem in Darwin is IOKit, an object-oriented system that allows for dynamic loading and unloading of device drivers (indeed, whole classes of drivers). BSD currently lacks this ability. Try coding a new driver for BSD and you will find yourself re-coding whole sections of pre-existant code that must then be loaded into the kernel side-by-side, increasing memory usage unnecessarily.
Consider as well that Darwin is not a pure microkernel system. A number of subsystems are loaded into Mach, which allows for faster communication between the components.
I would not claim that one system is arbitrarily better than the other but to claim that they are the same is pure garbage. You appear to just be quoting some equally uninformed /. poster.
When did RMS get an account on /.? Although, I must admit, the username is appropriately chosen.
To clear up your obvious confusion, please read the GNU group's distinction then ask yourself, do you really think the poster meant free software as in software that doesn't cost anything or free software as in software that gives you freedoms.
The distinction is important and you cavalierly mix Open Source with Free Software. Bad, bad, bad.
First, if a game is decent, chances are, it exists for the Mac. Nearly all major games (Warcraft (I-WoW), Call to Duty, NWN, SW KotOR, Sims, etc.) have Mac versions that equal their Windows counterparts (not emulation). Second, who is running away from Linux because of the lack of games?
In all fairness to people buying these computers, it is about user experience. If the Macintosh delivers a better user experience, people will switch. The halo effect of the iPod is to show people what a well-designed machine feels like. Since (IMHO) the Macintosh has a much better experience, along with all of the accoutrements of a *nix under the hood, I had very little heartburn over switching.
Incidentally, the main use of my Mac is collision modelling in FORTRAN. Thank goodness for gfortran. The POSIX-compliant version is much more stable than its Windows counterpart and neither it nor g95 require MinGW on Darwin (obviously).
Finally, Darwin has the ability to compile the *nix OSS that we have all come to love. I keep a recent build of Apple's X11 on my machine and have yet to run into a tgz that didn't compile cleanly or with minimum tweaking. For those who love their OSS but don't like to work their own code, there are a couple decent package managers for the Mac as well (i-Installer, Fink, etc).
There are a dozen scenarios that could involved non-existant, classified disks for which people should be fired.
-Person A creates a record of a disk, intending to classify a piece of media. Then doesn't. They forget to record the disk as destroyed.
-Person B repeatedly writes inspection reports stating that the non-existant disk in fact exists. This indicates that they are not actually doing their job of inspecting.
-Person C repeatedly signs off on the inspection reports that Person B writes, thus affirming the existance of a non-existant disk.
Regardless of the fact that the disk never existed, all three people should be fired. First, they were not doing their jobs. Second, and more importantly, they facilitate the work of people like Aldrich Ames. By not immediately reporting the disk missing (or non-existant) any could have stolen the disk, sold its contents and come back for more without anyone noticing.
While realizing you are joking... 939.394 rods.
Have you tried to drain the Thinkpad's built-up capacitor charge? Some people recommend freezing it, but I think it works better to just take out the battery and then hold down the power button for a couple minutes.
Spineboy speaks truth! I donated $100 (but only because I got that fat tax break last year).
Might I recommend that people spend a moment or two typing a personal e-mail to their fellow citizens to encourage similar behavior?
Umm...
May I ask where you have been for the past four years? A President who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote ring any bells?
Unfortunately, this trait also forbids you from ever admitting that you made a mistake or even researching your positions. Too bad.
I wish you the best of luck and hope that ignorance thing works out for you.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe 2000timeline.phps /recount_timeline. htmlm agtime line.htm
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/fact
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/
Should make interesting reading for you. Pay attention to the part where it says when votes were counted. With less than 100% of the counties reporting, I will agree that there is statistical error in estimating the complete result. However, once results were in from all precincts, the number announced by Kathleen Harris was 307.
And, yes, the population that doesn't vote doesn't get a say in the matter. They may feel bad about it afterwards but it doesn't matter. And I never said that "every American who attempted to vote" had their vote counted. I said N=P. Thus no statistical margin. If you would like to change your argument to broaden your statement, please do so. It would be a relief to know that there is one less ignorant person in the world.
Absentee ballots on the 18th put Bush ahead in Florida by 930 votes. There is no "most likely" here; we know what happened. Your memory seems off. Perhaps you should check yourself.