If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.
I guess you've never heard of a back-seat driver, because this is exactly what they're doing as passengers. Except instead of being ready to take the wheel they're ready to give driving advice.
And considering that back-seat driving is common enough that there's a well-known term for the behaviour, I'd say that people DO work like that. Maybe not all people, but many people.
How is A to know which entanglements to break? A has to look at the entangled particles to determine which are which, and that tells A what B sees.
How is needing to look at each entangled particle first an issue? Can you not look at them all first, then "set" after you look?
Also, the article states that setting breaks entanglement leaving the chances of finding either red or black on the B side put to random.
Unless this is an oversimplification of how it works, I'm not seeing the issue here.
Using your cards analogy, starting with say, 100 envelopes:
1) A reads all of the envelopes. Sorts them with all of the red in one pile and black in the other. It'd be a 50/50 split.
2) A takes the black cards and replaces them with red. This breaks the entanglement for these cards, which according to the article resets what cards B has in these envelopes. Now A knows B has the original 50% black cards that were never touched, and then because the entanglement was broken, the remaining cards for B are black and red split 50/50. That's 75% black and 25% red.
3) B reads all of their envelopes at a pre-specified time. Looks to see which are 75% to determine what A was trying to send.
So, from the article, if you just "read" the state, it'll remain entangled, but if you "set" the state, then it breaks the entanglement and the other side's chances become independent...
So what if you did this...
Use many quantum entangled photons instead of just one.
Read them all, then "set" the ones that aren't in the state that you are trying to achieve to break the entanglement of these ones with the incorrect states.
Shouldn't that you give you 75% of the photons on the other side with the state that you are trying to communicate?
I'm not an astrophysicist, so there's probably a huge hole in this theory. Please anyone with greater knowledge on the subject comment.
What would a extremely massive star turning into a black hole look like? And how quickly would the process take?
Let's say there's a extremely massive star on the brink of becoming a black hole. Then a comet or some other small object falls into this object and pushes the inner core of the star over the tipping point. The inner part of the star outside of the black hole core would still have strong enough gravity to generate fusion, but the star's output would be reduced.
Then as more objects fall into the star the event horizon's diameter increases and the star's output decreases.
In Canada, we get a whole year off after a child is born. The majority of this time can be split between the mother and father. For my first child, I didn't take any time. But for my second, I took 5 months.
I can assure you that this 5 month period was more difficult than "working". Anyone who thinks that people who are staying at home to parent babies and/or toddlers is not "working" hasn't truly experienced it. Perhaps they don't have kids, perhaps their spouse/partner does all/most of the work, or perhaps they're just not putting in the effort required to be a good parent, but either way they haven't truly experienced it.
After the first week, I was looking forward to going back to work for a "vacation" from the crazy amount of work I had at home.
Without doing the actual math myself, I think I can present an example.
Imagine you have a ship going at a certain relativistic speeds. The observers inside the ship could observe themselves arriving at a destination in x Planck units of time (where x is an integer), but depending on the exact speed of the ship, a stationary observer would likely observe them arriving at the destination in y Planck units of time (where y is a real number that is not also an integer).
Let me know if you want me to take this beyond a mere thought experiment and come up with an actual velocity for the ship.
One example hardly proves anything, as you are well aware.
Now, if you were to find a case study of a similar country to the States that has guns allowed and knives banned and also has a much lower incidence of mass murder, I'd be on your side with banning knives. But at this point there's no evidence suggesting that knives are typically an effective tool for mass killings.
There IS, however, evidence showing that guns are an effective tool and there are examples of other countries with similar cultures who limit their accessibility that have many fewer mass killings.
It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool.
Though I agree that you are technically correct, I don't think that addressing the actual cause of the problem is realistic.
Take the following analogy:
You could say that bike thefts are a direct result of the choice of the thief not because some bikes are poorly locked or aren't locked at all, and you would be absolutely correct. But this does not imply that we should ignore the very real solution of making it harder for a bike thief to steal a bike by using a good bike lock.
Similarly, there is a very real solution of locking down the most convenient mass murder tool to make it much harder for the murderer to commit their crime. Does this solve the root cause? No. Is it effective? Well, look at the track record of any other country with a similar culture but restricted access to guns. (Canada, for example is inundated by American television so our cultures are about as different as the differences found between two states).
Sure the root cause would still exist. But when a person attempts a mass murder with a knife because that's all they can get their hands on, the death toll will be much lower, if any at all. If a person attempts a mass murder with a home made bomb, they might just blow themselves up trying to make the thing before getting a chance to use it on anyone. And let's be honest, there's a certain level of knowledge that a person would need to get even that far. Basically, there is no tool that is as good for the job as a gun is for murdering.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse, nothing substantial is being done about the choice of tools being used by many.
Why is it that the article can state things like "the known laws of physics break down" inside a black hole, yet insist that this particular law of physics, the conservation of information, shouldn't also break down and therefore results in a paradox.
Who gets to decide which laws break down and which ones don't?
Now the feed in is around 50c I think meaning my panels pay about 60% more than if you were to do it after buying a house that doesn't have them already installed.
Actually, having just looked into this myself, I can tell you that the rate as of January 1st, 2015 is 38.4 c/kWh (source).
You're getting an amazing deal compared to current prices, but you also would have had to pay a lot more for your install costs, I imagine. So, it all balances out, I'm guessing.
So clearly there is more involved than thermodynamics.
Not true. But I see where your confusion lies...
It's still energy in vs energy out. What you are assuming is that the "energy in" portion of the equation is a simple matter of just adding up what you eat. And that the "energy out" portion is a simple matter of taking your BMR and adding in how many calories a machine says you burned in whatever exercise you did.
Really what each side of the equation is this:
energy in = [what you eat] - [what your body doesn't actually absorb (which is variable)]
energy out = [BMR (which is also variable)] + [calories burned in exercise (which is again also variable)]
So, for you with your lack of sleep, your body's metabolism dropped and therefore the BMR portion of the equation dropped too leaving you with a surplus of energy in vs your energy out.
I'm sure there were also a ton of other factors in there that moved around the various components of the equation too. But it's still energy in vs energy out.
They don't need to know exactly where you've driven, just whether or not you've left the state.
In Ontario, Canada, there's a toll highway, the 407, that works by having cameras at every entrance/exit to the highway. Using these, they log where you enter and exit the highway and send you a bill in the mail based on how far you went on the highway.
So, they could put something on every road that leads in and out of the state that could simply communicate with a device in the car that adds up only the miles that were driven in-state. It would stop counting the miles once you drive through an exit, then start again once you drive back into Oregon.
Then they wouldn't need GPS to track each person's actual whereabouts. And the people who love to circumvent the law would have a device to hack.
My personal definition is similar to yours, but with a a couple of additions:
1) Gravitation strong enough to pull it into a nearly round shape, but not strong enough to start fusion
2) Does not orbit another planet
This would include Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake. But it would also include Rouge Panets, which aren't planets according to the official planet definition.
So Bell essentially offers two different services (internet, media streaming service) at a discount and is told to stop because it's not fair (full agreement here).
But how is this any less fair than Rogers (and I'm sure Bell) who is currently offering discounts for customers who sign-up for multiple services including internet, home phone, and cable?
Fact 2: The NASA team experienced a similar thrust
[citation needed]
From the NASA article:
Thrust was observed on both test
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce
thrust.
and
Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion
device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and
therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.
I don't read this as a "similar thrust" but rather as a non-zero but different thrust. So, yes, there's an error in the experiment causing the non-zero thrust, but there was still enough of a difference between the two experiments to lead them to the conclusion that something is going on.
So, if a bunch of "goop" is effectively gathering around a black hole, wouldn't the gravitational pull of all of that matter eventually add up to increase the gravitational field of the black hole, thereby extending the radius of the event horizon? And wouldn't this then effectively make the goop itself enter the event horizon?
Honestly, if someone could explain this one, I'm really interested to know. Even if it's some logical fallacy of mine:)
The summary doesn't mention extra terrestrials. Is this because they don't want to jump to conclusions or is it because the nature of the pulses doesn't appear to be organic?
So, if this proposed effect can happen to visible light. Could the idea in this article be an alternative explanation for how gravity effectively "bends light"?
(I'm not a physicist, so sorry if this sounds stupid)
In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry
I don't know why people seem surprised that when they restrict calories (more specifically, eating less than they use), they're miserable and hungry. It seems obvious to me that your body would resist a lower calorie diet by sending out the hunger feelings/pains. And being hungry usually makes people irritable, so of course you could be miserable.
I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time.
So there's already a low calorie diet, and you're using up extra calories on top of that (and a lot of extra calories if you're going to the gym every day). Of course you'd feel tired, you're body has to get into a lower energetic state to live off of the seemingly low calorie input/output ratio.
I have a lot of assumptions here that I could be way off on, but it seems to me that you were just over doing the amount of calorie reduction or else you were exercising too much. That or you have an untreated thyroid problem.
I also don't get why people (not you, necessarily) think that you can lose the weight super fast, when it might have taken 10/20 years to gradually put it on. We should expect it to take just as long to take off the weight. Sure, you can speed up the weight loss through various methods, but people should keep things in the perspective of how long it took to put on the weight in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're driving and actively engaged, we can keep our attention on the task for long periods of time without much trouble. But we're supposed to just sit there "at the ready" that's a failure waiting to happen, because people don't work like that.
I guess you've never heard of a back-seat driver, because this is exactly what they're doing as passengers. Except instead of being ready to take the wheel they're ready to give driving advice.
And considering that back-seat driving is common enough that there's a well-known term for the behaviour, I'd say that people DO work like that. Maybe not all people, but many people.
Humans are not good at that
Many humans are actually very good at this, hence the term "back-seat driver".
:)
But, I hate driving for these types, so I'm happy to hear that you aren't one.
How is A to know which entanglements to break? A has to look at the entangled particles to determine which are which, and that tells A what B sees.
How is needing to look at each entangled particle first an issue? Can you not look at them all first, then "set" after you look?
Also, the article states that setting breaks entanglement leaving the chances of finding either red or black on the B side put to random.
Unless this is an oversimplification of how it works, I'm not seeing the issue here.
Using your cards analogy, starting with say, 100 envelopes:
1) A reads all of the envelopes. Sorts them with all of the red in one pile and black in the other. It'd be a 50/50 split.
2) A takes the black cards and replaces them with red. This breaks the entanglement for these cards, which according to the article resets what cards B has in these envelopes. Now A knows B has the original 50% black cards that were never touched, and then because the entanglement was broken, the remaining cards for B are black and red split 50/50. That's 75% black and 25% red.
3) B reads all of their envelopes at a pre-specified time. Looks to see which are 75% to determine what A was trying to send.
So, from the article, if you just "read" the state, it'll remain entangled, but if you "set" the state, then it breaks the entanglement and the other side's chances become independent...
So what if you did this...
Use many quantum entangled photons instead of just one. Read them all, then "set" the ones that aren't in the state that you are trying to achieve to break the entanglement of these ones with the incorrect states.
Shouldn't that you give you 75% of the photons on the other side with the state that you are trying to communicate?
Inefficient energy conversion is not the same as cost effectiveness. What is an efficient energy conversion rate for you? > 50%?
Solar panels don't even come close to that yet, they are still cost effective enough to market.
You're just stealing energy from the cars.
Not sure on the numbers, but maybe this would be a good way to make a toll road.
I'm not an astrophysicist, so there's probably a huge hole in this theory. Please anyone with greater knowledge on the subject comment.
What would a extremely massive star turning into a black hole look like? And how quickly would the process take?
Let's say there's a extremely massive star on the brink of becoming a black hole. Then a comet or some other small object falls into this object and pushes the inner core of the star over the tipping point. The inner part of the star outside of the black hole core would still have strong enough gravity to generate fusion, but the star's output would be reduced.
Then as more objects fall into the star the event horizon's diameter increases and the star's output decreases.
Thoughts?
these people that don't want to work.
In Canada, we get a whole year off after a child is born. The majority of this time can be split between the mother and father. For my first child, I didn't take any time. But for my second, I took 5 months.
I can assure you that this 5 month period was more difficult than "working". Anyone who thinks that people who are staying at home to parent babies and/or toddlers is not "working" hasn't truly experienced it. Perhaps they don't have kids, perhaps their spouse/partner does all/most of the work, or perhaps they're just not putting in the effort required to be a good parent, but either way they haven't truly experienced it.
After the first week, I was looking forward to going back to work for a "vacation" from the crazy amount of work I had at home.
Without doing the actual math myself, I think I can present an example.
Imagine you have a ship going at a certain relativistic speeds. The observers inside the ship could observe themselves arriving at a destination in x Planck units of time (where x is an integer), but depending on the exact speed of the ship, a stationary observer would likely observe them arriving at the destination in y Planck units of time (where y is a real number that is not also an integer).
Let me know if you want me to take this beyond a mere thought experiment and come up with an actual velocity for the ship.
One example hardly proves anything, as you are well aware.
Now, if you were to find a case study of a similar country to the States that has guns allowed and knives banned and also has a much lower incidence of mass murder, I'd be on your side with banning knives. But at this point there's no evidence suggesting that knives are typically an effective tool for mass killings.
There IS, however, evidence showing that guns are an effective tool and there are examples of other countries with similar cultures who limit their accessibility that have many fewer mass killings.
It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool.
Though I agree that you are technically correct, I don't think that addressing the actual cause of the problem is realistic.
Take the following analogy:
You could say that bike thefts are a direct result of the choice of the thief not because some bikes are poorly locked or aren't locked at all, and you would be absolutely correct. But this does not imply that we should ignore the very real solution of making it harder for a bike thief to steal a bike by using a good bike lock.
Similarly, there is a very real solution of locking down the most convenient mass murder tool to make it much harder for the murderer to commit their crime. Does this solve the root cause? No. Is it effective? Well, look at the track record of any other country with a similar culture but restricted access to guns. (Canada, for example is inundated by American television so our cultures are about as different as the differences found between two states).
Sure the root cause would still exist. But when a person attempts a mass murder with a knife because that's all they can get their hands on, the death toll will be much lower, if any at all. If a person attempts a mass murder with a home made bomb, they might just blow themselves up trying to make the thing before getting a chance to use it on anyone. And let's be honest, there's a certain level of knowledge that a person would need to get even that far. Basically, there is no tool that is as good for the job as a gun is for murdering.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse, nothing substantial is being done about the choice of tools being used by many.
There FTFY
Why is it that the article can state things like "the known laws of physics break down" inside a black hole, yet insist that this particular law of physics, the conservation of information, shouldn't also break down and therefore results in a paradox.
Who gets to decide which laws break down and which ones don't?
Why isn't it all or nothing?
Now the feed in is around 50c I think meaning my panels pay about 60% more than if you were to do it after buying a house that doesn't have them already installed.
Actually, having just looked into this myself, I can tell you that the rate as of January 1st, 2015 is 38.4 c/kWh (source).
You're getting an amazing deal compared to current prices, but you also would have had to pay a lot more for your install costs, I imagine. So, it all balances out, I'm guessing.
I imagine that after putting a case on the phone, the screen sticking out will actually be a nice feature.
So clearly there is more involved than thermodynamics.
Not true. But I see where your confusion lies...
It's still energy in vs energy out. What you are assuming is that the "energy in" portion of the equation is a simple matter of just adding up what you eat. And that the "energy out" portion is a simple matter of taking your BMR and adding in how many calories a machine says you burned in whatever exercise you did.
Really what each side of the equation is this:
energy in = [what you eat] - [what your body doesn't actually absorb (which is variable)]
energy out = [BMR (which is also variable)] + [calories burned in exercise (which is again also variable)]
So, for you with your lack of sleep, your body's metabolism dropped and therefore the BMR portion of the equation dropped too leaving you with a surplus of energy in vs your energy out.
I'm sure there were also a ton of other factors in there that moved around the various components of the equation too. But it's still energy in vs energy out.
The guy who reportedly "knows what she looks like", will strike a deal with another woman that he trusts.
They don't need to know exactly where you've driven, just whether or not you've left the state.
In Ontario, Canada, there's a toll highway, the 407, that works by having cameras at every entrance/exit to the highway. Using these, they log where you enter and exit the highway and send you a bill in the mail based on how far you went on the highway.
So, they could put something on every road that leads in and out of the state that could simply communicate with a device in the car that adds up only the miles that were driven in-state. It would stop counting the miles once you drive through an exit, then start again once you drive back into Oregon.
Then they wouldn't need GPS to track each person's actual whereabouts. And the people who love to circumvent the law would have a device to hack.
My personal definition is similar to yours, but with a a couple of additions:
1) Gravitation strong enough to pull it into a nearly round shape, but not strong enough to start fusion
2) Does not orbit another planet
This would include Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake. But it would also include Rouge Panets, which aren't planets according to the official planet definition.
So Bell essentially offers two different services (internet, media streaming service) at a discount and is told to stop because it's not fair (full agreement here).
But how is this any less fair than Rogers (and I'm sure Bell) who is currently offering discounts for customers who sign-up for multiple services including internet, home phone, and cable?
or the rain
This wouldn't work for me. I'd constantly be back and forth on whether I should use "or" or "nor".
Fact 2: The NASA team experienced a similar thrust
[citation needed]
From the NASA article:
Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust.
and
Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.
I don't read this as a "similar thrust" but rather as a non-zero but different thrust. So, yes, there's an error in the experiment causing the non-zero thrust, but there was still enough of a difference between the two experiments to lead them to the conclusion that something is going on.
So, if a bunch of "goop" is effectively gathering around a black hole, wouldn't the gravitational pull of all of that matter eventually add up to increase the gravitational field of the black hole, thereby extending the radius of the event horizon? And wouldn't this then effectively make the goop itself enter the event horizon?
:)
Honestly, if someone could explain this one, I'm really interested to know. Even if it's some logical fallacy of mine
The summary doesn't mention extra terrestrials. Is this because they don't want to jump to conclusions or is it because the nature of the pulses doesn't appear to be organic?
So, if this proposed effect can happen to visible light. Could the idea in this article be an alternative explanation for how gravity effectively "bends light"?
(I'm not a physicist, so sorry if this sounds stupid)
In the past, I've tried to merely restrict calories and eat what the food pyramid recommends... plenty of "healthy whole grains" and limiting fats. I lost a tiny bit of weight and was miserable and hungry
I don't know why people seem surprised that when they restrict calories (more specifically, eating less than they use), they're miserable and hungry. It seems obvious to me that your body would resist a lower calorie diet by sending out the hunger feelings/pains. And being hungry usually makes people irritable, so of course you could be miserable.
I went to the gym every day but was tired and listless mosf of the time.
So there's already a low calorie diet, and you're using up extra calories on top of that (and a lot of extra calories if you're going to the gym every day). Of course you'd feel tired, you're body has to get into a lower energetic state to live off of the seemingly low calorie input/output ratio.
I have a lot of assumptions here that I could be way off on, but it seems to me that you were just over doing the amount of calorie reduction or else you were exercising too much. That or you have an untreated thyroid problem.
I also don't get why people (not you, necessarily) think that you can lose the weight super fast, when it might have taken 10/20 years to gradually put it on. We should expect it to take just as long to take off the weight. Sure, you can speed up the weight loss through various methods, but people should keep things in the perspective of how long it took to put on the weight in the first place.