The only definite point I got from that article was "sometimes too much choice is bad". I don't think you can really seriously argue with that statement, but on the other hand it'd not all that helpful either.
I have never traveled at the speed of light. Some other people have some theories that include formulas from which certain conclusions can be derived.
Personally, I don't have an atomic clock or a particle accelerator handy to verify these theories, but other people have. And still other people have tested it in other ways. Now, either all these people are involved in a giant conspiracy or the theory matches reality insofar as ability to test it can confirm.
Generally, I try not to invent giant conspiracies to believe in without some kind evidence. However, the existence of trolls and assholes is amply documented.
The Calculus result after you take the limit is physically meaningless, in my opinion
I agree, but isn't the whole discussion physically meaningless? You can't physically travel at the speed of light. But if you could, the time dilation equation tells you that your perceived time is 0. Yes this breaks other equations, but the whole thing is impossible to begin with.
Does this author have a valid point? Probably Is this point, and any relevant discussion, different from the last time this was brought up a few months ago?
If 1 year passed for you, but 1000 years passed for the stationary observer, but for the length of your journey the stationary observer's time seemed to be moving slow from your viewpoint...
After you stop, then you have to wait 1000 years to see what happened to the stationary observer while you were traveling.
Right. You don't notice any time dilation yourself. As far as you can tell your clock is perfectly normal, but the rest of the universe seems to be moving really, really fast
Don't think so. If that were the case, it could be 2,000,000,000 light years, and it would still be instantaneous. It doesn't make any sense. Of course, neither does the ability to travel at light-speed.
As you approach the speed of light, your perception of time changes with respect to a stationary observer. If you could actually achieve the speed of light (you can't) the transit time would be 0, no matter how much distance you had traveled.
Talk about nostalga... I started using this username for pretty much any web site I registered with back in high school. I'd been reading slashdot for a while before I registered this account... So probably middle of '99... Since when did I get old enough that the age of my slashdot account is pushing two digits??
Well, it'll definitely take balls. Generational transport or whatever it's called... there's a name for it.. I'll google for something else instead to make a joke.. here: Turns out it may not take balls after all!
So that would take us 20 years to get there travelling at the speed of light 20 years by the perspective of an observer on earth, instantaneously by the perspective of the traveller.
Or reality as we perceive it is the interaction of particles, rather than the particles themselves? I like the sound of that. Kind of how in math the actual numbers aren't as important as the relationship between them.
I think that "observing" in this context really means certain types of subatomic particle interactions. An atom is "observed" if a photon comes close enough to it for information about the state of the atom is transferred to the photon. (or something like that)
CFS vs SD isn't decided yet. Con is still releasing new versions as the people testing it find new bugs. Not to mention that SD is in the mm- tree and CFS isn't (yet)
I didn't mean that the ISPs are any better; but with government internet service you get roughly the same problems as a commercial provider, with the added benefit of political meddling
Slashdot Mirror
The only definite point I got from that article was "sometimes too much choice is bad". I don't think you can really seriously argue with that statement, but on the other hand it'd not all that helpful either.
I have never traveled at the speed of light. Some other people have some theories that include formulas from which certain conclusions can be derived.
Personally, I don't have an atomic clock or a particle accelerator handy to verify these theories, but other people have. And still other people have tested it in other ways. Now, either all these people are involved in a giant conspiracy or the theory matches reality insofar as ability to test it can confirm.
Generally, I try not to invent giant conspiracies to believe in without some kind evidence. However, the existence of trolls and assholes is amply documented.
No. It counts as religion.
This really needs to be put in a FAQ somewhere.
Does this author have a valid point? Probably
Is this point, and any relevant discussion, different from the last time this was brought up a few months ago?
Probably not.
If 1 year passed for you, but 1000 years passed for the stationary observer, but for the length of your journey the stationary observer's time seemed to be moving slow from your viewpoint...
After you stop, then you have to wait 1000 years to see what happened to the stationary observer while you were traveling.
I think that makes sense?
New, improved post with fixed link!: here
See here and here. When I put v=c into those equations, I get an infinite Lorentz factor.
I started using this username for pretty much any web site I registered with back in high school. I'd been reading slashdot for a while before I registered this account... So probably middle of '99... Since when did I get old enough that the age of my slashdot account is pushing two digits??
I like you. You have balls. I like balls.
You could send them in the third ark, but then who would sanitize our telephones?
Only if the entire universe does it at the same time... hey you in the back - no cheating
I think that "observing" in this context really means certain types of subatomic particle interactions. An atom is "observed" if a photon comes close enough to it for information about the state of the atom is transferred to the photon. (or something like that)
You could make a wrapper script... not exactly user-friendly for most people however. Unless your distro does it for you ahead of time.
CFS vs SD isn't decided yet. Con is still releasing new versions as the people testing it find new bugs. Not to mention that SD is in the mm- tree and CFS isn't (yet)
of the "Most Incomprehensible Headline" Award goes to...
I didn't mean that the ISPs are any better; but with government internet service you get roughly the same problems as a commercial provider, with the added benefit of political meddling
Municipal WiFi is bad after all.