Aww, I said NOT to tell them no one would buy their app!;)
Yes, I thought it rather ironic that the site was down even as I was about to point it out as an example of an at least semi-usable Java desktop app. When I looked at it some time ago, it was pretty decent, but it's no match for Quicken in terms of features. Frankly though, if there's a speed difference between the two I didn't see it.
Newtonian mechanics says the clock disappeared 8 minutes ago. Special relativity says the clock was 8 minutes slow in the earth frame of reference.
You're missing the simple fact that the Earth and Sun observers are in the same frame of reference, because they are not moving with respect to one another. Well, Earth is orbiting Sun, but two observers who are motionless with respect to one another but are eight light minutes apart would see the same effect.
There is no frame of reference where you can say "it actually..." because there is no frame of reference that is more correct than any other. Measurement of time and space is relative to the observer.
Yes, I can say something "actually" happened at a specific time and place in a particular frame of reference. In another frame of reference, the time and place as well as the distance and elapsed time between two events will be different. You're still missing the point that unless Earth is moving toward or away from the Sun at a considerable velocity, the observers in each place are in the same frame of reference and in that frame of reference the Sun disappears eight minutes before the observer at Earth sees it.
Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference for the measurement of time. It will be different for different people based on location and velocity relative to the event.
No, only relative velocity will affect the measurement of time. Distance only affects how long after an event happens that you actually see it.
In fact, special relativity states that if an observer is able to move faster than light, they will see the earth leave its orbital path before the sun disappeared. And that observation as well would be 100% correct.
Well, actually the equations work out to give elapsed time values that are negative imaginary numbers, which is one of the reasons we assume an object with real rest mass cannot exceed the speed of light. But that's neither here nor there.
Proove it with experimental evidence. Give me hard evidence that the light I'm seeing from the sun left the sun eight minutes ago.
Simple. The sun is roughly 150 million km away from Earth. Light travels at 300,000 km/s. Thus, light you see now left the Sun 500 seconds ago, or 8 minutes 20 seconds. In your frame of reference, of course. And also from the Sun's frame of reference, since the relative motion of the two bodies is negligible compared to c. Why exactly is this a poit of contention?
It's obvious from your posts that you know little about what special relativity says. Why don't you try reading a little about the classic barn and pole scenario before you try responding again.
I've already read it many times. It has no bearing on the simple scenario of two observers at rest relative to one another turning a light off. The two observers share the same inertial frame of reference, and the proper time at which the light is turned off is the same for both of them. One just doesn't see it until a bit later due to light traveling at finite speed. But both of them will agree on the time of the event. Only an observer in motion relative to these two will witness any relativistic effects, and will disagree with them on whether various events are simultaneous.
The First Amendment isn't there to give you the right to be obnoxious, it's there to ensure you have the right to express your views without fear of government censure. If your intepretation were correct, noise ordnances would be unconstitutional.
People forget the lesson of the man who died on the cross to preserve the American way of life.
Oh, silly me. I thought you were serious until I read this part. Still, there are people who do think the First Amendment gives them a legal right to be annoying bastards, so I'll post this reply anyway, even though IHBT.
"Interestingly, an observer on Earth will see the Sun's clock saying 12:00. They will realize that the Sun has really been gone for eight minutes."
Can he prove it? No. Until the "sun's gone" signal reaches Earth, for all intents and purposes it is still there.
At 12:08 on Earth, the "sun's gone" signal has reached Earth, along with the "it's 12:00" signal from the Sun. The Earthbound observer now knows the Sun is gone, and knowing the speed of light he can figure out that the Sun disappeared eight minutes ago. This doesn't require any knowledge of relativity - even in Newtonian mechanics this would happen.
"When the Sun's clock reads 12:08, this observer knows that Earth is moving out of orbit - but he won't see it happen until the light from Earth comes back."
"Knowing" has nothing to do with it. His knowledge of special relativity allows him to predict what will eventually happen (which is the point of studying physics), but as far as the sun-based observer is concerned, it hasn't happened yet.
No, it has ACTUALLY happened in his frame of reference, he just hasn't SEEN it yet. Look at it this way, he just watched the Sun wink out eight minutes ago. Knowing the travel time of light, he can deduce that Earthbound observers are just now seeing the Sun disappear. Again, he doesn't need to know anything about relativity to determine this, it would work the same way in Newtonian mechanics.
Eight minutes from now, he will begin to see the effect of the Sun's disappearance on Earth. That does not mean that it took sixteen minutes for anything to happen - it took eight minutes to happen, and eight more minutes for him to see it happen. Again, this is the simple result of light having a finite speed; it isn't a relativistic effect. The Sun and Earth based observers have the same frame of reference and can agree on when and where events occurred.
I know the sun will rise in my time zone in about six hours. Does that mean it's already happened?
No. But, when you first see the Sun peek over the horizon, the light you're seeing left the Sun eight minutes before. The fact that you aren't seeing it until now doesn't mean it didn't happen until now.
"Where relativity comes into play is if we have a moving observer going at, let's say 0.5c. When this observer looks at the clocks on Earth and Sun, they will not be synchronized EVEN AFTER he corrects for the travel time of the light."
His clock is fine. It's the rest of us that are moving at 0.5 c, and ours are the clocks that are moving slow. And there's no way you can proove that one observation is "more correct" than the other, because Einstein tells us that both observations are equally valid.
Right. The point is, clocks which are synchronized in the Sun/Earth frame of reference are NOT synchronized in his frame of reference. When he watches the Sun wink out, in his frame of reference the Sun clock really reads 12:00 and the Earth clock really reads a later time - 12:00 on Earth is truly in the Past for the moving observer even though 12:00 on the Sun is Now.
Another point to make is that if both Earth and Sun ceased to exist at 12:00, the moving observer would see their disappearance at different times, compute the light travel time for the distance to both objects, and determine that they really did vanish at different times - the Earth slighty before the Sun. The observer on Earth would see Earth vanish, see the Sun vanish eight minutes later, and calculate that they both vanished precisely at 12:00. They would both be correct, for their own frame of reference.
I meant there's obviously no FTL information transfer made possible by the apparent FTL motion of Neptune, not that FTL information transfer is obviously impossible in general. Sorry if that was unclear.
However, one thing is known: if two events happen which are separated further in space than the light-travel time between them, observers in different inertial frames of reference will disagree on which event happened first. If FTL information transfer is possible, then one of the events can affect the other, so from certain frames of reference the effect will precede the cause. This makes physicists uncomfortable; of couse, that doesn't mean it can't happen.
I hope someone as at least keeping a watchful eye on peanut populations. It would sure suck to save bananas from extinction, but still wind up unable to make PB&B sandwiches.
Note that neither of those two examples can be used to transmit information faster than light. In the scissors example, information must start at the handles of the scissors where the force is being applied. The force closing the scissors propagates no faster than the speed of sound in the material, however at the very end of the closing process the point at which the blades meet can indeed exceed c. The distance over which this happens is only a fraction of the total length of the scissors, and no information can be sent with the point from where it begins moving faster than c to the tips of the scissors.
The same is true in the spotlight example. With a powerful enough laser pointer, you could wiggle a spot across the moon that would move faster than light. There's no way two people on the moon could use this "spot" to communicate FTL.
A similar example would be marquee lights at a theater. With precise enough timing of the bulbs going on/off, you could make the chasing effect go FTL. The marquee would have to be hella big for anyone to see it work though.
Another fun example: Neptune is approximately 4.5 billion kilometers away. Thus, in a 24-hour day it appears to traverse a circular path about 28 billion km in circumference. Light can only travel about 26 billion km in 24 hours. Needless to say, other stars are going far, far faster - more than 25 light-years / day for the nearest stars.
Of course, a rotating frame of reference is not covered under Special Relativity, so this isn't a violation. And obviously there's no FTL information transfer possible.
Things with MASS cannot move faster than light, per Einstein. Information has no mass, therefore your logic is incorrect.
To be precise, things with either mass or energy cannot move faster than light. Things with mass (rest mass, to be more precise) must move slower than light; things with zero rest mass must move exactly the speed of light.
Actually, according to relativity information can't move faster than light either. There are some situations (admittedly a bit contrived) where FTL information transfer can violate causality. Now, that doesn't prove anything - relativity could be just a bit wrong to where those situations really don't create a causality violation. Or it may be possible that causality is not inviolable. Neither of those options appears to be true at this juncture, so it's probably safe to say that our best information currently indicates information cannot travel faster than light - and if this is the case, gravity cannot travel faster than light either.
Like I said, that isn't proof, it's just a statement that if gravity does travel faster than light, something else we think is true, ien't. Then again, we knew that much before the experiment was done.
This is the same feeling you get when you turn a corner in your car. Your body wants to keep moving in the same direction it was (straight) but now the car is going off on the other street, in a completely different direction!
Have you ever watched a helium balloon in a car (I knew there was a reason we had a kid)? It drifts to the INSIDE of the turn, because the air is heavier and "wants" to go to the outside of the turn more.
Same thing should happen in a centrifuge - the balloon would go towards the axis, thus completing the illusion of gravity for the occupants of the centrifuge. Assuming, of course, that the centrifuge is an enclosed cabin on a stick like NASA uses to train astronauts. It wouldn't work on the centrifuge ride at the fair because the air isn't spinning with you.
That really has nothing to do with relativity. Let's say there are two huge clocks, synchronized perfectly, on on the Sun and one on the Earth. I'll also pretend they're exactly eight light-minutes apart. At midnight on both clocks, the Sun disappears (but its clock stays around). Both clocks will show 12:08 when Earth first realizes the Sun is gone and moves into space. Interestingly, an observer on Earth will see the Sun's clock saying 12:00. They will realize that the Sun has really been gone for eight minutes. An observer at the Sun sees his clock reading 12:00 when the Sun disappears, and Earth's clock reads 11:52. When the Sun's clock reads 12:08, this observer knows that Earth is moving out of orbit - but he won't see it happen until the light from Earth comes back. Sun's clock will be 12:16, and he'll see Earth's clock reading 12:08. How this all looks to the stationary observer in the middle is left as an exercise for the reader.
Where relativity comes into play is if we have a moving observer going at, let's say 0.5c. When this observer looks at the clocks on Earth and Sun, they will not be synchronized EVEN AFTER he corrects for the travel time of the light. For example, at the moment of the Sun's destruction, the Sun's clock will read 12:00 in his frame of reference. At this exact time, as measured by the traveller, Earth's clock will already be past 12:00. The traveller will actually see a time later than the 11:52 you would expect him to see, and from that he can calculate what time it "is" on Earth.
Eight minutes later by Earth/Sun time, the traveller is halfway between. The Sun's clock will read somewhat less than 12:04 and Earth's clock will read somewhat more than 12:04. Knowing that he is four light-minutes from each, he can figure out that the Sun's clock actually reads a bit earlier than 12:08, and earth's clock a bit past 12:08. The difference between the two clocks, from his perspective, will be the same. Both clocks appear to him to be running at the same speed, slightly slower than his own. Knowing the speed of light, he will figure out that slightly less than eight minutes elapsed on our clocks between the disappearance of the Sun and the Earth leaving orbit. If he stops at Earth, though, he will disagree with us about the time our clock showed when the Sun vanished. Well, actually if he can travel half the speed of light, he should know relativity and be able to figure out how it looked from our frame of reference as well.
If the traveller had a clock, as soon as the Sun winked out we'd see his and the Sun's clocks at 12:00. Four minutes later at 12:12 our time, we'd see him halfway between us and Sun, the Sun clock would read 12:04 and his clock would read LESS THAN 12:08. We'd realize that his clock was running slower than ours and the Sun's.
The thing is, relativistic time dilation is NOT just an illusion caused by waiting for light to come from somewhere. It is absolutely real. Two things that seem simultaneous to me will not be simultaneous to you if you're moving quickly relative to me. It's really hard to wrap your head around what it all means. In fact, I may very well have screwed something up in the explanations - I just hope the concept came across.
Cool FAQ. I guess it was pretty stupid of me to believe something I read in a Microsoft help file, huh?
The number 11982 looks familiar to me. That may be the one that really pissed me off one night, and I wrote the number down to try again later, but then lost the number and never went back to it. At least, I hope it was, because that's the only hand that ever stumped me. It's nice to think that maybe it wasn't my fault.;)
Sorry, those are hardly motivating reasons to accept DRM. Look at the pros you listed:
Quake V, big deal. I've played QIII, and while it was fun, I can easily live without it if no one else is playing it.
The HyperWeb. It'll probably be so full of Flash animated advertising that it's useless anyway.
3D porno. No thanks, as bad as most of the porn on the 'Net is, I sure don't want it coming out of the screen at me.
Now look what the hypothetical old non-DRM machine still can do:
WordPerfect 5.1. That's fine, it was a hell of a lot more productive than WordXZ will be.
Eninem MP3s. Well, not for me. I'll still be listening to all my old stuff from the '80s.
1.4GHz. That's hella fast, and since I can't use all the new whiz-bang software anyway, why would I need to upgrade? There are people being productive today on old 12MHz AT machines and worse.
Yeah, you can't hit a mine on the first move. Think about it - if the field was initialized before you clicked, and folks lost on the first move, they'd all be complaining that it happened too often - just like the original poster complaining about solitaire.
I'm pretty sure I've won solitaire twice in a row before. I'm also pretty sure it isn't rigged. Of course, I really prefer Freecell, which you can always find a way to win.
Your desire to be paid for your work does not entitle you to violate our Constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, your pathetic tirade makes me think you don't have much in the way of compelling content to offer. I'm sure nothing you've produced is worth downloading for free, much less paying for.
Makes you wonder if possibly this is the scenario: The RIAA did employ Gobbles and required an NDA. Gobbles realized that a contract to perform illegal activity is non-binding and thus the NDA is unenforceable. So, Gobbles goes public, thus allowing the open-source community to fix the vulnerabilities, and exposing the RIAA as a bunch of jerks. The sweet thing is there isn't much the RIAA can do about it.
If this or something similar is what happened, I'd expect the RIAA to deny involvement.
As hybrid vehicles go, the Gas/Electric hybrids like Toyota's Prius are cool. They also feel like you're driving a cardboard box.
I've driven a Prius, and I've driven a cardboard box. I might have only been 8 when I drove a cardboard box, but I still think I'd remember it enough to have noticed if the Prius was in any way similar.
With Mandrake, you can use 'urpmi' to upgrade your system over the net. For example, if you want to upgrade your 9.0 system to Cooker (the 9.1 development version), just add it to your urpmi configuration with urpmi.addmedia --distrib Cooker ftp://somemirror.com/path/to/Mandrake-devel/cooker/i586/
Then, do urpmi --media Cooker --auto-select and you're done. Well, almost done. Urpmi won't update the kernel automatically, you'll need to do an 'urpmi kernel' to get the new kernel installed.
Has anyone ever tried returning a bag of Lay's chips, mostly (or completely) eaten, claiming that they were not satisfied? It would be interesting to see what kind of hoops they make you jump through to get your refund.
I understand that Catholic faith dictates that priests should be forgiven once they complete the sacrament of confession; however they should be made to answer to civil authorities. Just because they have made peace with their God, church, and faith, doesn't mean that they are free from criminal prosecution.
This is exactly true, and the official teaching of the Church is that the Sacrament of Reconciliation grants forgiveness of sins. It does not grant immunity from the consequences of the sins.
That said, if a priest (or anyone else) confesses a heinous crime within the Sacrament, the priest hearing the confession may not reveal the confession to anyone. They may, however, strongly suggest that the perpetrator turn himself in to the authorities. In fact, I suppose they could make that part of the penance, and the penitent would be obligated to do so in order to receive absolution.
The sinner-priest confidence of Reconciliation was never an issue in the scandal, though. These were all cases where the Church knew of the wrongdoing through other means, and took it upon itself to cover up the incidents.
In the same sense, a preacher should be made to answer to civil authorities if he knowingly commits fraud (as in the case of a great many "born-again," bible-thumping, hellfire & brimstone, tent preachers & TBN).
Agreed. The First Amendment is intended to keep religion out of government, not to provide a legal defense for charlatans. There's no way a reasonable person could interpret "shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" to mean "shall let anyone who claims himself to be a holy man do whatever he wants".
Slashdot Mirror
Aww, I said NOT to tell them no one would buy their app! ;)
Yes, I thought it rather ironic that the site was down even as I was about to point it out as an example of an at least semi-usable Java desktop app. When I looked at it some time ago, it was pretty decent, but it's no match for Quicken in terms of features. Frankly though, if there's a speed difference between the two I didn't see it.
I'm not the one who said that. Perhaps you should have replied to the post which I was quoting.
Newtonian mechanics says the clock disappeared 8 minutes ago. Special relativity says the clock was 8 minutes slow in the earth frame of reference.
You're missing the simple fact that the Earth and Sun observers are in the same frame of reference, because they are not moving with respect to one another. Well, Earth is orbiting Sun, but two observers who are motionless with respect to one another but are eight light minutes apart would see the same effect.
There is no frame of reference where you can say "it actually..." because there is no frame of reference that is more correct than any other. Measurement of time and space is relative to the observer.
Yes, I can say something "actually" happened at a specific time and place in a particular frame of reference. In another frame of reference, the time and place as well as the distance and elapsed time between two events will be different. You're still missing the point that unless Earth is moving toward or away from the Sun at a considerable velocity, the observers in each place are in the same frame of reference and in that frame of reference the Sun disappears eight minutes before the observer at Earth sees it.
Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference for the measurement of time. It will be different for different people based on location and velocity relative to the event.
No, only relative velocity will affect the measurement of time. Distance only affects how long after an event happens that you actually see it.
In fact, special relativity states that if an observer is able to move faster than light, they will see the earth leave its orbital path before the sun disappeared. And that observation as well would be 100% correct.
Well, actually the equations work out to give elapsed time values that are negative imaginary numbers, which is one of the reasons we assume an object with real rest mass cannot exceed the speed of light. But that's neither here nor there.
Proove it with experimental evidence. Give me hard evidence that the light I'm seeing from the sun left the sun eight minutes ago.
Simple. The sun is roughly 150 million km away from Earth. Light travels at 300,000 km/s. Thus, light you see now left the Sun 500 seconds ago, or 8 minutes 20 seconds. In your frame of reference, of course. And also from the Sun's frame of reference, since the relative motion of the two bodies is negligible compared to c. Why exactly is this a poit of contention?
It's obvious from your posts that you know little about what special relativity says. Why don't you try reading a little about the classic barn and pole scenario before you try responding again.
I've already read it many times. It has no bearing on the simple scenario of two observers at rest relative to one another turning a light off. The two observers share the same inertial frame of reference, and the proper time at which the light is turned off is the same for both of them. One just doesn't see it until a bit later due to light traveling at finite speed. But both of them will agree on the time of the event. Only an observer in motion relative to these two will witness any relativistic effects, and will disagree with them on whether various events are simultaneous.
They're fine for the server, but no end user in their right mind would purchase a desktop app written in Java.
Shh... don't tell the MoneyDance people!
The First Amendment isn't there to give you the right to be obnoxious, it's there to ensure you have the right to express your views without fear of government censure. If your intepretation were correct, noise ordnances would be unconstitutional.
People forget the lesson of the man who died on the cross to preserve the American way of life.
Oh, silly me. I thought you were serious until I read this part. Still, there are people who do think the First Amendment gives them a legal right to be annoying bastards, so I'll post this reply anyway, even though IHBT.
"Interestingly, an observer on Earth will see the Sun's clock saying 12:00. They will realize that the Sun has really been gone for eight minutes."
Can he prove it? No. Until the "sun's gone" signal reaches Earth, for all intents and purposes it is still there.
At 12:08 on Earth, the "sun's gone" signal has reached Earth, along with the "it's 12:00" signal from the Sun. The Earthbound observer now knows the Sun is gone, and knowing the speed of light he can figure out that the Sun disappeared eight minutes ago. This doesn't require any knowledge of relativity - even in Newtonian mechanics this would happen.
"When the Sun's clock reads 12:08, this observer knows that Earth is moving out of orbit - but he won't see it happen until the light from Earth comes back."
"Knowing" has nothing to do with it. His knowledge of special relativity allows him to predict what will eventually happen (which is the point of studying physics), but as far as the sun-based observer is concerned, it hasn't happened yet.
No, it has ACTUALLY happened in his frame of reference, he just hasn't SEEN it yet. Look at it this way, he just watched the Sun wink out eight minutes ago. Knowing the travel time of light, he can deduce that Earthbound observers are just now seeing the Sun disappear. Again, he doesn't need to know anything about relativity to determine this, it would work the same way in Newtonian mechanics.
Eight minutes from now, he will begin to see the effect of the Sun's disappearance on Earth. That does not mean that it took sixteen minutes for anything to happen - it took eight minutes to happen, and eight more minutes for him to see it happen. Again, this is the simple result of light having a finite speed; it isn't a relativistic effect. The Sun and Earth based observers have the same frame of reference and can agree on when and where events occurred.
I know the sun will rise in my time zone in about six hours. Does that mean it's already happened?
No. But, when you first see the Sun peek over the horizon, the light you're seeing left the Sun eight minutes before. The fact that you aren't seeing it until now doesn't mean it didn't happen until now.
"Where relativity comes into play is if we have a moving observer going at, let's say 0.5c. When this observer looks at the clocks on Earth and Sun, they will not be synchronized EVEN AFTER he corrects for the travel time of the light."
His clock is fine. It's the rest of us that are moving at 0.5 c, and ours are the clocks that are moving slow. And there's no way you can proove that one observation is "more correct" than the other, because Einstein tells us that both observations are equally valid.
Right. The point is, clocks which are synchronized in the Sun/Earth frame of reference are NOT synchronized in his frame of reference. When he watches the Sun wink out, in his frame of reference the Sun clock really reads 12:00 and the Earth clock really reads a later time - 12:00 on Earth is truly in the Past for the moving observer even though 12:00 on the Sun is Now.
Another point to make is that if both Earth and Sun ceased to exist at 12:00, the moving observer would see their disappearance at different times, compute the light travel time for the distance to both objects, and determine that they really did vanish at different times - the Earth slighty before the Sun. The observer on Earth would see Earth vanish, see the Sun vanish eight minutes later, and calculate that they both vanished precisely at 12:00. They would both be correct, for their own frame of reference.
I meant there's obviously no FTL information transfer made possible by the apparent FTL motion of Neptune, not that FTL information transfer is obviously impossible in general. Sorry if that was unclear.
However, one thing is known: if two events happen which are separated further in space than the light-travel time between them, observers in different inertial frames of reference will disagree on which event happened first. If FTL information transfer is possible, then one of the events can affect the other, so from certain frames of reference the effect will precede the cause. This makes physicists uncomfortable; of couse, that doesn't mean it can't happen.
That's fine as long as you know how many rods to the hogshead your car gets!
I hope someone as at least keeping a watchful eye on peanut populations. It would sure suck to save bananas from extinction, but still wind up unable to make PB&B sandwiches.
Note that neither of those two examples can be used to transmit information faster than light. In the scissors example, information must start at the handles of the scissors where the force is being applied. The force closing the scissors propagates no faster than the speed of sound in the material, however at the very end of the closing process the point at which the blades meet can indeed exceed c. The distance over which this happens is only a fraction of the total length of the scissors, and no information can be sent with the point from where it begins moving faster than c to the tips of the scissors.
The same is true in the spotlight example. With a powerful enough laser pointer, you could wiggle a spot across the moon that would move faster than light. There's no way two people on the moon could use this "spot" to communicate FTL.
A similar example would be marquee lights at a theater. With precise enough timing of the bulbs going on/off, you could make the chasing effect go FTL. The marquee would have to be hella big for anyone to see it work though.
Another fun example: Neptune is approximately 4.5 billion kilometers away. Thus, in a 24-hour day it appears to traverse a circular path about 28 billion km in circumference. Light can only travel about 26 billion km in 24 hours. Needless to say, other stars are going far, far faster - more than 25 light-years / day for the nearest stars.
Of course, a rotating frame of reference is not covered under Special Relativity, so this isn't a violation. And obviously there's no FTL information transfer possible.
Things with MASS cannot move faster than light, per Einstein. Information has no mass, therefore your logic is incorrect.
To be precise, things with either mass or energy cannot move faster than light. Things with mass (rest mass, to be more precise) must move slower than light; things with zero rest mass must move exactly the speed of light.
Actually, according to relativity information can't move faster than light either. There are some situations (admittedly a bit contrived) where FTL information transfer can violate causality. Now, that doesn't prove anything - relativity could be just a bit wrong to where those situations really don't create a causality violation. Or it may be possible that causality is not inviolable. Neither of those options appears to be true at this juncture, so it's probably safe to say that our best information currently indicates information cannot travel faster than light - and if this is the case, gravity cannot travel faster than light either.
Like I said, that isn't proof, it's just a statement that if gravity does travel faster than light, something else we think is true, ien't. Then again, we knew that much before the experiment was done.
This is the same feeling you get when you turn a corner in your car. Your body wants to keep moving in the same direction it was (straight) but now the car is going off on the other street, in a completely different direction!
Have you ever watched a helium balloon in a car (I knew there was a reason we had a kid)? It drifts to the INSIDE of the turn, because the air is heavier and "wants" to go to the outside of the turn more.
Same thing should happen in a centrifuge - the balloon would go towards the axis, thus completing the illusion of gravity for the occupants of the centrifuge. Assuming, of course, that the centrifuge is an enclosed cabin on a stick like NASA uses to train astronauts. It wouldn't work on the centrifuge ride at the fair because the air isn't spinning with you.
That really has nothing to do with relativity. Let's say there are two huge clocks, synchronized perfectly, on on the Sun and one on the Earth. I'll also pretend they're exactly eight light-minutes apart. At midnight on both clocks, the Sun disappears (but its clock stays around). Both clocks will show 12:08 when Earth first realizes the Sun is gone and moves into space. Interestingly, an observer on Earth will see the Sun's clock saying 12:00. They will realize that the Sun has really been gone for eight minutes. An observer at the Sun sees his clock reading 12:00 when the Sun disappears, and Earth's clock reads 11:52. When the Sun's clock reads 12:08, this observer knows that Earth is moving out of orbit - but he won't see it happen until the light from Earth comes back. Sun's clock will be 12:16, and he'll see Earth's clock reading 12:08. How this all looks to the stationary observer in the middle is left as an exercise for the reader.
Where relativity comes into play is if we have a moving observer going at, let's say 0.5c. When this observer looks at the clocks on Earth and Sun, they will not be synchronized EVEN AFTER he corrects for the travel time of the light. For example, at the moment of the Sun's destruction, the Sun's clock will read 12:00 in his frame of reference. At this exact time, as measured by the traveller, Earth's clock will already be past 12:00. The traveller will actually see a time later than the 11:52 you would expect him to see, and from that he can calculate what time it "is" on Earth.
Eight minutes later by Earth/Sun time, the traveller is halfway between. The Sun's clock will read somewhat less than 12:04 and Earth's clock will read somewhat more than 12:04. Knowing that he is four light-minutes from each, he can figure out that the Sun's clock actually reads a bit earlier than 12:08, and earth's clock a bit past 12:08. The difference between the two clocks, from his perspective, will be the same. Both clocks appear to him to be running at the same speed, slightly slower than his own. Knowing the speed of light, he will figure out that slightly less than eight minutes elapsed on our clocks between the disappearance of the Sun and the Earth leaving orbit. If he stops at Earth, though, he will disagree with us about the time our clock showed when the Sun vanished. Well, actually if he can travel half the speed of light, he should know relativity and be able to figure out how it looked from our frame of reference as well.
If the traveller had a clock, as soon as the Sun winked out we'd see his and the Sun's clocks at 12:00. Four minutes later at 12:12 our time, we'd see him halfway between us and Sun, the Sun clock would read 12:04 and his clock would read LESS THAN 12:08. We'd realize that his clock was running slower than ours and the Sun's.
The thing is, relativistic time dilation is NOT just an illusion caused by waiting for light to come from somewhere. It is absolutely real. Two things that seem simultaneous to me will not be simultaneous to you if you're moving quickly relative to me. It's really hard to wrap your head around what it all means. In fact, I may very well have screwed something up in the explanations - I just hope the concept came across.
Cool FAQ. I guess it was pretty stupid of me to believe something I read in a Microsoft help file, huh?
;)
The number 11982 looks familiar to me. That may be the one that really pissed me off one night, and I wrote the number down to try again later, but then lost the number and never went back to it. At least, I hope it was, because that's the only hand that ever stumped me. It's nice to think that maybe it wasn't my fault.
Now look what the hypothetical old non-DRM machine still can do:
Just look at freecell, you can choose which hand to play. They actually know the number of unplayable deals in freecell by using mathematics.
The help on Freecell (on this Win2K box at work) still says:
It is believed (although not proven) that every game is winnable.
Has someone found and proven an unwinnable hand?
Yeah, you can't hit a mine on the first move. Think about it - if the field was initialized before you clicked, and folks lost on the first move, they'd all be complaining that it happened too often - just like the original poster complaining about solitaire.
I'm pretty sure I've won solitaire twice in a row before. I'm also pretty sure it isn't rigged. Of course, I really prefer Freecell, which you can always find a way to win.
Hey, it's my old pal Stinky Wizzleteats! Happy Happy Joy Joy!
Your desire to be paid for your work does not entitle you to violate our Constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, your pathetic tirade makes me think you don't have much in the way of compelling content to offer. I'm sure nothing you've produced is worth downloading for free, much less paying for.
Makes you wonder if possibly this is the scenario: The RIAA did employ Gobbles and required an NDA. Gobbles realized that a contract to perform illegal activity is non-binding and thus the NDA is unenforceable. So, Gobbles goes public, thus allowing the open-source community to fix the vulnerabilities, and exposing the RIAA as a bunch of jerks. The sweet thing is there isn't much the RIAA can do about it.
If this or something similar is what happened, I'd expect the RIAA to deny involvement.
No, Gobbles was the retarded turkey that Timmy befriended on one of the Thanksgiving episodes of South Park.
As hybrid vehicles go, the Gas/Electric hybrids like Toyota's Prius are cool. They also feel like you're driving a cardboard box.
I've driven a Prius, and I've driven a cardboard box. I might have only been 8 when I drove a cardboard box, but I still think I'd remember it enough to have noticed if the Prius was in any way similar.
With Mandrake, you can use 'urpmi' to upgrade your system over the net. For example, if you want to upgrade your 9.0 system to Cooker (the 9.1 development version), just add it to your urpmi configuration withr /i586/
urpmi.addmedia --distrib Cooker ftp://somemirror.com/path/to/Mandrake-devel/cooke
Then, do
urpmi --media Cooker --auto-select
and you're done. Well, almost done. Urpmi won't update the kernel automatically, you'll need to do an 'urpmi kernel' to get the new kernel installed.
Has anyone ever tried returning a bag of Lay's chips, mostly (or completely) eaten, claiming that they were not satisfied? It would be interesting to see what kind of hoops they make you jump through to get your refund.
I understand that Catholic faith dictates that priests should be forgiven once they complete the sacrament of confession; however they should be made to answer to civil authorities. Just because they have made peace with their God, church, and faith, doesn't mean that they are free from criminal prosecution.
This is exactly true, and the official teaching of the Church is that the Sacrament of Reconciliation grants forgiveness of sins. It does not grant immunity from the consequences of the sins.
That said, if a priest (or anyone else) confesses a heinous crime within the Sacrament, the priest hearing the confession may not reveal the confession to anyone. They may, however, strongly suggest that the perpetrator turn himself in to the authorities. In fact, I suppose they could make that part of the penance, and the penitent would be obligated to do so in order to receive absolution.
The sinner-priest confidence of Reconciliation was never an issue in the scandal, though. These were all cases where the Church knew of the wrongdoing through other means, and took it upon itself to cover up the incidents.
In the same sense, a preacher should be made to answer to civil authorities if he knowingly commits fraud (as in the case of a great many "born-again," bible-thumping, hellfire & brimstone, tent preachers & TBN).
Agreed. The First Amendment is intended to keep religion out of government, not to provide a legal defense for charlatans. There's no way a reasonable person could interpret "shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" to mean "shall let anyone who claims himself to be a holy man do whatever he wants".