I firmly believe that time does not exist. It is just a creation of the human mind as we are aware of the past, the present and the future.
If we were literally aware of the future, that would be better evidence of time being illusion. But we aren't aware of the future, which means it's different to the past. Time is the thing that makes it different.
But "time" slows down for you (which you do not notice of course) because the particles in your body do not have "time" to interact with each other.
Time dilation occurs because you're moving in a different direction through four dimensional spacetime. It's vaguely analogous to the way that your "forward" is different to the "forward" of someone who is facing in a different direction. If I face North and take two step forwards, but you face North East, take a step, then turn North West and take a step, you'll have the same East-West coordinate but you won't be as far North.
It also occurs regardless of the presence of human observers.
I mean, they are busy going into a particular direction and cannot go into another one as the resulting speed vector would be greater than c.
Greater than c relative to whom? Time dilation still occurs even when particles aren't going anywhere near c relative to any relevant observers.
But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension.
What makes it any less real than any of the others?
Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using?
I've been looking for a way to do exactly this. Thanks, WebRTC!
You may be happy with the exact amount of knowledge you've managed to acquire thus far, but some people actually like finding out about new things. It's why we have "news."
Yet another person who does not know how fingerprint scanners work but feels competent to comment.
Yet another person who assumes that all fingerprint scanners work in exactly the same way. How do you know this system doesn't store a full scan when the print is taken, even if it's not actually used for verification?
I wouldn't be so quick to leap to that conclusion. All I see in the story is that the move has been attacked as "an attack on civil liberties." This probably means the liberty to get your mate to clock on for you when you're going to be ten minutes late.
These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them
Of course you can. By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.
I'm curious as to what makes you think it might be.
Is there something aboard Costa Concordia that we shouldn't know about? (yes, I'm thinking of a certain book)
Uh... the Necronomicon?
What's happening right now is a desecration.
Why? We don't leave mangled wrecks of cars by the side of the road. Wouldn't it be a massive hazard to shipping to leave it where it is and let it get slowly chipped to bits by the sea?
Maybe once the particles that used to be a recognizable object reached the surface they would clump together to form neutrons as in a neutron star, but maybe not.
Definitely not. For a large enough black holes the forces at the event horizon aren't even noticeable. In order to be "pulled apart" an object would have to experience significantly different forces at different points, which doesn't happen at the event horizon - or even beyond it (though again this is only if the black hole is large enough).
Since you can't visualize it, how can I explain it to you? Just put "hypercube" into YouTube, which will show you any number of 2D projections of hypercubes. If you still can't grasp it, well, you can believe one of two things. Firstly, that generations of scientists, mathematicians, and even enthusiastic amateurs like myself have somehow completely deluded themselves, or that you (who I assume is none of those things) are just outside your area of expertise?
Help me out. How do you visualize an object which has length, width, height, and let's call the fourth measurement W. This measurement would have to be in a direction perpendicular to all 3 of the first ones. Sounds like nonsense to me.
It doesn't seem like nonsense to me at all. I'm quite comfortable with the concept, as are thousands-to-millions of other people on this planet. Like I said, have a look at YouTube on hypercubes.
The concept of perpendicularity doesn't even seem to apply in the case of a 3 dimensional object.
Why not? Substitute time as the fourth dimension if you like - it's perpendicular to the other three. A hypercube would be a cube which exists for a fixed amount of time equal to its length in space (the conversion factor is the speed of light). A hypersphere would be a sphere that comes into existence as an infinitessimal point, expands outward to its full width, then contracts to a point again (imagine a circle around the Earth travelling from pole to equator to pole).
The concepts themselves are impossible.
Only because you're limiting yourself to what can exist as a solid object in our universe. Scientists have a much less narrow definition of "things." A geodesic is a "thing" with one dimension. An event horizon is a "thing" with two dimensions. Spacetime is a "thing" with four dimensions.
Anything with only 2 dimensions doesn't exist by definition
I have no reason to accept or even humour the concept of the existence of a God. Show me some evidence and I'll consider changing my mind (though the chances of finding evidence good enough to persuade my puny human brain that "God" is a simpler explanation than "deceitful, powerful, clever but entirely non-supernatural alien entity" are probably quite slim).
Slashdot Mirror
Same guy. That's you told.
In what sense?
I firmly believe that time does not exist. It is just a creation of the human mind as we are aware of the past, the present and the future.
If we were literally aware of the future, that would be better evidence of time being illusion. But we aren't aware of the future, which means it's different to the past. Time is the thing that makes it different.
But "time" slows down for you (which you do not notice of course) because the particles in your body do not have "time" to interact with each other.
Time dilation occurs because you're moving in a different direction through four dimensional spacetime. It's vaguely analogous to the way that your "forward" is different to the "forward" of someone who is facing in a different direction. If I face North and take two step forwards, but you face North East, take a step, then turn North West and take a step, you'll have the same East-West coordinate but you won't be as far North.
It also occurs regardless of the presence of human observers.
I mean, they are busy going into a particular direction and cannot go into another one as the resulting speed vector would be greater than c.
Greater than c relative to whom? Time dilation still occurs even when particles aren't going anywhere near c relative to any relevant observers.
But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension.
What makes it any less real than any of the others?
they believe in things that aren't observable in any way.
And which quite often are in conflict with what we do observe.
Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using?
I've been looking for a way to do exactly this. Thanks, WebRTC!
You may be happy with the exact amount of knowledge you've managed to acquire thus far, but some people actually like finding out about new things. It's why we have "news."
I honestly though this was common knowledge already. Maybe I'm a little slow.
A group of cryptographers
I believe the correct term is a crib.
Because I have done the research and have not found one.
Is that research as in Research, or research as in Googling?
Fingerprint Image data is stored as a raw image (compatible with ISO/IEC 19794-4:2005(E))
Captures an un-distorted raw fingerprint image into PC in 100ms
Just because there is a way something should be done, doesn't mean everyone's going to do it that way.
Yet another person who does not know how fingerprint scanners work but feels competent to comment.
Yet another person who assumes that all fingerprint scanners work in exactly the same way. How do you know this system doesn't store a full scan when the print is taken, even if it's not actually used for verification?
As is my legal right, I opted out
Where is that codified?
You forgot the hairnet.
The issue is about having the fingerprint data.
I wouldn't be so quick to leap to that conclusion. All I see in the story is that the move has been attacked as "an attack on civil liberties." This probably means the liberty to get your mate to clock on for you when you're going to be ten minutes late.
The drone model in question has permits from the FAA to be flown around even.
Must be read in a Jackie Mason voice to be appreciated.
Dwelling in the depths in a dark, moist environment? No pigmentation? Only moves a few centimetres every week?
This has Slashdot written all over it.
No that is completely different, that is a historic piece.
So is this. It's not in the same league as the Wright Flyer - I'd far rather see that - but I'd still find it interesting to see this particular gun.
This gun is not historic or special, the technique is.
And this is the first working gun to be made with this technique.
It's not there to look pretty. It's there because it was the first of its kind. It's in the museum of art and design.
These are 3D printed guns. You cannot just display them
Of course you can. By your argument the Smithsonian shouldn't have the Wright Flyer on display and should be telling people to fuck off to the airport if they want to see planes.
Is this a dress rehearsal for RMS Titanic?
I'm curious as to what makes you think it might be.
Is there something aboard Costa Concordia that we shouldn't know about? (yes, I'm thinking of a certain book)
Uh... the Necronomicon?
What's happening right now is a desecration.
Why? We don't leave mangled wrecks of cars by the side of the road. Wouldn't it be a massive hazard to shipping to leave it where it is and let it get slowly chipped to bits by the sea?
I was fishing with my 4year old today.
What were you hoping to catch?!
I'm merely assuming
Boy, you said it Chewie.
Maybe once the particles that used to be a recognizable object reached the surface they would clump together to form neutrons as in a neutron star, but maybe not.
Definitely not. For a large enough black holes the forces at the event horizon aren't even noticeable. In order to be "pulled apart" an object would have to experience significantly different forces at different points, which doesn't happen at the event horizon - or even beyond it (though again this is only if the black hole is large enough).
Bullshit.
What a truly enquiring mind you have.
If you can visualize it then describe it to me.
Since you can't visualize it, how can I explain it to you? Just put "hypercube" into YouTube, which will show you any number of 2D projections of hypercubes. If you still can't grasp it, well, you can believe one of two things. Firstly, that generations of scientists, mathematicians, and even enthusiastic amateurs like myself have somehow completely deluded themselves, or that you (who I assume is none of those things) are just outside your area of expertise?
Or get your 3D specs - hypercube.
Help me out. How do you visualize an object which has length, width, height, and let's call the fourth measurement W. This measurement would have to be in a direction perpendicular to all 3 of the first ones. Sounds like nonsense to me.
It doesn't seem like nonsense to me at all. I'm quite comfortable with the concept, as are thousands-to-millions of other people on this planet. Like I said, have a look at YouTube on hypercubes.
The concept of perpendicularity doesn't even seem to apply in the case of a 3 dimensional object.
Why not? Substitute time as the fourth dimension if you like - it's perpendicular to the other three. A hypercube would be a cube which exists for a fixed amount of time equal to its length in space (the conversion factor is the speed of light). A hypersphere would be a sphere that comes into existence as an infinitessimal point, expands outward to its full width, then contracts to a point again (imagine a circle around the Earth travelling from pole to equator to pole).
The concepts themselves are impossible.
Only because you're limiting yourself to what can exist as a solid object in our universe. Scientists have a much less narrow definition of "things." A geodesic is a "thing" with one dimension. An event horizon is a "thing" with two dimensions. Spacetime is a "thing" with four dimensions.
Anything with only 2 dimensions doesn't exist by definition
Where is this definition?
I have no reason to accept or even humour the concept of the existence of a God. Show me some evidence and I'll consider changing my mind (though the chances of finding evidence good enough to persuade my puny human brain that "God" is a simpler explanation than "deceitful, powerful, clever but entirely non-supernatural alien entity" are probably quite slim).
Sophie Wilson played a barmaid in a BBC drama about the rivalry between Acorn and Amstrad. Not sure if she actually served himself a drink.
If instead the chair is converted into particles smaller even than electrons
Where'd you get that idea?