>We have no missions. What is the chance that we get 9 missions coming back alive? (1/2)^9 = 0.001953125 = 0.2%.
This is true if you have a fair coin as in the Gambler's fallacy example. However, I do not believe a rocket can be treated as a fair coin. First of all you have to change the coin for every toss and these coins have to be imperfect. This will totally screw up a simple probability calculation.
In reality, if you go down to the quantum level you can say that the quantum state of each rocket will be totally different and in this way calculating the probability of the 9th mission before the first one will have absolutely no meaning.
What about if spacetime itself has some properies? Eg. tension? At relatively short distances the curvature of spacetime diminishes with r^2. However, as we go further and further from the center of the curvature, spacetime reaches flatness slower and slower. This can explain the galaxy rotation problem and other phenomena which requires dark matter.
This is similar to what MOND tries to achive, but unfotunately MOND does not say anything about spacetime.
Why do physicists insist on treating gravity as a force? Since Einstein, we know gravity is the curvature of space-time. It may be represented as a force in calculations but in reality there is no force.
If gravity is not a force then do we really have a hierarchy problem? For eg. shouldn't Newton's constant, G, be some kind of average curvature of space-time between two bodies and be calculable from this curvature?
Obviously, if this is the case, G has nothing to do with Fermi's constant and we should not compare the two.
I haven't tried this with the latest version by even a version 4.x GCC cannot generate inline code with the 8 bytes version of cmpxchg with 32bit code. Doing this in a function is OK.
I think the problem is that this instruction almost takes up all of the registers and GCC cannot cope with this if you want to do it inline.
There was a short story about this (I can't remember the title). The story was about travelling back to Jesus's time to verify Jesus's existence but the travelers found themselves in space as Earth was elsewhere.
They had to travel ~220 million years back since that's the time the Solar system takes a turn around the galaxy's core and the Earth position would be the same when they started their travel.
Why physicists insist using Einstein's equations as a 'proof' of time travel is beyond me. It is the same as if one used Newton's equations for speeds faster than 0.6 c.
In both cases the results are bogus as these equations were obviously not designed to handle these extreme cases.
Do not forget that these equations try to describe reality and they do this with very great precision, but it does not mean reality itself 'runs' these equations.
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.
Yeah, I know about "time" slows down in a strong gravitational field or if you approach to the speed of light. 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. 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.
If there is no interaction between particles then there is no change in their states and the result will be as if "time" stands still.
The problem is, as you can notice in my explanation, that such words like "change" and "speed" implicate time. But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension. Reality does not execute our equations in order to work.
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.
Yeah, I know about "time" slows down in a strong gravitational field or if you approach to the speed of light. 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. 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.
If there is no interaction between particles then there is no change in their states and the result will be as if "time" stands still.
The problem is, as you can notice in my explanation, that such words like "change" and "speed" implicate time. But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension. Reality does not execute our equations in order to work.
This is FUD and the general response if someone suggest government is evil.
However, those hellholes which you suggest are basically governed. So, they have government because the definition of government 'is an organization exerting centralized control over a community' (from wikipedia). It is an entirely different issue that those governments wages war against each other and if they are recognized by other governments or not.
I don't get it. Why do physicists use GR for FTL? That does not make sense. It is the same as using Newtonian physic for relativistic speeds. GR was not designed for FTL, obviously.
All of the examples of violating causality is based on defining "now" in two different frame of reference. However, this "now" is established using GR while the "signal" (or bullet or whatever) uses FTL. That does not make sense.
If you have FTL you use FTL for everything including determining "now". Of course, you need new physic to do that. However, disproving FTL with GR is pointless using these examples.
Instead, why not use the curvature of space for disproving FTL? Every particle travels through space, even the photon. According to GR space itself also changes with the speed of light. This means space itself cannot react fast enough for an FTL particle. It would be similar as if a ship did not disturb the water as it passes. And that is impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
>We have no missions. What is the chance that we get 9 missions coming back alive? (1/2)^9 = 0.001953125 = 0.2%.
This is true if you have a fair coin as in the Gambler's fallacy example. However, I do not believe a rocket can be treated as a fair coin. First of all you have to change the coin for every toss and these coins have to be imperfect. This will totally screw up a simple probability calculation.
In reality, if you go down to the quantum level you can say that the quantum state of each rocket will be totally different and in this way calculating the probability of the 9th mission before the first one will have absolutely no meaning.
You fell for the Gambler's fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Since the missions are independent of each other the sixth mission can have the same chance (50%) of success than the first one.
Even wikipedia states that the bullet cluster is not exactly a proof for dark matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The proof for dark matter is solely base on gravitational lensing and that is disputed.
What about if spacetime itself has some properies? Eg. tension? At relatively short distances the curvature of spacetime diminishes with r^2. However, as we go further and further from the center of the curvature, spacetime reaches flatness slower and slower. This can explain the galaxy rotation problem and other phenomena which requires dark matter.
This is similar to what MOND tries to achive, but unfotunately MOND does not say anything about spacetime.
by Ludwig von Mises. It's a hard read but worth it.
From wikipedia:
Mises came to be regarded by many as the archetypal 'unscientific' economist.
I think there is no higher praise calling an economist 'unscientific' knowing the questionable practices his 'scientific' colleagues do.
I swear that, by 2100, I will not use any fossil fuels.
The host galaxy is quite far from us. At these distances we can only rely on the red shift which I always thought not to be completely accurate.
So, if that galaxy is a little bit closer to us then there may not be any mystery here.
Please, can we forget the Bullet Cluster as the holy grail for Dark Matter? Even the wikipedia page mentions the alternative interpretations.
Why do physicists insist on treating gravity as a force? Since Einstein, we know gravity is the curvature of space-time. It may be represented as a force in calculations but in reality there is no force.
If gravity is not a force then do we really have a hierarchy problem? For eg. shouldn't Newton's constant, G, be some kind of average curvature of space-time between two bodies and be calculable from this curvature?
Obviously, if this is the case, G has nothing to do with Fermi's constant and we should not compare the two.
Isn't this the same as false vacuum theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
As with any property by selling it you transfer ownership.
So, you can buy it back or if it is not possible you can buy a "new" one.
No, here's why:
http://libertynow.wikia.com/wi...
I haven't tried this with the latest version by even a version 4.x GCC cannot generate inline code with the 8 bytes version of cmpxchg with 32bit code. Doing this in a function is OK.
I think the problem is that this instruction almost takes up all of the registers and GCC cannot cope with this if you want to do it inline.
cmpxchg8b is useful for lock-free code.
Everyone should have total control over his/her body. If you are not at liberty to sell your organs that means you do not have total control.
If you do not have total control that means you are a slave. You are a property of the state.
In short, I totally agree with the article since I am against slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Trap
limited resources divided by more people = people are poorer
More efficient use of resources can somewhat mitigate this process but see Jevos paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
There was a short story about this (I can't remember the title). The story was about travelling back to Jesus's time to verify Jesus's existence but the travelers found themselves in space as Earth was elsewhere.
They had to travel ~220 million years back since that's the time the Solar system takes a turn around the galaxy's core and the Earth position would be the same when they started their travel.
because time is imaginary. It does not exist.
Why physicists insist using Einstein's equations as a 'proof' of time travel is beyond me. It is the same as if one used Newton's equations for speeds faster than 0.6 c.
In both cases the results are bogus as these equations were obviously not designed to handle these extreme cases.
Do not forget that these equations try to describe reality and they do this with very great precision, but it does not mean reality itself 'runs' these equations.
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.
Yeah, I know about "time" slows down in a strong gravitational field or if you approach to the speed of light. 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. 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.
If there is no interaction between particles then there is no change in their states and the result will be as if "time" stands still.
The problem is, as you can notice in my explanation, that such words like "change" and "speed" implicate time. But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension. Reality does not execute our equations in order to work.
By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poison_Belt
Ellop (with double l) means 'to steal' in hungarian.
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.
Yeah, I know about "time" slows down in a strong gravitational field or if you approach to the speed of light. 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. 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.
If there is no interaction between particles then there is no change in their states and the result will be as if "time" stands still.
The problem is, as you can notice in my explanation, that such words like "change" and "speed" implicate time. But that does not mean time is a real physical dimension. Reality does not execute our equations in order to work.
This is FUD and the general response if someone suggest government is evil.
However, those hellholes which you suggest are basically governed. So, they have government because the definition of government 'is an organization exerting centralized control over a community' (from wikipedia). It is an entirely different issue that those governments wages war against each other and if they are recognized by other governments or not.
I once read that if the black hole is big enough tidal forces will be minimal and you can actually cross the event horizon alive.
This theory has some merit as the universe itself is a black hole from a certain point of view.
I don't get it. Why do physicists use GR for FTL? That does not make sense. It is the same as using Newtonian physic for relativistic speeds. GR was not designed for FTL, obviously.
All of the examples of violating causality is based on defining "now" in two different frame of reference. However, this "now" is established using GR while the "signal" (or bullet or whatever) uses FTL. That does not make sense.
If you have FTL you use FTL for everything including determining "now". Of course, you need new physic to do that. However, disproving FTL with GR is pointless using these examples.
Instead, why not use the curvature of space for disproving FTL?
Every particle travels through space, even the photon. According to GR space itself also changes with the speed of light. This means space itself cannot react fast enough for an FTL particle. It would be similar as if a ship did not disturb the water as it passes. And that is impossible.