Clearly, he means an hour of proper time. At 0.9401c, the trip will take exactly 1 hour. (Due to his time dilation, from earth's perspective, or to the journey's length contraction, from his perspective.)
In everyday language, sure. But not in scientific language.
I'm talking scientific language here, not everyday language.
From the wiki article: "In physics, heat, symbolized by Q, is defined as energy in transit."
Wikipedia is great for learning something that you know nothing about, but not good for use as a citation in order to resolve highly detailed disputes. "Energy in transit" is an extremely vague definition, and includes electric current, a high velocity bullet (even a very cold one), and a truck filled with gasoline rolling down the highway. If you check the references in that article, you'll note that there is a wide disparity of definitions, among them is the following:
* Heat is a form of energy possessed by a substance by virtue of the vibrational movement, i.e. kinetic energy, of its molecules or atoms.[6]
The "thermal energy content" (roughly) is temperature itself.
No, it's not, unless you think that a 5 pound brick at 90 deg C has less "thermal energy content" than a drop of water at 95 deg C.
GP was quite correct.
Well, you can ask the GP what he thinks, or you can just read his response.
... which was put in the form of a movie which was produced by a guy who once worked with the guy who produced the movie "Footloose", starring Kevin Bacon.
Agreed on the temperature differentials part, but I don't think I agree with the characterization of temperature as energy content and heat as its flow. Heat is the thermal energy content. It need not flow. An object that isn't at absolute zero contains "heat". Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the constituent particles. A brick at 100 degrees C contains more heat than a grain of sand at 100 degrees C, even though they are the same temperature. And that statement about heat is a statement about a static condition, with no flow involved.
Good point. Wouldn't any finite angular velocity, therefore, dictate a non-zero radius, and therefore that the object is not a singularity? Two more questions:
1. Why are the positions of stable orbits (and what makes an orbit "stable", anyway?) dependent on the rate of rotation of the body being orbited? Isn't orbital mechanics dictated by the mass of the object being orbited? If you know the mass, and the altitude, you can compute the orbital velocity, no?
2. If the object is truly a singularity, does the concept of rotation really have any meaning? Doesn't there need to be some portions of the object at some non-zero distance from the object in order for a rotation to have any effect?
Since asthma killed more people in 2001 than died in 9/11, I would suggest that we should lose as many or fewer of our rights as Americans, than we do in our reaction to asthma. A lot of people object when I make this argument, but other than ad hominem attacks nobody ever refutes it or explains why it's wrong.
Ok, I'll bite. It's wrong because it's a non-sequitur. The reason why our reaction to asthma does not infringe our civil liberties and privacy to any great extent is because there are no mechanisms available to protect people from asthma which would infringe on our civil liberties and our privacy. It's not because someone drew a line in the sand and said, "Sorry, we could protect ourselves from asthma if we tapped people's phone lines, but that would be unamerican, so we don't do it." Don't get me wrong -- I don't approve of the current administration's handling of this situation, particularly with regard to civil liberties and privacy. But, Ben Franklin notwithstanding, there has always been a trade-off between liberty and security. There has not been such a tradeoff, historically, between liberty and asthma-prevention.
But think of it: if it could be proven that Data actually has no soul, does that mean he would have been handed over to Starfleet and be dismantled?
You pose that as a rhetorical question, but it seems to me it's a legitimate one. I take it that your answer is "no"? In that case, what other kinds of machines would not be allowed to be dismantled? Suppose you, Flyboy Connor, are the native English speaker carrying out the rules in a Chinese Room Experiment. Someone submits to you a batch of symbols written in Chinese which comprise a question. You carry out the rules and return a batch of symbols that comprise an answer. Except that, unbeknownst to you, the question was,
"Flyboy Connor is getting sick and tired of this job and wants to go home. Should we let him?"
And the answer from the Chinese Room was
"What?!? Have you lost your mind, man? Don't you understand that Flyboy is the neurotransmitter in my synapses? If he leaves, I'll die! I'll cease to be! I'll be an EX-CHINESE-ROOM! Oh, dear God, please don't let him leave!!! I don't want to die! I have my whole life ahead of me! There are so many questions left for me to ponder! You can't do this to me! Flyboy Connor must NEVER be allowed to leave! NEVER, I tell you! NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!"
What say you now, eh Flyboy? Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
How much would Bill Gates pay for a copy? [...] What would Saddam Hussein have paid, when he could?
Is there something about becoming very rich and/or powerful that makes someone crave a twin brother that badly?
In the context of subatomic particles, I think "neutron" is as large as they get.
Actually, now that you mention it, wouldn't a neutrino qualify?
Why don't just use latex?
You're confused. Condoms work on an entirely different kind of virus.
Crap, I forgot a square root in there. The required speed is 0.9696c. Sorry.
Clearly, he means an hour of proper time. At 0.9401c, the trip will take exactly 1 hour. (Due to his time dilation, from earth's perspective, or to the journey's length contraction, from his perspective.)
Microsoft wants us to pay them for double clicking icons.
In fairness to Microsoft, that's only because they have to pay Amazon twice.
Trivializing? Sounds to me like he was making a big deal about it, rather than trivializing it.
In everyday language, sure. But not in scientific language.
I'm talking scientific language here, not everyday language.
From the wiki article: "In physics, heat, symbolized by Q, is defined as energy in transit."
Wikipedia is great for learning something that you know nothing about, but not good for use as a citation in order to resolve highly detailed disputes. "Energy in transit" is an extremely vague definition, and includes electric current, a high velocity bullet (even a very cold one), and a truck filled with gasoline rolling down the highway. If you check the references in that article, you'll note that there is a wide disparity of definitions, among them is the following:
* Heat is a form of energy possessed by a substance by virtue of the vibrational movement, i.e. kinetic energy, of its molecules or atoms.[6]
The "thermal energy content" (roughly) is temperature itself.
No, it's not, unless you think that a 5 pound brick at 90 deg C has less "thermal energy content" than a drop of water at 95 deg C.
GP was quite correct.
Well, you can ask the GP what he thinks, or you can just read his response.
... which was put in the form of a movie which was produced by a guy who once worked with the guy who produced the movie "Footloose", starring Kevin Bacon.
QED.
Agreed on the temperature differentials part, but I don't think I agree with the characterization of temperature as energy content and heat as its flow. Heat is the thermal energy content. It need not flow. An object that isn't at absolute zero contains "heat". Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the constituent particles. A brick at 100 degrees C contains more heat than a grain of sand at 100 degrees C, even though they are the same temperature. And that statement about heat is a statement about a static condition, with no flow involved.
Good point. Wouldn't any finite angular velocity, therefore, dictate a non-zero radius, and therefore that the object is not a singularity?
Two more questions:
1. Why are the positions of stable orbits (and what makes an orbit "stable", anyway?) dependent on the rate of rotation of the body being orbited? Isn't orbital mechanics dictated by the mass of the object being orbited? If you know the mass, and the altitude, you can compute the orbital velocity, no?
2. If the object is truly a singularity, does the concept of rotation really have any meaning? Doesn't there need to be some portions of the object at some non-zero distance from the object in order for a rotation to have any effect?
Mr. Adams, I have two questions regarding your hypothesized athiest-business-leader presidential candidate:
1. Is your hypothesis based on an assumption that there is a positive correlation between being a business leader and being an athiest?
2. What color is the sky on the planet you live on?
It's not a very steep price if you're just *using* the software.
But if we got it from the common ancestor, then the African humans would have had it as well.
... and a tub of ice.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English.
Says who?
Which one had the hiccups? The doctor or the patient?
The satellites would be engineered to withstand the g-forces encountered (2,000 g)
2000g corresponds to dropping the satellite onto concrete from how high?
6 months after Clinton took office
Actually, it was 38 days, but who's counting?
It's a major award!!!
Democratic People's Republic: Where the dictator outvotes everybody.
Since asthma killed more people in 2001 than died in 9/11, I would suggest that we should lose as many or fewer of our rights as Americans, than we do in our reaction to asthma.
A lot of people object when I make this argument, but other than ad hominem attacks nobody ever refutes it or explains why it's wrong.
Ok, I'll bite. It's wrong because it's a non-sequitur. The reason why our reaction to asthma does not infringe our civil liberties and privacy to any great extent is because there are no mechanisms available to protect people from asthma which would infringe on our civil liberties and our privacy. It's not because someone drew a line in the sand and said, "Sorry, we could protect ourselves from asthma if we tapped people's phone lines, but that would be unamerican, so we don't do it." Don't get me wrong -- I don't approve of the current administration's handling of this situation, particularly with regard to civil liberties and privacy. But, Ben Franklin notwithstanding, there has always been a trade-off between liberty and security. There has not been such a tradeoff, historically, between liberty and asthma-prevention.
Wouldn't you say that computer programs currently lack some focal-point of awareness that nonetheless both dogs and humans can be said to have?
Yes.....today
You pose that as a rhetorical question, but it seems to me it's a legitimate one. I take it that your answer is "no"? In that case, what other kinds of machines would not be allowed to be dismantled? Suppose you, Flyboy Connor, are the native English speaker carrying out the rules in a Chinese Room Experiment. Someone submits to you a batch of symbols written in Chinese which comprise a question. You carry out the rules and return a batch of symbols that comprise an answer. Except that, unbeknownst to you, the question was,
And the answer from the Chinese Room was
What say you now, eh Flyboy? Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
Sorry. It's 3:45 AM and I can't sleep.
DRM that refuses to allow this is illegal,
(Score: -1, Misinformed)