OK, I've now seen from other comments that they didn't actually plagiarize, but just didn't release their own parts, as required by the GPL. Sorry for the confusion.
The only of those companies I've ever bought something from are Microsoft (but that was in the last millennium) and Sony (but there are enough other reasons not to buy again from them anyway). OK, for Intel I cannot completely exclude the possibility that some chip inside my computer is from them, but definitively not the processor or graphics.
Which was exactly my point. Aether was "disproven" using the Michelson-Morey experiments, and it has become sort of a poster-child for stupid scientific theories, but what the aether said, in essence, was that empty space had a structure. This was opposed by various other people (Newton) that thought space was simply empty. Einstein's inspiration, Ernst Mach, though that space was a real thing.
Wrong on so many counts.
First, Aether is not the poster child for stupid theories, it's a poster child for theories which were quickly superseded by better theories. Stupid are only those who can't accept that fact.
Second, Aether, in the standard meaning, was not the claim that empty space has a structure, but it was the claim that space was filled with a substance. In the sentence you quoted he uses a nonstandard definition of aether, and he explicitly warns about it in the sentence before, and explicitly speaks against the original aether concept afterwards.
Note that the modern use of the word "aether" matches the original one. And that's true for both sides, the ones who still want to keep it (usually pointing out that Lorentz's aether theory is phenomenologically equivalent to special relativity) and the ones who consider it obsolete (basically invoking Occams razor, because you cannot measure the absolute frame of reference).
Yes, space is a real physical thing, no argument about that (well, not from me, and I think not from the majority of physicists). But that's simply not what is meant if one speaks about aether.
No, normal software doesn't unlock hardware, it utilizes it. You don't get e.g. more L3 cache by downloading Photoshop. And yes, in theory you could write your own version of Photoshop. It's just very much work. However I can't write software which increases my L3 cache.
If they sell CPUs which actually perform less or have faulty units then you cannot fix that with a software upgrade. To reliably allow upgrading, they must cripple perfectly functional chips.
It was the summary of his address on ether and relativity. Check it out on project gutenberg under ssidelights on relativity.
OK, I already thought that this quote was taken out of context. Here's the complete paragraph:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
So he basically uses ether not in the conventional way (and explicitly warns about it), but in a more general way, where the physical qualities of space itself take the role of the ether. The key expression in the first sentence is: "in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether." However, the conventional definition of ether is that it is something in space, which rests in some preferred frame of reference. Einstein explicitly speaks against this concept.
Without the sentence before it, the sentence you quoted acquires a completely different meaning, which Einstein never intended.
It was Einstein who said "According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
When and where did he say that? And in which context?
After suspending to disk, there's nothing using energy (apart from circuits for wake on lan etc. which are also powered if your computer is "off"). You can even remove any source of power (then the energy consumption obviously is exactly zero).
I still think that a terrestrial space elevator is a decade out, but this year has convinced me that it is coming much faster than a lot of people think.
If we actually return to the moon, might a space elevator be more practical there? Could we do that now?
It's more inspiring. Launch loops wold be just another launch technology. Space elevators are something completely different. If you read the term, in your mind the idea forms that you go into space with the same ease as you go to the upper floors of a high building. A launch loop doesn't provoke that image.
Same thing that's on the light side. And if you don't believe that, just wait two weeks and the part of the Moon that's dark will become light. That's what the phases of the Moon are.
But currently the dark side of the moon is equal with the far side (because we have full moon). And therefore in two weeks we won't see the light side of the moon, because it will still be the far side of the moon.
"Dark matter" always seemed like nonsense to me, regardless of if this explains it or not! You can't simply add more (magically non-light-interactive) mass to the universe to balance your equations, make up a name for it, and expect me to take that seriously!
You mean like Pauli added a magically almost-not-interacting ultra-light particle to beta decay to save energy conservation? Well, those particles are called neutrinos, and in the mean time have indeed been detected. Yet at the time you would probably have explained how stupid it is to postulate a particle which can cross the earth without even noticing it just to save energy conservation law instead of just accepting that this law doesn't hold exactly.
There's a big difference between dark matter and god. Dark matter cannot explain arbitrary phenomena. You can put it in your equations and see how it behaves, and then you can compare it with your actual observations. And currently, dark matter explains quite a lot of explanations; certainly more than you have free parameters. Also note that dark matter is not unlike things we know; basically it contains neutrino-like particles, only with more mass.
Dark energy, however, is a different thing. It has highly unusual properties, and AFAICT it's introduced to explain exactly one observation: The accelerating expansion. And frankly, I'm not convinced that this isn't simply the result of a systematic error in determining cosmic distances. Of course, not being an astrophysicist and not knowing in detail the calculations which enter those distance determinations, I can't tell whether this suspicion is correct or completely unfounded.
Moreover his claim that he would not change gravitational theory with his idea is wrong: According to general relativity, gravitation is caused, exclusively, by energy and momentum (it's the energy-momentum tensor which enters the Einstein equation). While we've never observed how antimatter behaves in the gravitational field, we know quite well how its energy and momentum behave. They behave like energy and momentum of ordinary particles. So if antimatter would behave differently from matter, general relativity would have to be modified to account for that. Energy and momentum would no longer be sufficient to explain the gravitational field.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I've now seen from other comments that they didn't actually plagiarize, but just didn't release their own parts, as required by the GPL. Sorry for the confusion.
The ironing.
I hope it's at least done with a steam iron. :-)
Of course those people didn't just copy. They plagiarized.
Well, I'm usually not that in a hurry. And BTW, there are few people I would call in the night anyway. :-)
The only of those companies I've ever bought something from are Microsoft (but that was in the last millennium) and Sony (but there are enough other reasons not to buy again from them anyway). OK, for Intel I cannot completely exclude the possibility that some chip inside my computer is from them, but definitively not the processor or graphics.
Wrong on so many counts.
First, Aether is not the poster child for stupid theories, it's a poster child for theories which were quickly superseded by better theories. Stupid are only those who can't accept that fact.
Second, Aether, in the standard meaning, was not the claim that empty space has a structure, but it was the claim that space was filled with a substance. In the sentence you quoted he uses a nonstandard definition of aether, and he explicitly warns about it in the sentence before, and explicitly speaks against the original aether concept afterwards.
Note that the modern use of the word "aether" matches the original one. And that's true for both sides, the ones who still want to keep it (usually pointing out that Lorentz's aether theory is phenomenologically equivalent to special relativity) and the ones who consider it obsolete (basically invoking Occams razor, because you cannot measure the absolute frame of reference).
Yes, space is a real physical thing, no argument about that (well, not from me, and I think not from the majority of physicists). But that's simply not what is meant if one speaks about aether.
No, normal software doesn't unlock hardware, it utilizes it. You don't get e.g. more L3 cache by downloading Photoshop.
And yes, in theory you could write your own version of Photoshop. It's just very much work. However I can't write software which increases my L3 cache.
If they sell CPUs which actually perform less or have faulty units then you cannot fix that with a software upgrade. To reliably allow upgrading, they must cripple perfectly functional chips.
So how is a software upgrade going to fix those broken units? An upgrade will only be possible if they have downgraded it further than necessary.
It was the summary of his address on ether and relativity. Check it out on project gutenberg under ssidelights on relativity.
OK, I already thought that this quote was taken out of context. Here's the complete paragraph:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
So he basically uses ether not in the conventional way (and explicitly warns about it), but in a more general way, where the physical qualities of space itself take the role of the ether. The key expression in the first sentence is: "in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether." However, the conventional definition of ether is that it is something in space, which rests in some preferred frame of reference. Einstein explicitly speaks against this concept.
Without the sentence before it, the sentence you quoted acquires a completely different meaning, which Einstein never intended.
Probably confusing the dark side of the moon with the far side of the moon.
Actually to be consistent, it should read:
Matter is an illusion. Dark matter doubly so.
And quantum mechanics says we're immersed in an all pervasive sea of virtual particles.
Actually all it says is that the expectation value of the square of the field strength is non-zero in vacuum. The rest is interpretation.
It was Einstein who said "According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
When and where did he say that? And in which context?
Can you give any citation for this?
Why waste energy with a running phone when you don't use it anyway?
On-call?
Huh? If you've used the silent switch at night, you're effectively not on-call.
Why waste energy with a running phone when you don't use it anyway?
After suspending to disk, there's nothing using energy (apart from circuits for wake on lan etc. which are also powered if your computer is "off"). You can even remove any source of power (then the energy consumption obviously is exactly zero).
What's wrong with suspend to disk?
I still think that a terrestrial space elevator is a decade out, but this year has convinced me that it is coming much faster than a lot of people think.
If we actually return to the moon, might a space elevator be more practical there? Could we do that now?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
It's more inspiring. Launch loops wold be just another launch technology. Space elevators are something completely different. If you read the term, in your mind the idea forms that you go into space with the same ease as you go to the upper floors of a high building. A launch loop doesn't provoke that image.
Same thing that's on the light side. And if you don't believe that, just wait two weeks and the part of the Moon that's dark will become light. That's what the phases of the Moon are.
But currently the dark side of the moon is equal with the far side (because we have full moon). And therefore in two weeks we won't see the light side of the moon, because it will still be the far side of the moon.
"Dark matter" always seemed like nonsense to me, regardless of if this explains it or not!
You can't simply add more (magically non-light-interactive) mass to the universe to balance your equations, make up a name for it, and expect me to take that seriously!
You mean like Pauli added a magically almost-not-interacting ultra-light particle to beta decay to save energy conservation? Well, those particles are called neutrinos, and in the mean time have indeed been detected. Yet at the time you would probably have explained how stupid it is to postulate a particle which can cross the earth without even noticing it just to save energy conservation law instead of just accepting that this law doesn't hold exactly.
There's a big difference between dark matter and god. Dark matter cannot explain arbitrary phenomena. You can put it in your equations and see how it behaves, and then you can compare it with your actual observations. And currently, dark matter explains quite a lot of explanations; certainly more than you have free parameters. Also note that dark matter is not unlike things we know; basically it contains neutrino-like particles, only with more mass.
Dark energy, however, is a different thing. It has highly unusual properties, and AFAICT it's introduced to explain exactly one observation: The accelerating expansion. And frankly, I'm not convinced that this isn't simply the result of a systematic error in determining cosmic distances. Of course, not being an astrophysicist and not knowing in detail the calculations which enter those distance determinations, I can't tell whether this suspicion is correct or completely unfounded.
Moreover his claim that he would not change gravitational theory with his idea is wrong: According to general relativity, gravitation is caused, exclusively, by energy and momentum (it's the energy-momentum tensor which enters the Einstein equation). While we've never observed how antimatter behaves in the gravitational field, we know quite well how its energy and momentum behave. They behave like energy and momentum of ordinary particles. So if antimatter would behave differently from matter, general relativity would have to be modified to account for that. Energy and momentum would no longer be sufficient to explain the gravitational field.