If you want to make good GPS calculations you need to take low order gravitational effects into account -- terms of the form P.E./c^2. The gravitational terms are actually larger than the vanilla S.R. dialation terms. For 2-m "military" accuracy, these terms are of importance.
I have an argument against his ideas as presented by you.
And if your presentation of his ideas are any indication of their quality, then I don't see why I should feel motivated to read the book. They do not merit my time.
I pointed out how they are wrong, with qualifiers as to what they would need to be corrrect. So if you mispresented, then present again. And if he included the qualifiers then you would want to present those to refute me.
However, I will admit that it is interesting in a Science Fiction kind of way. But it is also crap in a Science kind of way. I personally, do not desire a religion built upon science fiction.
No, it's S(2) moving through a 2D plane, E(2), in a box, E(3).
If you stack together the 2D planes you get a 3D box. If you stack together the points and S(1) circles you get S(2).
In a similar manner, it's S(4) moving through 3D 'space'.
No. It's S(3) moving through a 3D box in E(4).
If you stack togther the 3D boxes you get E(4). If you stack together the points and S(2) spheres you get S(3).
S(n) means the sphere (just the shell and not the insides) of dimension n. It does not refer to the dimension of Euclidean space that the sphere lives in.
E(n) means Euclidean, or flat, space of dimension n. S(n) lives in E(n+1).
S(1) is the 1D circle that lives in the plane, E(2) S(2) is the 2D Earth glove that lives in a box, E(3) s(3) is the 3D hypersphere that lives in E(4)
And If you are going to argue that stacking together lower dimensional projections is not a good visualization then I will have to argue against that too. We don't visualize 3D space in its entirety. We only visualize 2D projections of various Euclidean transformations. Our brain "fakes" 3D. We conceptualize 3D space.
i thought that most of our quantum theories hinged on the idea that the universe was infinite, and the multiple universes can and do interact.
That's a particular interpretation of QM, which nobody believes anymore, if anyone ever did. It has many problems including a lethal allergy to Occam's Razor.
It's just one of those catchy ideas that the public can't get out of their mind, like the tongue having sweet/sour/salty sections - completely false as well.
which is a far cry from your unqualified statement
Actually I am qualified, I passed my qualifiers.
Books I own and have read:
MTW: Gravitation TW: Exploring Black Holes TW: Spacetime Physics Dirac: General Theory of Relativity Pauli: Theory of Relativity Hartle: gravity something... Peebles: Principles of Physical Cosmology Carroll-Ostlie: Modern Astrophysics Lightman et al: problem book in relativity and gravitation
And I am also a bit offended, that in your ignorance, you claim that I am not qualified. Your brain must be spacelike wrt to your mouth.
White holes are science fiction. If you want to pray to a white hole then go join scientology or something. Your ranting is only degrading Christianity.
I can debunk that crack-theory with out even writing down a single equation
White holes violate the second law of thermodynamics. They have never been observed and for them to exist, you would have to rewrite most of physics.
For a white hole to not violate the second law of thermodynamics, you would have to create an entire second universe connected by a wormhole to its corresponding blackhole.
A white hole is a time-reversed black hole, so producing one is just as impossible as destroying a black hole.
A white hole is no more a physically valid solution, than say solving a kinematics equation from Physics-201 and having to factor a quadratic equation; and then, instead of choosing the "correct" positive solution to the quadratic, you choose the negative solution that involves a something being underground or backwards in time.
Surprisingly, the main criticisms for this model come from old earth creationists, and not others.
Similarly, think of us on the 3D surface of a 4D sphere. There is no outside or inside, just the surface. It's hard to imagine in 4D, I'm not sure anyone actually can, but the analogy seems sufficient to understand how it could work.
Any one can visualise the S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.
Follow this train of thought for S(2), the 2D sphere in 3D space, or the Earth.
points in S(2) satisfy X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = R^2
Start at the North pole, a distance R away from the center. You are at a point.
Move down towards the equator. The point transforms into a tiny circle that expands to a circle of R at the equator.
Keep moving south and the circle collapses to a point again at the South pole
Now make the analagous visualization for S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.
points in S(3) satisfy X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 +W^2 = R^2
Start at the North pole, a distance R away from the center. You are at a point
Move down towards the equator. The point transforms into a tiny sphere (the Earth kind) that expands to a sphere of R at the equator.
Keep moving south and the sphere collapses to a point again at the South pole
Just like S(2) is the 2 poles and all the circles in between - which are all combined in your head as a sphere, S(3) is the 2 poles and all the spheres in between, which you can keep in your head like a little movie.
Sound moves through air at 340m/s, but you can move air inside a jetplane at much higher speeds. The same thing could apply to the universe as well
I am afraid that you are applying Gallilean Relativity in the sound example - where you simply add together velocities. You cannot do this in Special/General relativity, because time is not the same parameter in every reference frame.
Specifically, I am pretty sure that even with the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations of gravity, a light ray still has a null momentum vector (speed of light).
I think it all boils down to the fact that no computer created by man will ever be able to calculate all the moves, as the number of permutations are far too large.
The advantage of the computer is that it can see a few more steps into the possible future - the number of steps increasing with technology; and that it executes it's algorithms perfectly. But the advantage of the human is that he has a much more complicated set of algorithms in his head than the programmers have in the computer. The human's algorithms will probably be much better than the computer's for a very long time, especially because humans can learn new algorithms very easily and the best human players aren't programming the computers.
Currently if you set a chess master in front of a computer, he may initially lose, but over time he will develop algorithms that will allow him defeat the computer fairly easily.
I don't think you needed to whistle and I don't think that it couldn't hangup on you.
I was getting many, many telemarketing calls over a short period of time and one of the things that I did was pick up a ringing phone quietly and answer it without making any noise. Some autodialers would sit there and listen for noise of upto an hour. I would put the phone somewhere quiet and go about my daily routine. But a couple of times an autodialer proceeded to make calls all day long, and I let it. I think this is the same thing that happened to you. I didn't whistle any at all. What I think happened is that the autodialer thinks that it is already hung up because it doesn't hear any ringing or dialtone.
The rest of this has nothing to do with your post, but I was also a bit mischevious to the operators (and even got a few cursing at me, and sometimes their managers too). Some times I would let them say their entire 2minute speach while I quietly placed the phone on the bed and walked away. Sometimes I would just go along with their rambling to the very end, and when they tried to get my name/CC/address I would say "no" and they would be like "but we need this information so we can ship you this great product" and I would say "but I don't want it", seeing as they never ask you if you want it or not. And then they would talk about how great it was and ask me again for my money. Sometime I could get them to do this loop 3-4 times before they would give up.
I was always trying to figure out how to waste the most amount of time with them. I picked upup alot of funny stories too.
That's only true for F77. F90/95 has pointers, structures, and all kinds of other things that make it just as slow as C.
The difference in speed between C and Fortran today is due mostly to the highly optimized commercial math libraries that ship with the compilers.
And Fortran is only used in science because of legacy code and old professors. New students learn C or C++ and then learn Fortran on the side when they have to maintain something. Most new projects are written in C/C++.
This is in reply to the other comment too. (I am not sure why your comments were modded down, but then again I don't know anything about cable networking)
I am aware that the cable modem has its own MAC. I am just unsure of what the cable company sees.
Why does it matter what MAC I present to the cable modem? It does very much matter. As of a few weeks ago I had 3 MAC addresses that were completely blacklisted. I had to make up a random MAC address to get a connection. In a few weeks I may very well be on my 5th MAC address.
Now the cable company gave me a variety of responses ranging from "there is no problem with your service, you must have spyware installed on your UNIX box and PS2" all the way to the most believable but still confusing "the DHCP server was down for a few days".
Is it the case that the ISP can see my cable modem and computer MAC, and checks both in some very strange manner?
Or is it the case that the cable network I am on is so confoundingly retarted that all kinds of chaotic phenomena occur and the explanation is just too complicated.
Send any random hostname to the DHCP server and still get an IP
Forge my MAC address to be any random number - which I have to when the DHCP server starts futzing and thinks I am already online
But I really don't know how cable networks work. So my question is, Does my cable ISP know what my IP address is at any given time? This is a theoretical question - I know that they are to incompetent to keep track of that, but just pretend.
Likewise, their PDF reader is the only one with full support.
It is slow as shit
It wants to load inside a webbrowser, like that makes things faster and more stable?
It won't let me print certain files if the author doesn't want me to.
It won't let me read certain files if the author doesn't want me to.
Maybe its not the worst PDF viewer there is, but it is way, way worse than gv and xpdf. Between the two, I have never found a file I couldn't read and print out. I cannot say the same for the big pile of ass that is acrobat. I hate that program 1/10th the amount that I hate realplayer!
This fundamental difference is what makes copyright violation not theft, but a wholly separate crime, and (I believe) subject to entirely separate considerations of morality.
I agree entirely. And I love the thought experiment of what would happen if we had Star Trek replicators and could make copies of material objects like candy bars and sneakers. Should we then have to pay Nike every time we replicate sneakers? Most people say no, but digital information is the exact same scenario!
you lose nothing except a sale -- assuming that they would have purchased it anyway
If someone copies your album, you gain exposure.
You are making a dangerous argument here. This loss is NOT zero.
There is revenue lost: the number of thefts * the probability of a purchase in the absence of theft
There is revenue gained: exposure from theft * probability of a purchase in the presence of exposure
You are arguing that the revenue gained is greater than the revenue lost, but we don't know what these probabilities are! You can argue that in addition to lost money there is gained money and that it could be the case that the remainder is positive, but you cannot say for sure.
make more money when you go see them in concert than when you buy their album
This is not always true. There have been many, many cases of tours losing money. Sometimes it is because the tour was promotional - to raise awareness of the band and of the latest album. Othertimes it has been because of mismanagement. And there have been a few cases of artists simply making extravagent productions for their fans with no goal of turning profit.
"What do you mean 'lose money in some markets'? We generally lose money in all markets." [Larry talks about the cost of U2 tours]
The problem with your argument (a very common one that I hear often) is that you forcing a change upon the artist while saying that this change will be generally beneficial to all artists. A much better argument would be to say that artists can still make plenty of money in this new system, but some artists will have to completely change the way they operate or they will lose money rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
nope, I am afraid that you are wrong.
If you want to make good GPS calculations you need to take low order gravitational effects into account -- terms of the form P.E./c^2. The gravitational terms are actually larger than the vanilla S.R. dialation terms. For 2-m "military" accuracy, these terms are of importance.
Same thing here.
I am an old person, and Linkin Park is one of the few newer bands that I like. "Faint" is incredible.
I have an argument against his ideas as presented by you.
And if your presentation of his ideas are any indication of their quality, then I don't see why I should feel motivated to read the book. They do not merit my time.
I pointed out how they are wrong, with qualifiers as to what they would need to be corrrect. So if you mispresented, then present again. And if he included the qualifiers then you would want to present those to refute me.
However, I will admit that it is interesting in a Science Fiction kind of way. But it is also crap in a Science kind of way. I personally, do not desire a religion built upon science fiction.
Nope, it's S(3) moving through 2D 'space'.
No, it's S(2) moving through a 2D plane, E(2), in a box, E(3).
If you stack together the 2D planes you get a 3D box. If you stack together the points and S(1) circles you get S(2).
In a similar manner, it's S(4) moving through 3D 'space'.
No. It's S(3) moving through a 3D box in E(4).
If you stack togther the 3D boxes you get E(4). If you stack together the points and S(2) spheres you get S(3).
S(n) means the sphere (just the shell and not the insides) of dimension n. It does not refer to the dimension of Euclidean space that the sphere lives in.
E(n) means Euclidean, or flat, space of dimension n. S(n) lives in E(n+1).
S(1) is the 1D circle that lives in the plane, E(2)
S(2) is the 2D Earth glove that lives in a box, E(3)
s(3) is the 3D hypersphere that lives in E(4)
And If you are going to argue that stacking together lower dimensional projections is not a good visualization then I will have to argue against that too. We don't visualize 3D space in its entirety. We only visualize 2D projections of various Euclidean transformations. Our brain "fakes" 3D. We conceptualize 3D space.
i thought that most of our quantum theories hinged on the idea that the universe was infinite, and the multiple universes can and do interact.
That's a particular interpretation of QM, which nobody believes anymore, if anyone ever did. It has many problems including a lethal allergy to Occam's Razor.
It's just one of those catchy ideas that the public can't get out of their mind, like the tongue having sweet/sour/salty sections - completely false as well.
which is a far cry from your unqualified statement
Actually I am qualified, I passed my qualifiers.
Books I own and have read:
MTW: Gravitation
TW: Exploring Black Holes
TW: Spacetime Physics
Dirac: General Theory of Relativity
Pauli: Theory of Relativity
Hartle: gravity something...
Peebles: Principles of Physical Cosmology
Carroll-Ostlie: Modern Astrophysics
Lightman et al: problem book in relativity and gravitation
And I am also a bit offended, that in your ignorance, you claim that I am not qualified. Your brain must be spacelike wrt to your mouth.
White holes are science fiction. If you want to pray to a white hole then go join scientology or something. Your ranting is only degrading Christianity.
I can debunk that crack-theory with out even writing down a single equation
White holes violate the second law of thermodynamics. They have never been observed and for them to exist, you would have to rewrite most of physics.
For a white hole to not violate the second law of thermodynamics, you would have to create an entire second universe connected by a wormhole to its corresponding blackhole.
A white hole is a time-reversed black hole, so producing one is just as impossible as destroying a black hole.
A white hole is no more a physically valid solution, than say solving a kinematics equation from Physics-201 and having to factor a quadratic equation; and then, instead of choosing the "correct" positive solution to the quadratic, you choose the negative solution that involves a something being underground or backwards in time.
Surprisingly, the main criticisms for this model come from old earth creationists, and not others.
That's only because it's so bad.
Any one can visualise the S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.
Follow this train of thought for S(2), the 2D sphere in 3D space, or the Earth.
points in S(2) satisfy X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = R^2
Now make the analagous visualization for S(3), the 3D sphere in 4D space.
points in S(3) satisfy X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 +W^2 = R^2
Just like S(2) is the 2 poles and all the circles in between - which are all combined in your head as a sphere, S(3) is the 2 poles and all the spheres in between, which you can keep in your head like a little movie.
Sound moves through air at 340m/s, but you can move air inside a jetplane at much higher speeds.
The same thing could apply to the universe as well
I am afraid that you are applying Gallilean Relativity in the sound example - where you simply add together velocities. You cannot do this in Special/General relativity, because time is not the same parameter in every reference frame.
Specifically, I am pretty sure that even with the cosmological constant in Einstein's equations of gravity, a light ray still has a null momentum vector (speed of light).
I think it all boils down to the fact that no computer created by man will ever be able to calculate all the moves, as the number of permutations are far too large.
The advantage of the computer is that it can see a few more steps into the possible future - the number of steps increasing with technology; and that it executes it's algorithms perfectly. But the advantage of the human is that he has a much more complicated set of algorithms in his head than the programmers have in the computer. The human's algorithms will probably be much better than the computer's for a very long time, especially because humans can learn new algorithms very easily and the best human players aren't programming the computers.
Currently if you set a chess master in front of a computer, he may initially lose, but over time he will develop algorithms that will allow him defeat the computer fairly easily.
The point being, AI just isn't good enough yet.
I don't think you needed to whistle and I don't think that it couldn't hangup on you.
I was getting many, many telemarketing calls over a short period of time and one of the things that I did was pick up a ringing phone quietly and answer it without making any noise. Some autodialers would sit there and listen for noise of upto an hour. I would put the phone somewhere quiet and go about my daily routine. But a couple of times an autodialer proceeded to make calls all day long, and I let it. I think this is the same thing that happened to you. I didn't whistle any at all. What I think happened is that the autodialer thinks that it is already hung up because it doesn't hear any ringing or dialtone.
The rest of this has nothing to do with your post, but I was also a bit mischevious to the operators (and even got a few cursing at me, and sometimes their managers too). Some times I would let them say their entire 2minute speach while I quietly placed the phone on the bed and walked away. Sometimes I would just go along with their rambling to the very end, and when they tried to get my name/CC/address I would say "no" and they would be like "but we need this information so we can ship you this great product" and I would say "but I don't want it", seeing as they never ask you if you want it or not. And then they would talk about how great it was and ask me again for my money. Sometime I could get them to do this loop 3-4 times before they would give up.
I was always trying to figure out how to waste the most amount of time with them. I picked upup alot of funny stories too.
That's only true for F77. F90/95 has pointers, structures, and all kinds of other things that make it just as slow as C.
The difference in speed between C and Fortran today is due mostly to the highly optimized commercial math libraries that ship with the compilers.
And Fortran is only used in science because of legacy code and old professors. New students learn C or C++ and then learn Fortran on the side when they have to maintain something. Most new projects are written in C/C++.
because i cat'ed it first to make sure it looked ok
then i went up one in my history and appended the grep part
Normally I would agree with you
but I hate CORBA
and its not just because I am dyslexic and CORBA is hard as fuck to read and write instead of COBRA
Python is not GPL
"Python is absolutely free, even for commercial use (including resale)"
http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html
This is in reply to the other comment too. (I am not sure why your comments were modded down, but then again I don't know anything about cable networking)
I am aware that the cable modem has its own MAC. I am just unsure of what the cable company sees.
Why does it matter what MAC I present to the cable modem? It does very much matter. As of a few weeks ago I had 3 MAC addresses that were completely blacklisted. I had to make up a random MAC address to get a connection. In a few weeks I may very well be on my 5th MAC address.
Now the cable company gave me a variety of responses ranging from "there is no problem with your service, you must have spyware installed on your UNIX box and PS2" all the way to the most believable but still confusing "the DHCP server was down for a few days".
Is it the case that the ISP can see my cable modem and computer MAC, and checks both in some very strange manner?
Or is it the case that the cable network I am on is so confoundingly retarted that all kinds of chaotic phenomena occur and the explanation is just too complicated.
But I really don't know how cable networks work. So my question is, Does my cable ISP know what my IP address is at any given time? This is a theoretical question - I know that they are to incompetent to keep track of that, but just pretend.
I loved the point he made about what if Physics, etc were developed based on proprietary interests. zinnnnnnnnnnnnng!
then the transistor would get invented
and we could all afford personal computers that are smaller than a room
no, wait
that's crazy talk
I had heard that it was so ignorantly written that it rendered it's own fonts and widgets.
Maybe its not the worst PDF viewer there is, but it is way, way worse than gv and xpdf. Between the two, I have never found a file I couldn't read and print out. I cannot say the same for the big pile of ass that is acrobat. I hate that program 1/10th the amount that I hate realplayer!
that phrase still makes cents though
"stable" for linux is wrt the development and not the user
"stable" kernels are not supposed to see any major feature/api changes within their lifetime
surely you must know that as you seem to know what you are talking about
This fundamental difference is what makes copyright violation not theft, but a wholly separate crime, and (I believe) subject to entirely separate considerations of morality.
I agree entirely. And I love the thought experiment of what would happen if we had Star Trek replicators and could make copies of material objects like candy bars and sneakers. Should we then have to pay Nike every time we replicate sneakers? Most people say no, but digital information is the exact same scenario!
you lose nothing except a sale -- assuming that they would have purchased it anyway
If someone copies your album, you gain exposure.
You are making a dangerous argument here. This loss is NOT zero.
There is revenue lost: the number of thefts * the probability of a purchase in the absence of theft
There is revenue gained: exposure from theft * probability of a purchase in the presence of exposure
You are arguing that the revenue gained is greater than the revenue lost, but we don't know what these probabilities are! You can argue that in addition to lost money there is gained money and that it could be the case that the remainder is positive, but you cannot say for sure.
make more money when you go see them in concert than when you buy their album
This is not always true. There have been many, many cases of tours losing money. Sometimes it is because the tour was promotional - to raise awareness of the band and of the latest album. Othertimes it has been because of mismanagement. And there have been a few cases of artists simply making extravagent productions for their fans with no goal of turning profit.
"What do you mean 'lose money in some markets'? We generally lose money in all markets."
[Larry talks about the cost of U2 tours]
The problem with your argument (a very common one that I hear often) is that you forcing a change upon the artist while saying that this change will be generally beneficial to all artists. A much better argument would be to say that artists can still make plenty of money in this new system, but some artists will have to completely change the way they operate or they will lose money rapidly.
They provide the Win32 API for OS/2, the code is still i386. So this is a completely different animal. WINE and CygWin fall into the same boat.