All you did was set a value v for velocity and divide the "speed of time" by it. Since the speed of time is constant, you reported (dt/dt)/v = 1/v = 1 s/m. But that is just the number of seconds each meter of travel takes at your given speed of v = 1 m/s.
But 1 m/s is just the number of meters each second of travel takes at the speed of 1/v = 1 s/m!
I think that any explanation of physics involving speed of time either started out as nonsense (the equations were nonsense), or it was translated to English incorrectly and does not convey the intended meaning.
Can you disprove the existence of your computer? (Hint: there's physics in there)
Two more questions: 1. You're an idiot? 2. If movement can only take place through space, why is it that when I return to the same spot in space (x,y,z) I don't run into myself, that is, the me that was there a moment ago?
By the article's argument (using the same shady calculus):
dx/dt = v and dt/dt = 1. But if dx/dt = v, dt/dx = 1/v. It stands to reason that if I move along at 1 m/s, with each step, I move through time at 1 s/m. Aha! Movement through time! Also, dx/dx = 1, does this mean I can't move through space?
What's this we've found?! Space and time behave in the same way? Unpossible! Maybe we move through *both*? Maybe?
Also, I'd be interested in what the author's view on the speed of light (if there really is such a thing!) and *experimental* evidence for relativity. This is important, because if the author is right, we've done GPS all wrong! We're correcting those clocks for nothing! Not to mention, we've got particle physics all wrong, because we shouldn't be seeing any muons round these parts (and I could swear I detected one the other day).
My guess: the author likes to get angry notes from physicists and doesn't believe himself.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Not all the pranks were terribly "technical," but I think quite a few were "clever," including the whole concept of going out there for prefrosh weekend when access, blending in, and frosh stealing are easiest.
Come on, giving away free shirts to their prefrosh that say MIT on one side (when handed the shirts, wrapped in plastic, they looked like normal MIT shirts) and "...because not everybody can go to Caltech" (which is true) on the other! That's awesome. And clever. The shirts have been made before (we've had the same shirt made by individuals around Caltech for quite some time, and I think MIT at one point sold the opposite shirt in their store), but the execution and timing were quite clever.
If the only Caltech prank worth talking about (which I assume it must be since two separate people felt the need to put the whole story on here) was 35 years ago, that's sad.
I don't believe you. I really don't. MIT has done great hacks. Caltech has done some great pranks, several of which were on national television or caused a nationwide media event. Maybe some of MIT's did too. You can learn about where to find more info in a bunch of these posts.
Do you really assume that? Really? Are you really so blinded by love for your school that you sacrifice curiosity, restraint, and objectivity?
People who know little about both MIT and Caltech pranks remember a few huge pranks that they heard about on TV or read about in popular books. They don't keep track of when they were. Come on. Don't assume like that. You just make yourself look bad. Please. You can do better. Please. For the children.
The calculation was meant to be more "order of magnitude" than precise. The calculation and explanation are not, I believe, significantly affected by substituting 1500 in for 2500.
Also, I won't dispute with you that Caltech isn't for everyone. It's a unique place, and if one isn't prepared to work really hard, despite his/her smarts, then one shouldn't go to Caltech. The social environment is not what most are used to, though, to some, very cool. Caltech may have a repuation of being a bit harder/weirder than MIT, but I'm not sure this is true, though it wouldn't surprise me. See my previous post (Re: Aargh) for exploration of this issue.
I've tried hard in these posts to explain my reasoning, and even point out where I'm lacking data (as in the above post). I'm disappointed by your comment:
In terms of percentages perhaps that says a lot about which school is viewed as more desirable in the eyes of incoming freshmen.
It's useless (in terms of conveying useful information) and misleading! First of all, the qualifier "perhaps" makes the statement weak and almost manifestly true. You don't provide any information on what the precentages might say, if indeed they say anything. The percentages COULD indicate many things. But do they ACTUALLY indicate anything? "Dear reader, assume what you will."
Perhaps the percentages indicate that noxious fumes from the Charles River leave prefrosh in a state of euphoria-induced poor judgement, though I doubt it. Your comment provides little guidance. You can do better.
This/. story, and the Caltech prank, are not about MIT vs. Caltech in a "who is better than who" way. They're about having fun and taking pride in the things we have in common.
These schools are composed of individuals. We don't need to fight for our school's names as if we're fighting for our own. Sure we have an interest in the "value" of our degrees, but which school is slightly better (if that even has an agreeable well-defined meaning) doesn't matter. Personally, I try not to tie my self-respect to anything or anyone but myself. Again, they're all fine houses.
Actually, the Caltech rose bowl stunt was done back in the 60s, which is actually many decades before the MIT hack referred to above. This has already been noted in other comments. Good research porcupine8.
Caltech sees us as rivals, but we just don't care about them one way or the other.
First of all, if someone explained it to you at MIT, then clearly someone at MIT cares at least a little. Also, your post makes it sound like you yourself actually care, at least a little. Either way, I think I can explain this "rivalry", in part.
First, I don't think we see MIT as a rival in a "we win you lose" sort of way. But let's assume that we do in a "we want the best frosh we can get and a lot of people are considering both schools" sort of way.
A typical Caltech freshman class has about 215 students. MIT's have on the order of 1,000. This means that the schools admit around 500 and 2500 students, respectively. MIT, then, has at LEAST 2000 students in it's prefrosh pool that don't even have Caltech as an option (in a given year), so that even if Caltech took all of the students that are chosing between Caltech and MIT (I don't know the number, but probably more than half of total Caltech admits applied and were admitted to MIT), MIT would have at LEAST about 4/5 of its prefrosh pool in tact. If, on the other hand, Caltech lost all of the students deciding between the two, it's pool of prefrosh would decrease by 1/2.
Such a "rivalry," then, is understandably more important to Caltech than MIT, due to Caltech's small size (which, by the way contributes to lots of its awesomeness).
Regarding a pranking rivalry, I don't think one has really existed in the past at either school. But wouldn't it be cool if there was one? Lots of cool stuff might happen. That was kind of the point of Caltech's work this weekend. We're suggesting a pranking rivalry, in good spirit. Looking at the response, it looks like MIT might agree, but let's keep it in good spirit. Pranking/hacking should be fun for the pranker and the prankee. If you give a good joke, you should be able to take a good joke.
Prankers/Hackers at Caltech and MIT have a lot in common, and should have more interaction. Anyone up for an ice cream social? I'll provide music and a laser light show (much better than the one that was projected on to the green building... there will be more preparation).
I don't think people who know both schools think one is particularly better than the other in any consistent manner. (Though there are way more MIT alums than Caltech alums... including graduate students, Caltech has about 20,000 living alums, while MIT probably cranks out that many every 5-10 years or so.)
My perception from the INFORMED public (in part from talking to both MIT and Caltech prefrosh, and my own experience at Caltech) is that Caltech is seen as a little more hardcore in the amount of work one has to do and in its nerdiness. To quote some MIT prefrosh I talked to just a few days ago (while posing as an MIT prefrosh on the bus from the airport.. yay free ride!), responding to why she isn't going to Caltech's prefrosh weekend next week, "I didn't even apply. I want to be alive in 4 years." Another one informed me that "Caltech students have the reputation of being the epitome of nerdiness."
I'm not convinced that this repuation describes the truth, though. From my own observations, the student populations seem very similar, though MIT's larger population perhaps makes it easier for it to pass as less nerdy to those who want to see it that way. On the other hand, prefrosh interested in hacking and nerdy delights will no doubt see a paradise ignored by those who want normal social lives but top notch science or engineering education. Caltech may have the same proportion of on-the-surface-normal kids as MIT, but their absolute smaller numbers make it more difficult for them to present a unified front, as if there's a population threshold a group must pass to be easily noticed.
Students at both schools seem to think they're getting the best science/engineering educations available in the world, and they probably are. Many also regret that fact because of the pain and sleepless nights such an education can lead to.
More questions? Do some research for yourself, in both Caltech and MIT tradition: http://www.google.com/
Dude, it was really fun. Definitely worth the plane flight. Also, the weather turned out to be pretty warm. Today was warm enough for shorts, t-shirts, and frisbee tossing. We'll be back in sunny CA soon enough, though, don't you worry!
texbot provides real information and insight regarding the DARPA grand challenge (past and future) based on real experience. Score: 1.
Darth_MALL says
"Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!"...more so if anyone finishes [cnn.com]
"I can't get the right trajectory on these PANTS!" - The wino outside my office window
Score: 5, Funny
Do these scores mean anything? This is really sad...
Slashdot Mirror
By the article's argument (using the same shady calculus):
dx/dt = v and dt/dt = 1. But if dx/dt = v, dt/dx = 1/v. It stands to reason that if I move along at 1 m/s, with each step, I move through time at 1 s/m. Aha! Movement through time! Also, dx/dx = 1, does this mean I can't move through space?
What's this we've found?! Space and time behave in the same way? Unpossible! Maybe we move through *both*? Maybe?
Also, I'd be interested in what the author's view on the speed of light (if there really is such a thing!) and *experimental* evidence for relativity. This is important, because if the author is right, we've done GPS all wrong! We're correcting those clocks for nothing! Not to mention, we've got particle physics all wrong, because we shouldn't be seeing any muons round these parts (and I could swear I detected one the other day).
My guess: the author likes to get angry notes from physicists and doesn't believe himself.
When not pulling pranks or studying, I fight for integrity. Decency, however, is another thing all together ;)
Come on, giving away free shirts to their prefrosh that say MIT on one side (when handed the shirts, wrapped in plastic, they looked like normal MIT shirts) and "...because not everybody can go to Caltech" (which is true) on the other! That's awesome. And clever. The shirts have been made before (we've had the same shirt made by individuals around Caltech for quite some time, and I think MIT at one point sold the opposite shirt in their store), but the execution and timing were quite clever.
Admit it. Now. For the children.
Do you really assume that? Really? Are you really so blinded by love for your school that you sacrifice curiosity, restraint, and objectivity?
People who know little about both MIT and Caltech pranks remember a few huge pranks that they heard about on TV or read about in popular books. They don't keep track of when they were. Come on. Don't assume like that. You just make yourself look bad. Please. You can do better. Please. For the children.
Also, I won't dispute with you that Caltech isn't for everyone. It's a unique place, and if one isn't prepared to work really hard, despite his/her smarts, then one shouldn't go to Caltech. The social environment is not what most are used to, though, to some, very cool. Caltech may have a repuation of being a bit harder/weirder than MIT, but I'm not sure this is true, though it wouldn't surprise me. See my previous post (Re: Aargh) for exploration of this issue.
I've tried hard in these posts to explain my reasoning, and even point out where I'm lacking data (as in the above post). I'm disappointed by your comment:
It's useless (in terms of conveying useful information) and misleading! First of all, the qualifier "perhaps" makes the statement weak and almost manifestly true. You don't provide any information on what the precentages might say, if indeed they say anything. The percentages COULD indicate many things. But do they ACTUALLY indicate anything? "Dear reader, assume what you will."Perhaps the percentages indicate that noxious fumes from the Charles River leave prefrosh in a state of euphoria-induced poor judgement, though I doubt it. Your comment provides little guidance. You can do better.
This /. story, and the Caltech prank, are not about MIT vs. Caltech in a "who is better than who" way. They're about having fun and taking pride in the things we have in common.
These schools are composed of individuals. We don't need to fight for our school's names as if we're fighting for our own. Sure we have an interest in the "value" of our degrees, but which school is slightly better (if that even has an agreeable well-defined meaning) doesn't matter. Personally, I try not to tie my self-respect to anything or anyone but myself. Again, they're all fine houses.
Actually, the Caltech rose bowl stunt was done back in the 60s, which is actually many decades before the MIT hack referred to above. This has already been noted in other comments. Good research porcupine8.
First, I don't think we see MIT as a rival in a "we win you lose" sort of way. But let's assume that we do in a "we want the best frosh we can get and a lot of people are considering both schools" sort of way.
A typical Caltech freshman class has about 215 students. MIT's have on the order of 1,000. This means that the schools admit around 500 and 2500 students, respectively. MIT, then, has at LEAST 2000 students in it's prefrosh pool that don't even have Caltech as an option (in a given year), so that even if Caltech took all of the students that are chosing between Caltech and MIT (I don't know the number, but probably more than half of total Caltech admits applied and were admitted to MIT), MIT would have at LEAST about 4/5 of its prefrosh pool in tact. If, on the other hand, Caltech lost all of the students deciding between the two, it's pool of prefrosh would decrease by 1/2.
Such a "rivalry," then, is understandably more important to Caltech than MIT, due to Caltech's small size (which, by the way contributes to lots of its awesomeness).
Regarding a pranking rivalry, I don't think one has really existed in the past at either school. But wouldn't it be cool if there was one? Lots of cool stuff might happen. That was kind of the point of Caltech's work this weekend. We're suggesting a pranking rivalry, in good spirit. Looking at the response, it looks like MIT might agree, but let's keep it in good spirit. Pranking/hacking should be fun for the pranker and the prankee. If you give a good joke, you should be able to take a good joke.
Prankers/Hackers at Caltech and MIT have a lot in common, and should have more interaction. Anyone up for an ice cream social? I'll provide music and a laser light show (much better than the one that was projected on to the green building... there will be more preparation).
My perception from the INFORMED public (in part from talking to both MIT and Caltech prefrosh, and my own experience at Caltech) is that Caltech is seen as a little more hardcore in the amount of work one has to do and in its nerdiness. To quote some MIT prefrosh I talked to just a few days ago (while posing as an MIT prefrosh on the bus from the airport.. yay free ride!), responding to why she isn't going to Caltech's prefrosh weekend next week, "I didn't even apply. I want to be alive in 4 years." Another one informed me that "Caltech students have the reputation of being the epitome of nerdiness."
I'm not convinced that this repuation describes the truth, though. From my own observations, the student populations seem very similar, though MIT's larger population perhaps makes it easier for it to pass as less nerdy to those who want to see it that way. On the other hand, prefrosh interested in hacking and nerdy delights will no doubt see a paradise ignored by those who want normal social lives but top notch science or engineering education. Caltech may have the same proportion of on-the-surface-normal kids as MIT, but their absolute smaller numbers make it more difficult for them to present a unified front, as if there's a population threshold a group must pass to be easily noticed.
Students at both schools seem to think they're getting the best science/engineering educations available in the world, and they probably are. Many also regret that fact because of the pain and sleepless nights such an education can lead to.
More questions? Do some research for yourself, in both Caltech and MIT tradition: http://www.google.com/
In conclusion, they're all fine houses.
Dude, it was really fun. Definitely worth the plane flight. Also, the weather turned out to be pretty warm. Today was warm enough for shorts, t-shirts, and frisbee tossing. We'll be back in sunny CA soon enough, though, don't you worry!
Darth_MALL says
Score: 5, FunnyDo these scores mean anything? This is really sad...