These days, the "wrong" usage is far more common then the "right" one. English doesn't have a central body that defines it (unlike some languages), it's defined by how people use it, so if more people use it incorrectly than correctly, the incorrect usage actually becomes correct.
They get to test their abilities against their parent's who has told them what's going to be on the test, perhaps? You can't use the same test every time, or people will just memorise the answers (or methods if you change the numbers, but have the same basic questions).
I don't get it... it says you can listen to a song for free once, and then you have to pay. How do they know I've listened to it before? I can delete cookies, and I can sign up multiple times if I have to. Unless they require some kind of verifiable identification to prove you're a new user (which I do not intend to provide), I can listen to as much music as I like for free. Sounds like a great site to me!
That not the bartender, just the drink. You drink something that doesn't take up the whole glass, of course there's room ice. You order a pint of coke, say, you'll get less coke if you have ice (the trick is to order it without ice, drink a few mouthfuls [it's still cold at this point, since it's just come out the soda gun], then ask for ice). Incidentally, why would you have ice with a smooth single malt? Good whisky doesn't need ice - just the cheap stuff.
I'm not so sure - if it didn't hit the atmosphere at all, it would continue straight past the planet, since you have to lose energy to be captured and go into orbit. That would suggest it's possible to skim the atmosphere a little but not enough to lose that much energy and continue on an escape trajectory - I think that's what we would call "bouncing off".
The reason it would invalidate the theory is because the theory predicts that photons move at the maximum speed - it's not something we assume, it's something that can be proven given the assumptions. That is, it follows from the basic premises of the theory. You can't change that without changing those basic premises, which would change the entire theory.
Any particle can travel arbitrarily close to the speed of light if you give it enough energy. Not being able to demonstrate that they are going slower wouldn't invalidate the theory, it would just mean we have slightly less evidence to support the theory.
The speed of light isn't infinite, it has a definite finite value and that value is the same for all timelike observers. We only get infinities when we try and use a timelike concept (proper time) to describe a lightlike particle (a photon) - that's a sign that proper time doesn't make sense for photons.
You're making sense, but I think you're wrong. Let me try and explain.
I'll start from the end - the idea that travelling fast would make it easier to measure the speed of photons seems to make sense, but actually doesn't work. The key point in special relativity is that the speed of light is constant - what that means if that it appear the same to all observers. If I turn on a torch and watch the photons leaving it, I'll see them all travelling at 3x10^8 m/s (to within the margin of error of my equipment). If you travel alongside the beam at 1x10^8 m/s you would expect to see the photons travelling at 2x10^8 m/s, but actually you would still see them going at 3x10^8 m/s (the contradictions you would expect this to cause are all corrected by time dilation and length contractions and it all turns out to be consistent).
Regarding the rest - there are too possible meanings to "imperceivable", I think I know which one you mean, but I'll discuss both anyway. You could mean it's physically impossible to tell the difference, however good your equipment is (in a similar way to how the uncertainty principle makes it impossible to accurately measure both the position and momentum of a particle, however clever you may be). In that case, I think asking if c is equal to c' or not is not a valid scientific question, it belongs to philosophy. In science, theories have to be falsifiable - that is, there has to be an experiment that will tell you the theory is wrong if that is, in fact, the case.
The other meaning, which I think is what you mean, is simply that our technology isn't good enough to tell the difference. It is always possible that our theories are wrong and they happen to match observations to date because we haven't been precise enough, or simply by chance. However, in this case, it would require the entire theory to complete nonsense, which is possible, but very unlikely (it works too well for that). We don't say that the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light because we've measured them both and seen that they are extremely close together (although that is true), we say it because the theory predicts it. When you do all the calculations to derive special relativity you find that it is impossible for massive particles to accelerate to the speed of light, not to some constant that we then have to measure, but actually to the speed of light, whatever that may be (that, we have to measure). If the cosmic speed limit is actually slightly faster, then that means the whole theory is wrong - the key principle that light travels at the same speed regardless of the motion of the observer would presumably fail and without that the theory ceases to exist.
Lastly, I think there may be some confusion over what we mean by the photon occupying every point along its path at the same time. That isn't really true and is just a very imprecise use of language. For a regular observer (in fancy terminology, a timelike observer), the photon moves over time in exactly the way you would expect it to. From the perspective of the photon itself, there isn't really such a thing as time, the concept just doesn't make sense - the closest we can get is to say that time is at a standstill, and therefore the photon perceives itself to be everywhere at once, but, as you've realised, that doesn't really make sense, it just comes from extrapolating from timelike observers and seeing that the time dilation "ought" to be "infinity". When infinities appear in science it means something has gone wrong (in this case, the entire question is meaningless since we don't actually have a concept of "proper time" for a photon (that is, time as observed by the photon itself)). Ploughing on regardless often gets you an answer, but it doesn't get you a particularly meaningful one.
Did you even read the summary? The same mechanism that made the pulsar rotate so fast should have circularised the orbit. Getting the pulsar into a highly eccentric orbit isn't hard, but getting it rotating that fast in one is.
Proof is a mathematical concept, nothing is proven in science. Light not travelling at the speed of light would be something of a contradiction, though, surely? c is defined to be the speed that photons travel, so clearly photons travel at c. The actual "cosmic speed limit" could by marginally faster than c, I suppose, but that would require a completely new theory, and relativity fits observations extremely well (at non-quantum scales), so that seems unlikely.
Time dilation? We're talking about light, if you can define time dilation for light-like observers at all (which you can't, really) it would be infinite. The light is 0 years old. So, yeah, I guess that qualifies as less than 28140...
Mine too... that's the way it works with pretty much everything. The more you buy, the cheaper it is. Why is bandwidth not the same? And it's even worse than figures given, since the monthly rate includes standing costs, the amount going on bandwidth is only part of it.
He's talking about von Neumann probes as if they're a means of colonisation. They're not. They're a means of exploration. He dismisses the possibility that advanced civilisations don't care about spreading out on the grounds that life on Earth shows a strong tendency to colonise. It doesn't show a strong tendency to explore (there is one, but not very strong). So yeah, it's possible for an advanced civilisation to have explored the whole galaxy by now, but it may well not to possible for them to have colonised it, so they might not have bothered.
Slashdot Mirror
These days, the "wrong" usage is far more common then the "right" one. English doesn't have a central body that defines it (unlike some languages), it's defined by how people use it, so if more people use it incorrectly than correctly, the incorrect usage actually becomes correct.
Language changes - keep up, or get out of the way.
This is just using a powerful computer to solve it by brute force... it's not really an algorithm, it's just a proof of a new upper bound.
(I know, technically speaking, brute force probably does count as an algorithm, but it's not a very impressive one.)
This is Slashdot - you're allowed to quote Kirk.
They get to test their abilities against their parent's who has told them what's going to be on the test, perhaps? You can't use the same test every time, or people will just memorise the answers (or methods if you change the numbers, but have the same basic questions).
I don't get it... it says you can listen to a song for free once, and then you have to pay. How do they know I've listened to it before? I can delete cookies, and I can sign up multiple times if I have to. Unless they require some kind of verifiable identification to prove you're a new user (which I do not intend to provide), I can listen to as much music as I like for free. Sounds like a great site to me!
That not the bartender, just the drink. You drink something that doesn't take up the whole glass, of course there's room ice. You order a pint of coke, say, you'll get less coke if you have ice (the trick is to order it without ice, drink a few mouthfuls [it's still cold at this point, since it's just come out the soda gun], then ask for ice). Incidentally, why would you have ice with a smooth single malt? Good whisky doesn't need ice - just the cheap stuff.
No, ice removes value since you get less drink in your glass.
I'm not so sure - if it didn't hit the atmosphere at all, it would continue straight past the planet, since you have to lose energy to be captured and go into orbit. That would suggest it's possible to skim the atmosphere a little but not enough to lose that much energy and continue on an escape trajectory - I think that's what we would call "bouncing off".
Oh, I have no doubt it will land - Newton hasn't failed us yet. I'm just concerned about how many pieces it will be in afterwards...
(I say that - what do you think the odds are of them missing Mars entirely? That would be pretty impressive, especially at this late stage...)
Please, wait until it's down before you joke... it's too painful...
I'm not sure forced fun is going to work. It's a worthy cause, but I don't think this is the way to do it...
No, and that's not dysphasia, you just have a single-track mind.
Keep trying; you'll get there in the end.
The reason it would invalidate the theory is because the theory predicts that photons move at the maximum speed - it's not something we assume, it's something that can be proven given the assumptions. That is, it follows from the basic premises of the theory. You can't change that without changing those basic premises, which would change the entire theory.
Any particle can travel arbitrarily close to the speed of light if you give it enough energy. Not being able to demonstrate that they are going slower wouldn't invalidate the theory, it would just mean we have slightly less evidence to support the theory.
The speed of light isn't infinite, it has a definite finite value and that value is the same for all timelike observers. We only get infinities when we try and use a timelike concept (proper time) to describe a lightlike particle (a photon) - that's a sign that proper time doesn't make sense for photons.
You're making sense, but I think you're wrong. Let me try and explain.
I'll start from the end - the idea that travelling fast would make it easier to measure the speed of photons seems to make sense, but actually doesn't work. The key point in special relativity is that the speed of light is constant - what that means if that it appear the same to all observers. If I turn on a torch and watch the photons leaving it, I'll see them all travelling at 3x10^8 m/s (to within the margin of error of my equipment). If you travel alongside the beam at 1x10^8 m/s you would expect to see the photons travelling at 2x10^8 m/s, but actually you would still see them going at 3x10^8 m/s (the contradictions you would expect this to cause are all corrected by time dilation and length contractions and it all turns out to be consistent).
Regarding the rest - there are too possible meanings to "imperceivable", I think I know which one you mean, but I'll discuss both anyway. You could mean it's physically impossible to tell the difference, however good your equipment is (in a similar way to how the uncertainty principle makes it impossible to accurately measure both the position and momentum of a particle, however clever you may be). In that case, I think asking if c is equal to c' or not is not a valid scientific question, it belongs to philosophy. In science, theories have to be falsifiable - that is, there has to be an experiment that will tell you the theory is wrong if that is, in fact, the case.
The other meaning, which I think is what you mean, is simply that our technology isn't good enough to tell the difference. It is always possible that our theories are wrong and they happen to match observations to date because we haven't been precise enough, or simply by chance. However, in this case, it would require the entire theory to complete nonsense, which is possible, but very unlikely (it works too well for that). We don't say that the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light because we've measured them both and seen that they are extremely close together (although that is true), we say it because the theory predicts it. When you do all the calculations to derive special relativity you find that it is impossible for massive particles to accelerate to the speed of light, not to some constant that we then have to measure, but actually to the speed of light, whatever that may be (that, we have to measure). If the cosmic speed limit is actually slightly faster, then that means the whole theory is wrong - the key principle that light travels at the same speed regardless of the motion of the observer would presumably fail and without that the theory ceases to exist.
Lastly, I think there may be some confusion over what we mean by the photon occupying every point along its path at the same time. That isn't really true and is just a very imprecise use of language. For a regular observer (in fancy terminology, a timelike observer), the photon moves over time in exactly the way you would expect it to. From the perspective of the photon itself, there isn't really such a thing as time, the concept just doesn't make sense - the closest we can get is to say that time is at a standstill, and therefore the photon perceives itself to be everywhere at once, but, as you've realised, that doesn't really make sense, it just comes from extrapolating from timelike observers and seeing that the time dilation "ought" to be "infinity". When infinities appear in science it means something has gone wrong (in this case, the entire question is meaningless since we don't actually have a concept of "proper time" for a photon (that is, time as observed by the photon itself)). Ploughing on regardless often gets you an answer, but it doesn't get you a particularly meaningful one.
Does that help at all?
Did you even read the summary? The same mechanism that made the pulsar rotate so fast should have circularised the orbit. Getting the pulsar into a highly eccentric orbit isn't hard, but getting it rotating that fast in one is.
Proof is a mathematical concept, nothing is proven in science. Light not travelling at the speed of light would be something of a contradiction, though, surely? c is defined to be the speed that photons travel, so clearly photons travel at c. The actual "cosmic speed limit" could by marginally faster than c, I suppose, but that would require a completely new theory, and relativity fits observations extremely well (at non-quantum scales), so that seems unlikely.
Time dilation? We're talking about light, if you can define time dilation for light-like observers at all (which you can't, really) it would be infinite. The light is 0 years old. So, yeah, I guess that qualifies as less than 28140...
Are you sure they don't require parking? It's not simply that it does so automatically?
Mine too... that's the way it works with pretty much everything. The more you buy, the cheaper it is. Why is bandwidth not the same? And it's even worse than figures given, since the monthly rate includes standing costs, the amount going on bandwidth is only part of it.
You would hope they park the heads properly before re-entering the atmosphere... you're meant to do it simply before turning off the computer...
He's talking about von Neumann probes as if they're a means of colonisation. They're not. They're a means of exploration. He dismisses the possibility that advanced civilisations don't care about spreading out on the grounds that life on Earth shows a strong tendency to colonise. It doesn't show a strong tendency to explore (there is one, but not very strong). So yeah, it's possible for an advanced civilisation to have explored the whole galaxy by now, but it may well not to possible for them to have colonised it, so they might not have bothered.
Who said it was 112? The article clear says "Z=~122".
Then it won't cache anything... what you expect to happen if you set the maximum cache size to 0?