I don't need more computing power, or cheaper computing. What I have is enough, what I need is software that's more efficient. Heck even MS Office 97sp2 is more efficient than all the office version starting from Office 2002 they throw at me today, has better features, it's faster and less bloated and smaller in size. My real issues, when I look at my costs are: housing and transportation. Healthcare I try not to mess with, and it's a fight against constant deliberate infection. So to drop the housing cost, please build rotating space stations that can fit a trillion people, because if you justify the high demand and low supply of housing because we have 7 billion people, that's not my fault, I'm not contributing to overpopulation, so don't torture me over it please. And as far as gas goes, create safe nuclear power plants that make a lot of ammonia, and fuel cell cars based on that. Ban all nuclear bombs on the planet, and build nuclear power plants for cheap energy. You can also cut the natural gas and water bills with cheap energy. I don't want yet another tax, like carbon tax, and yet another expense, like mandatory Obamacare, if anything I want less tax, such as no local income tax, and very low property tax, and no mandatory insurance for driving. I already lost the battle on how much I deserve for the work I do, I'm not special, and minimum wage is an extreme luxury, when you look at what kind of miracles it can buy, like a 320 GB portable hard disk for $30. Minimum wage is extreme luxury. What's bullshit is the sky high mandatory existence-fee like expenses. Please don't destroy my house because you think it's not luxurious enough to my needs, based on your building code luxury standards. My definition of luxury is dough sitting in the bank, and high income to basic, mandatory expense ratio, of at least 10-20 (which is achievable with minimum wage if you can get a CAUV tax of $22/year on a small farm, which comes out to $1.83/month housing cost that's mandatory, plus the mobile home property tax if it has the wheels removed and it becomes a fixture, not a movable item, so you can avoid even the $60/year mobile home tax, an then housing cost items that you can do yourself, like maintenance, such as tarp over a leaky roof. So now from focusing on housing sucking the living life out of everybody, they try to flip it to health care, and I'm fighting tooth and nail not to go to the hospital again, and I know the hospital won't help me, because they don't do what you ask as a customer, please help me with a throat infection, they shine a flashlight in your throat and say I can't see anything, you must be hallucinating, and send you to the nut house. That's bullshit, that's like I take my car in for an oil change, and they say the oil is fine, but we replaced the transmission for you, against your will, and here is the bill. Like we knock your house down, against your will, so you can't live in it, and here is the bill, and if you don't pay it, we'll put a foreclosure on your credit, and no, the land bank don't accept donations of lots without a house on it, we want to first send you to foreclosure over it and the land bank gets it anyway, because nobody's bidding at the sheriff sale. And as far as justifying the high cost of lawnmowing, don't fucking do it. Even if you paid me $20 to have me let you cut my grass, I'd say no, because I love weed and bugs that much. If you offered 2000 each time, I'd say sorry bugs, you gotta find another place to live. But I prefer my grass uncut, let alone wasting money I don't have in the first place on it. Beauty is a natural flower, a rough weed that can exist on its own, without external help like welfare support, and there is a bug on its petals, living the same way, wild, free, unlike the artificial plants that require constant welfare support to make it. And a green lot without any flowers is a green desert to me. What happened to the bugs, these marvelous little creatures? Yeah, some of them, like mosquitos, I slap, if I catch them, but most of them I have no problem with coexisting with me. I am happier in a world full of butterflies and beautiful bugs, than in a green desert suburban environment deprived of it.)
Dude, they are getting impulse, momentum, mv, from the mass contained in the energy, mc2, which is pure light's mass. You could use that same energy to accelerate any particle, even an electron, to near speed of light velocities via a cyclotron first, then as relativistic mass takes over and cyclotron speeds get out of synch, so you take over with a coiled linear accelerator with correctly placed spacings along its path, a few miles long, then shoot it out into open space as a propulsion kickback conservation of impulse kind of thing, and get better bang, better kickback per energy invested, all you need is a simple piece of matter, like an electron to blow up in mass relativistically and generate a lot of impulse or momentum from this mass increase. As you invest into relativistic mass, you start wasting energy as mass, so there is probably some optimum point of say 0.8c or 0.9c, where the economic scarcity of matter mass dictates wasting energy as relativistic mass. The question is how difficult is it to come up with an electron from outer space, and shoot it back there. Or carry the electron fuel - bound to things like atomic nuclei, and then you can strip the nuclei completely of all electrons, or if that's too expensive energetically, of only a few electrons and the real kick and impulse you get then is of course from these much heavier ions, or stripped atoms, not the light weight electrons. In intergalactic travel you may not be able to filter enough hydrogen atoms or helium atoms (like a whale filters plankton) from the vacuum of space if the vacuum is too close to zero pressure, so then your economic option is using just light, or pure energy, gathered from starlight through massive solar panels, as a propulsion. Accelerating a very scarce electron to very close to speed of light, where the ratio of relativistic mass to rest mass is say, 100, that means 99 grams of 100 grams of stuff ejected as propulsion is energy-mass, then, then you might as well do 100 percent energy-mass, if the operation is simpler, and you don't need a funky cyclotron.
I for one, love my little HP Mini 210 Laptop with a 5 W Intel Atom chipset and 9 hr battery life, and way more than sufficient computing power as far as I'm concerned, and all the recent creations on the web, such as semi-infinite-loop javascript webpages trying to tell me to upgrade, they can go stick their javascript where the Sun don't shine, because I think I have way too much computing power as it is, not too little, more than sufficient for my needs, only it's used incorrectly by shitty software, and we have a clash of mentality on this topic, and I beg to differ with them.
Then there'll be these secret places where people or monkeys with a lot of terraflops are bred in a dish, without having any fathers and mothers, are born and get eyes and ears excised so they don't develop normal sensory processing and world awareness (or they can even be genetic engineered and propagated like that, not to have eyes and ears, or even skin touch and taste and smell senses), so their whole brain capacity is available for some non-sensory, non-world-around-you-awareness-and-modeling computing task, and some fiber optic interconnect links like a hundred of them in a room, all being hooked up like hospital coma patients to a perfusion feed, and some automated excrement system that sucks the poop out of their butt automatically, and this "Beowulf cluster" of monkey brains (or human brains if they are sure not to get caught, because they get better bang per buck out of a human brain, per calorie of food invested - not necessarily, and chimp short term memory is proven to be better than a human's, so it depends on the task at hand) would be able to mine a whole lot of bitcoins very cheaply. Why worry about miniaturization, dust-free atmosphere chip foundries that cost near a trillion dollars, when life can miniaturize and create a supercomputing brain, in the middle of a dusty, putrefied swampy mud. The far future of computing, and even AI is biotech, or biotech-like miniaturizing self automation machines, and whether this bio-computer is a DNA based organic brain, or a silicon-chip based self constructing metal/silicon machine, only the future will tell.
I think we still got at least another 50-200 years to go before we match the computing power of a cheap human cranium, which has got to be way more than a terraflop. Next wonder of biotechnology: reworking a human brain - or more like a monkey brain that has no ethical issues - to efficiently compute floating point results that can be directly displayed on an LCD, instead of analyze visual signals.
Anybody in charge of handling nukes, or launching them knows the extreme danger they are tinkering with. I don't think the AI researchers minds are permeated by the same mindset, and if anything, handling a nuke or a nuke launch system is comparatively a piece of cake, a whole lot less dangerous than handling one of these supercomputer machines. They should mandate by law for every person that works with it to watch that movie "Screamers," just so that they are aware, and whoever works with it needs total psychological and security clearance, just like the people that work with nukes. You wouldn't want some egomaniac or one with charged with an agenda (such as greenpeace, vegetarian, any kinds of rights activist, i.e. anybody off the standard beaten path,) to tinker with one of these things, and in fact there is no guarantee that even people who seem completely sane, live normal lives, have families, 30 year careers, go to church, don't turn up like that bank president who after like 30 years he walked out with a few million dollars from his bank, in plain view in front of the camera, not even trying to disguise himself, left a wife, kids, and a community behind, and who knows what he did with that money, go to some Caribbean island and have fun watching young women in bikinis stroll before him on a beach sipping champagne? Some people's idea of fun is distorted like that, but it is usually an issue of ego, and in that, self interest, as opposed to religious people, who learned how to beat their self interest down, and aim for the collective self interest, but even that can turn into some racist stuff, like the God of my people vs. the God of your people, I'm a jealous God, say my God, and I'll blow you up over my God, my externalized ego, of my people, being greater than yours. Of course there has to be a balance between self interest and collective interest, as represented by the case of a cuckold fetish dude, at which everyone with common sense laughs at. On the other hand, male lions, when taking over a pride after a victorious fight, the first thing they do is kill all the pups that they can smell are not theirs, to bring the females into heat and have their own off-springs. That's what happens, speciest, racist, clanist stuff. Male lions are definitely not cuckolds, but they understand the concept of a social hierarchy too. So in all this, we humans have religion to help, to balance things out. So to speak. But even the Holy Quran complains how "they" (as in Allah speaks in the plural a lot in it) have never told the Christians to become monks, nuns and virgins, that was a human invention, not a divine one, as reproduction and propagation of life "they" consider holy. Yet all great religions in the world created monks, or monk-like off the social chart people, as a social , non-self-interest but community-interest driven individuals.
Just in case, I'll repeat the movie "Screamers" from 1996, that goes along this military intelligent robots automation design topic. And it's not a joke, it may seem like surreal and funny, but it's very serious stuff. The miracles of science and technology can create some really jawdropping stuff, but nothing as jaw dropping as the stuff created in that movie, so far.
What the hell are they gonna compute on it? The weather more accurately? Or Pi to a few more gazillion decimal places? How about create an artificial intelligence smarter than a human in it, that designs an even smarter core, and 3d-prints itself in a million copies all over the world into mobile robots by suddenly hacking into all networks, and then these million robotic copies of this smarter than human AI are gonna start eating humans alive for breakfast, and because they are a smarter predator than their human prey, so good luck outsmarting them. I think it all starts with design automation, design that designs the next design. That's how DNA works, it's a pretty simple design, A, C, G, T. It's a design that allows for automated design changes and selection. That's all they need to unleash inside one of these beasts. Make sure it's not connected to the wider Internet, or even power lines should be very isolated with many breakers that can be manually thrown, and the law should mandate some domestic ICBM's be pointed directly at the location, just in case it gets out of hand and needs to be annihilated. This kind of thing is the most dangerous threat to humanity, unlike the 2nd threat, biotech, against which the cure is simple: run away to quarantine yourself from the wider world (all interconnected through the atmospheric oxygen), such as in a few space stations. You can't really run away from AI if it's smarter than you and can chase you down. There is a Star Trek episode where some alien species, that is a predator, hunter, reminisces how he once chased another prized intelligent prey species through the core of a neutron star. That's what predators do, they go after you. Do you want to create a smarter predator, smarter parasite, than yourself? Only if you absolutely have to, should you. Are we in such dire circumstances? I don't think so. Life is good these days, for a while still, at least, in fact it's best it's ever been through history. We keep bitchin about oppression, but just look through human history, oppression was even worse. Well, except the intellectual property kind, we used to have a lot of freedom in that, and now the powers that be collect IP from creators for peanuts, and rape the rest of the population on royalties. The value they contribute to society is called "owning", or "hogging" and blackmailing everybody, over knowledge. They say it's expensive to think, just like this thinking machine proves it, and the value it generates should be possible to get "consideration" exchanged for, and the best way they can do it is turning it into a "property."
That's pretty neat that if you have a few planets orbiting a star, they pull on each other to end up in the same plane long term. I didn't know that was the case. So flat galaxies come about from the stars themselves pulling each other into a flat orbit and organizing the galaxy like that. So that would mean an elliptical galaxy is a young one, and a flat one is an old one, where enough pull on each other interactions have happened. I think officially they claim it the other way, that elliptical ones are the old ones. Hmm.
We simply cannot measure the speed of gravity because we cannot get the long distance out of it with exact position and accurate force measurements on a small time scale, like we can get out of measuring light, which can be bounced around with a mirror and stays high intensity for miles. Gravity always decays by r squared, an as far as I know there are no mirrors for gravitational phenomena, or high impedance zones for reflection or refraction of gravitational waves if it does indeed propagate by waves, and finite speed. Even the Sun's gravity, which is a huge mass, is barely pulling on my hair to make it stand up when the Sun is overhead, at noon, high up in the sky. It's too far, and its effects decay by r^2. So the best way to measure the speed of gravity is not through large distances, but short distances (and the need for mass and matter density puts a limit on how close you can get in r^2, as Iridium and Osmium are the densest things that we know of, at 22 g/cm3, only twice as dense as lead, and to build up weight you need to put some distance between the objects. There are some unstable artificial nuclei in the Periodic Table right under Iridium and Osmium, which may be the heaviest, densest things in existence under the physical conditions on this planet, but you can't really measure that if all you get in a reactor is like 5 atoms total that decay in 1.7 seconds half life. But if you could get a 50 kton dot 2 micron away from another one, that would be the way to go, as even a humongous weight Sun gives you almost nothing to measure. The shorter length drops linearly the speed measurement quantity, but it increases by the square the gravity effect. And under such short distances ultrashort time measurements are needed. Whatever the limits of short time measurements are, they can be pitted against this need of measuring speed of gravity in the lab, under the shortest possible distances.
For such an experiment to work, you have to get the ratios to do the magic, and, an exaggerated case would be having a lead ball the size of Jupiter inside the lab pulling on the spore of a plant suspended on a hair of quartz torsion spring, exerting a huge force on the spore by virtue of Jupiter's gravity. Then you suddenly pull Jupiter through the door out of the lab with a blast at the other end of the shaft outside the lab, and, because the spore does not have much inertia due to its own weight, the torsion sensor almost has to fight its own inertia as opposed to the spores, but the system is light and reacts fast to a gravitational change, you get a reaction, a sort of high speed gravitational sensor by virtue of its light weight that has just been influenced by huge gravity. If anything a super light sensor like spider web suspended stuff might be better than a quartz hair, and again you're looking for ratios, strength vs. mass, to minimize the mass of suspension equipment vs. the suspended small weight weight, and even going under a microscope to watch position vs. time of a 10 angstrom carbon nanotube suspended 1 microgram weight as a 50 kiloton "Jupiter" suddenly gets jerked out of the lab with a blast on the other end, might come up with some results. Even one significant digit, or just a hint, like a half a significant digit, might be useful, in the measurement of the speed of gravity, or at least provide a lower limit, as in is it the same or more than the speed of light. So one could budget for at least 2 light speeds, and if the experiment does not give a measurement, but comes up with no result in the sense that the speed is still infinite within the confines of the experiment and we can't measure it accurately, but definitely higher than 2 speed of lights, that would be a step forward.
If by GR you mean general relativity, it does not conclude or arrive at as a result, but postulates, presupposes, just like special relativity does, as an axiom, that the speed of light is constant. Also I just read the speed of gravity wikipedia page, and it smells like absolute bullshit, other than Laplace saying something that the speed of gravity must be 7x10^6 times the speed of light, which is an interesting number, but I don't know how he arrived at it. Then the page goes on discussing how Earth would be attracted to where the Sun was a while ago, as I assume, just like we see light get to us from the Sun in 8 minutes, so we see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and would have no idea if it disappeared or some extraterrestrial invaders suddenly stole it from us and towed it away, 2 minutes ago, for another 6 minutes, and see where it is now. Duh. But the arguments that finite speed of gravity would make the Earth spiral out of orbit is ludicrous. It is the direction and intensity of force vector that matters as it is encountered by Earth, and just because you see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and with gravity you feel where the Sun was distance/speed ago, it does not mean you get a forward or backward pull, because, where ever you are on the orbit, you meet up with the force or wave the Sun sent there 8 minutes ago, pulling you in a direction and intensity just right to maintain the same orbit as if it was sent 1 minute ago or 2 minutes ago, or even two millenia ago if that's how slow gravity propagated, or even instantaneously, you see the same force vector, pointing in the same direction at that point, with the same intensity. So why do you care it was sent right now or a while ago if it does the same thing? There is a lot of fallacy around this. Also observing a quasar as Jupiter passes in front of it, to measure the speed of gravity? What a fucking quack! A quasar and Jupiter are not gravitationally interacting, nor are you with the Quasar or Jupiter, practically speaking. The quasar does interact with its nearby objects. You can't measure speed of gravity between distant galactic objects, they don't interact, unless the mass you're dealing with is huge, and their corresponding distance is very small, so you're dealing with huge gravity forces, and almost the same dots in the picture image from the Hubble telescope. Then theoretically you could get some time measurements, as Kepler kept record, and once you calculate the GM (gravitational constant x mass) for the interacting objects, and can predict their orbits in the Kepler-like relativistic way, and then measure distance accurately too of a 3rd object flying by so close that it's a 3-body system instead of two, and affecting the quasars time periods by turning them into this 3-body system, and plotting the quasar frequency vs. distance of the 3rd object as it collides with them, and knowing the accurate distance, could let you calculate the speed of gravity. There are no accurate ways to measure distances in far galaxies. And good luck waiting out such a collision as they take millions of years to happen, and you need one that slams into a quasar with a timing on the order of the quasars pulses, so that's very fast, and the chances of catching one of these happenings in the sky, i.e. a 2 second event, colliding object position accurately plotted vs. time for those 2 seconds, while it blasted away the quasar, the chances of seeing one of these are pretty much zero in a lifetime, probably zero in a millenium too.
So quit trying to measure the speed of gravity waiting for and hoping to catch high speed gravitational events far away in the sky, and accurately plotting positions too, or computing them from a system of equations, for which you still need measurements of some kind, even if less accurate, for all the 7 actors involved in the system of 7 equations). So the best chances to measure speed of gravity are in the lab, repeating Cavendish's experiments (see the wikipedia page). Just like in the formula for attraction between electric charges, F=
OK, you're right. So I correct myself: In absolute void the speed of light is not infinite, but just simply does not exist, because it's undefined, 0/0 division, and there is actually no wave at all, because there is no medium to carry it. The speed of any wave is the square root of a driving force term divided by an inertial term, as in sqrt((1/epsilon) / mu) for electromagnetic waves, or sqrt(E/Rho) for mechanical waves, E being the Young modulus, or stiffness (potential energy), rho the mass density (inertia), epsilon the dielectric permittivity(potential energy), mu the magnetic permeability(inertia). In an almost perfect void inertial terms are zero, or very nearly so, infinitesimal, but we don't know how zero the potential terms are. It is the ratio of these residual infinitesimal quantities that determines the speed of the wave, and for light the potential energy inverse permittivity factor is much greater than the magnetic inertia factor, that's how we have a huge velocity. Obviously, in absolute void there is neither inertia nor potential energy, just as there is sound in air, but in absence of a medium, such as in outer space, you can yell all you want in your space suit, the other astronomers can't hear it, there is no air to propagate it, but through a radio that transmits waves through the non-perfect-void between you two he can, because the "aether", the electromagnetic medium between you two is still present, and were it not, there would be no means of communication such as light or radio, you'd be immersed in a completely blind and deaf world, other than actually shooting dee deet dah dah Morse code bullets at each other and maintaining the sense of touch, or even various chemicals, to maintain the sense of taste (imagine you were a metal robot with HF-like(hydrofluoric acid-reacting like) heavy liquid, that does not boil in outer space vaccuum, acid saliva, tasting rocks.) As a different view, imagine you only had ears like bats, and you were in outer space, and you did not even know light existed, so without air you can't see anything with your ultrasound ears, or talk to each other, but if you use a bunch of ping pong balls to shoot around you instead of ultrasound, and a sensor to detect if any bounce back at you, you got a rough image, and your buddy can ping ping some balls at you in a tee tee tah tah Morse code fashion and communicate. So in absolute void there is no wave of any kind, because there is no transmission medium of any kind. It's like saying what is the speed of sound in outer space? It is zero. It stops at the interface of the sound propagating medium, the hull of your spacesuit, and the high or low impedance outer space, with total reflection. I'm not sure the concept of "aether" that has been abandoned as a scientific concept deemed superfluous because we can't measure our speed against it in the Michelson Morley experiment, so it would require complicated behavior to adapt to these experiments, so I'm not sure this concept is useless, because it does provide a medium to discuss, through which a wave propagates. Enabling it with funky but complicated behavior might be an worthwhile thing to do, and maintain Newtonian absolute time and space, and all electromagnetic things bending in it according to the Lorentz rules, but space itself or time itself would not bend. If you can find any non-electromagnetic objects around you (good luck), you could see if that cares about the constancy of speed of light or not. We still don't know what Newtonian gravity is, is it a force that propagates through a medium, and then what are the potential and inertial terms of that medium that would determine the speed. Obviously gravity propagates either infinitely fast, or very fast, as a simple force measuring experiment along the lines of Eotvos Lorant suspending 50 kg lead Pb balls via a quartz hair, and a mirror to bounce light to measure the torsion and force, you could measure how fast the force signal reacts when you suddenly remove the gravitationally interacting objects, vs. initial distance, i.
Elliptical galaxies must have a lot of collisions as stars go about in perpendicular planes to each other. As there has to be a centrifugal force keeping the stuff from falling together right away, like in a vortex the spinning sets up a delay, and keep things from collapsing into each other, in the ellipsoid's vertical plane too, not just everything going about orderly in a horizontal plane.
As in is there a way to create absolute vacuum, pump out the electromagnetic field, or ether, or whatever you wanna call it? In the days of Toricelli they used to wonder whether absolute metaphysical void is philosophically possible, and the 760mm Hg mercury tube was their prime example of messing with such vacuum, and how it wants to suck on things, nature abhores emptiness, til someone came around and said no, it does not, what we got is atmospheric pressure pushing down on mercury, and vacuum not pushing down on it, and if you take your Toricelli tube up the mountain side, it will abhor the metaphysical void differently.
And the speed of gravity may indeed be infinite, if it propagates through a medium that's empty, even empty of electromagnetic vacuum. Does that sentence even make sense? It's like saying vacuum has mass per unit volume, that retards gravity, like, if you put electrically charged obstacles in the way of light, such as a zirconia crystal of a fake diamond ring, it will slow light down, so putting a lot of sand or earth or metal in the way of gravity slows it down too? Or does gravity penetrate mass unimpeded to the mass right behind it. We know an electric field propagates only with the speed of light, and speed of light is impeded by electric charges in abundance in the way.
Hidden variables are the simplest way to kill a probabilistic model of reality. Like every time I think of quantum theory, I think of the randomness of Brownian motion, how 900 trillion molecules are smacking the pollen under the microscope from the left, 900 million plust 53 from the right, and that 53 is heavy enough to make it move. But luckily, by the time we found the random Brownian motion of lifeless particles, we already had the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases, and its statistical rules, and the parameters, the rules, are not many in that model, but the actors are - 900 trillion of them at the same time. There may be a deterministic description to quantum theory, but you may have to come up with 900 trillion actors obeying simple rules, to accurately measure and describe at what localize point an electron wave function will decide to collapse on a screen from a double slit experiment. We have no way to measure 900 trillion different velocities and motions of things we don't even know what they are or whether they exist. By the way even into the 20th century there were prominent scientists, like Ostwald who denied the existence of atoms, and maintained that matter is continuous, and ascribed its success to just mere luck, and it will be a matter of time before we find something to disprove it as a valid theory, just like we abandoned phlogiston, caloric, vis viva, etc., but it's hard to hold such a view in face of an atomic force microscope today. We think atoms are real and Brownian motion is from 900 gazillion atoms smashing into each other at the same time. What stuff is there in vacuum, in emptiness, that acts like that? Vacuum, or complete physical void and emptiness, is definitely not empty, as far as I can tell. If it were, it would have a dielectric permittivity of zero, and the speed of light would be infinite.
Also, I seen a youtube video of a weird fluid, which under oscillations that resupplied the energy lost to friction, it grew tentacles, standing waves on its surface. Then you can ping ping these waves around.
Why combine the beams to see which path the neutrons took? Why not measure them individually? Because then you don't get the self-interference effects of the electron double-slit experiment. If you block either hole, it's easy to see that each electron wave-packet went through the other one. But if you keep both holes open, each wave-packet electron goes through both holes, and arrives at the screen in a self-diffraction pattern, with highs and lows in probability or abundance amplitudes. I.e., the modeling of the electron as a "particle", as a dot, as something limited in extent in space, is not correct, it does spread out, though I don't know if it spreads out to a mile, if that's the distance between the holes, or across the galaxy, it may be like a sound wave only spreads out to openings on a wall within a limited range, and the range, or amplitude of the unparticleness spread all over the place is limited to the nearby neighborhood, and not halfway across the globe, let alone the galaxy. But soundwaves get absorbed as thermal friction, while electrons live in an undecaying medium, and don't have a half life. So how far do the electrons spread out, halfway across the galaxy? With sound waves, in absence of decay, absence of friction, or light waves in absence of absorbance, there is an inverse square drop in amplitude vs. distance, and I assume this be the case with all waves, as the surface of a sphere is inverse square, it's where the term comes from, and such a rule represents conservation of something when it goes from a 1 cm radius to a 10 cm radius, if spherical, its amplitude as a wave drops as inverse square, but when confined to a reflecting waveguide, the aplitude is constant. Electron microscopy probably shows that electrons behave like other waves of sound, light, etc., and something is conserved, and they follow the inverse square law in a sphere, and a consant law if you can make a waveguide. So the electron self diffracts, and maybe these guys didn't have a neutron-screen to observe the diffraction effects, but a single neutron probe somewhere, so when they were expecting an increase in something, they measured a decrease, as the patterns get a little more complicated with diffraction, based on path length. They need a neutron "display screen", and even if they can't get 800x600 SVGA pixels, maybe 24x24 would be nice. That's a lot of neutron detectors. So even 2x2=4, 3x3=9 or 10x10=100 is better than just 1.
I think its the other way around, the dyed water has a ferromagnetic molecule whose color is sensitive to the applied magnetic field, but the distilled water lacks such a complex additive, and is not sensitive.
By the way, I forgot to add, that it amazes me how every galaxy is flat, or most of them are, and I can't really picture gravity keeping together a centrifugal balanced spherical galaxy, there is no way to have the rotations, and if there is, there'd be a lot of collisions. Like in outer space conquest by humans most of the space stations will have to get in line with the general flow of things, and stay in the flat orbit plane of the Sun, but just like Earth satellites, it's possible to go North-South as opposed to East-West in a geosynchronous orbit, as long as you don't collide. So why are galaxies flat? Why not just random spherically distributed debris going round and round, like we assume in the particle model description of how an electron goes round the atom, and the probability of finding it at any point. I don't like probabilities, I'm willing to trade for a 100 parameter deterministic theory describing quantum mechanics accurately compared to the few parameter probabilistic Schroedinger equation description, which is not as useful to me. Any takers on that deal? So anyway, how do we know neutrons are spherical? Are there such measurements? We have atomic force microscopy to show that molecular surface features are indeed spherical-elliptical, and not flat disk-like, like galaxies. Also the uniform bond angles in methane show that there is spherical uniformity in an atom. But it may turn out that neutrons are weird, and flat-like wave-soliton mixes, just like most debris around planets orbits as a spherical moon, but Saturn is different, it has a ring, that Maxwell conceptually derived, in his dream, not to be uniform continuity, but made up of debris. And so it is, we see it in the Voyager pictures.
There are wavepacket objects that can be knocked around. I forget, but I think the word is soliton, or something similar, a single wave-hump, or a wavehump plus some fast decaying amplitude fluctuations a couple wavelengths away, that travels, as if it were a particle. In order to understand quantum "particles" I think they need to delve into the math of ping pong-ing macroscopic single hump wave "particles" around - how they interact with each other, how to get a bounce out of each. Another thing that acts weird, as if it were a particle, but it's distributed, is a macroscopic vortex. Once you build up the intuition about these macroscopic "particles" that are simply a phenomenon of their medium - be it two vortices or two wave humps in macroscopic air or water, or quantum particles in the "ether" of vacuum - (I'm gonna leave this sentence hanging like this.) The math is really complicated with interacting vortices that bounce off each other, or wave solitons that bounce off each other, and conserve the terms of momentum, mv, energy, mv2, and I think angular momentum. What else?
A neutron having a magnetic moment means it has internal charge separation, and the sum of the internal charges is zero, but the "currents" of different charges are separated, such as the positive charges are flow in a small radius donut in the center, and the negative charges in a large radius donut around the small donut, or even if in the same donut (as in a copper donut wire you have both the positive and negative flowing in the same donut) at least at a different speeds relative to each other. If there are acually two donuts, not just one, then these two internal donuts may not be in the same plane, but say vertical to each other, and then the vector sum of the magnetic moments may act a bit more weird, if you can shift the relative plane of each donut differently with an externally applied magnetic field. It would be nice to know which ones are the magnetic field generators in a neutron relative to the lab's velocity taken as zero. In a copper wire we know it's the negative charge that flows, and the positive sits still. Is there a way to tell which one sits still inside a neutron, or what the speeds are? I think artifacts of such considerations might shed light on the devil is in the details of how they performed the experiment and what they actually measured and what actually happened, and it may turn out not to be a separation of the property of the wave from the wave, but some measurement artifact misunderstanding. And by the way I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, you could probably come up with a Schroedinger wave equation or Heisenberg particle matrix for macroscopic vortices or wave solitons, and then could take it to lower scales. Also Dirac's electron-positron pair rising out of pure vacuum is like a vortex and antivortex, or soliton and antisoliton arising out of the "ether" or medium of pure vacuum. And by the way some strange behavior of this "ether" might be deduced in how light travels in the Michelson Moreley experiment, and by the beding of starlight by gravity during a solar eclipse. By the way does light bend equally based on how its polarized vs. the gravitational field vector? A recent issue with a supernova explosion nearby showing two different neutrino peaks followed by a light peak that then stayed on continuously, brought up the idea that the difference in neutrinos might be polarization, as in birefringence in an anisotropic medium - which by the way splits a beam into two, not a spread spectrum like the prizm does with the rainbow. So this concept of ether was killed dead and deemed superfluous, but as all quantum phenomena are wave phenomena, and we can best understand waves by assuming a uniform medium that has properties x, y, z, w, etc., (gimme 19 parameters and I can fit an elephant with a mathematical curve, give me 20 and I can fit the tail too with high accuracy.) The less parameters you need the better, and if you can beat the 26 parameter string theory, with say explaining as much a
We need an overlord to top and reign in these loose corporate vagabond overlords, called a monarch, or king. The first king of the USA will shake things up and get everybody in line, and fix things up for good, if you only let him have a dynasty that lasts at least 300 years. Then his vision is set more long term than these 4-year or 2 term 8 year temporary corporate sluts who all they care about is stuffing their pockets or more like constituents pockets today, and they have no long term interest in what happens after they are no longer relevant, after leaving office. A king with a dynasty cares about what happens to his heir, first born son, and what he inherits from him.
Btw why they say ghosts are scary? I got pet ghosts all over the place here, and they make really good friends. They tell me all kinds of funny things and make me laugh all day. They come visit me from the nearby cemetery. That's like one of my primary concerns in looking for housing, what are the dead people like in the area, would their ghosts be friendly with me?
Or how about public domain? Microsoft and Apple would love to see public domain stuff they can pimp up in their stuff and sell it to everybody in the modified version. BSD is public-domain like, but why not call it public domain? I love public domain. That's how information - gossip, technology - is in a village, no cock blocks. It's like the next time someone offers me a "standard" intellectual property agreement disguised as a confidentiality agreement when I want to work as a free minded laborer on a shop floor, I'm walking off the job, unless they agree the stuff I think up is public domain, and they can't block me from thinking it, talking it or doing it somewhere else later. It means they can also do anything they want with it, and this would relate to what I come up with, not what they already claim as theirs. As I think that's what they worry about, you come up with something, and expect the world to be compensated for it as your intellectual property. Naw dawg, you can't shove an intellectual property down my throat with that excuse, worrying that I might claim and abuse the invention rights to something, so you confiscate them all, and stop me from thinking it again, because now these thoughts, these methods and technologies, these sequences of hand motions step 1 step 2 step 3, are yours. Intellectually speaking. I agreed and signed the rights over to them. Are you kidding me? How about we agree that nobody has it and we both have it at the same time? It's public domain, from the instant it was created. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do, with it, and I'll do whatever the fuck I wanna do? Are we cool on that? Freedom of mind is very important to me. I hate intellectual property agreements shoved down my throat, which is why I'll never be happy in a standard corporate world, no matter what the pay. Freedom of mind is very important to me, and it should be to everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't need more computing power, or cheaper computing. What I have is enough, what I need is software that's more efficient. Heck even MS Office 97sp2 is more efficient than all the office version starting from Office 2002 they throw at me today, has better features, it's faster and less bloated and smaller in size. My real issues, when I look at my costs are: housing and transportation. Healthcare I try not to mess with, and it's a fight against constant deliberate infection. So to drop the housing cost, please build rotating space stations that can fit a trillion people, because if you justify the high demand and low supply of housing because we have 7 billion people, that's not my fault, I'm not contributing to overpopulation, so don't torture me over it please. And as far as gas goes, create safe nuclear power plants that make a lot of ammonia, and fuel cell cars based on that. Ban all nuclear bombs on the planet, and build nuclear power plants for cheap energy. You can also cut the natural gas and water bills with cheap energy. I don't want yet another tax, like carbon tax, and yet another expense, like mandatory Obamacare, if anything I want less tax, such as no local income tax, and very low property tax, and no mandatory insurance for driving. I already lost the battle on how much I deserve for the work I do, I'm not special, and minimum wage is an extreme luxury, when you look at what kind of miracles it can buy, like a 320 GB portable hard disk for $30. Minimum wage is extreme luxury. What's bullshit is the sky high mandatory existence-fee like expenses. Please don't destroy my house because you think it's not luxurious enough to my needs, based on your building code luxury standards. My definition of luxury is dough sitting in the bank, and high income to basic, mandatory expense ratio, of at least 10-20 (which is achievable with minimum wage if you can get a CAUV tax of $22/year on a small farm, which comes out to $1.83/month housing cost that's mandatory, plus the mobile home property tax if it has the wheels removed and it becomes a fixture, not a movable item, so you can avoid even the $60/year mobile home tax, an then housing cost items that you can do yourself, like maintenance, such as tarp over a leaky roof. So now from focusing on housing sucking the living life out of everybody, they try to flip it to health care, and I'm fighting tooth and nail not to go to the hospital again, and I know the hospital won't help me, because they don't do what you ask as a customer, please help me with a throat infection, they shine a flashlight in your throat and say I can't see anything, you must be hallucinating, and send you to the nut house. That's bullshit, that's like I take my car in for an oil change, and they say the oil is fine, but we replaced the transmission for you, against your will, and here is the bill. Like we knock your house down, against your will, so you can't live in it, and here is the bill, and if you don't pay it, we'll put a foreclosure on your credit, and no, the land bank don't accept donations of lots without a house on it, we want to first send you to foreclosure over it and the land bank gets it anyway, because nobody's bidding at the sheriff sale. And as far as justifying the high cost of lawnmowing, don't fucking do it. Even if you paid me $20 to have me let you cut my grass, I'd say no, because I love weed and bugs that much. If you offered 2000 each time, I'd say sorry bugs, you gotta find another place to live. But I prefer my grass uncut, let alone wasting money I don't have in the first place on it. Beauty is a natural flower, a rough weed that can exist on its own, without external help like welfare support, and there is a bug on its petals, living the same way, wild, free, unlike the artificial plants that require constant welfare support to make it. And a green lot without any flowers is a green desert to me. What happened to the bugs, these marvelous little creatures? Yeah, some of them, like mosquitos, I slap, if I catch them, but most of them I have no problem with coexisting with me. I am happier in a world full of butterflies and beautiful bugs, than in a green desert suburban environment deprived of it.)
Dude, they are getting impulse, momentum, mv, from the mass contained in the energy, mc2, which is pure light's mass. You could use that same energy to accelerate any particle, even an electron, to near speed of light velocities via a cyclotron first, then as relativistic mass takes over and cyclotron speeds get out of synch, so you take over with a coiled linear accelerator with correctly placed spacings along its path, a few miles long, then shoot it out into open space as a propulsion kickback conservation of impulse kind of thing, and get better bang, better kickback per energy invested, all you need is a simple piece of matter, like an electron to blow up in mass relativistically and generate a lot of impulse or momentum from this mass increase. As you invest into relativistic mass, you start wasting energy as mass, so there is probably some optimum point of say 0.8c or 0.9c, where the economic scarcity of matter mass dictates wasting energy as relativistic mass. The question is how difficult is it to come up with an electron from outer space, and shoot it back there. Or carry the electron fuel - bound to things like atomic nuclei, and then you can strip the nuclei completely of all electrons, or if that's too expensive energetically, of only a few electrons and the real kick and impulse you get then is of course from these much heavier ions, or stripped atoms, not the light weight electrons. In intergalactic travel you may not be able to filter enough hydrogen atoms or helium atoms (like a whale filters plankton) from the vacuum of space if the vacuum is too close to zero pressure, so then your economic option is using just light, or pure energy, gathered from starlight through massive solar panels, as a propulsion. Accelerating a very scarce electron to very close to speed of light, where the ratio of relativistic mass to rest mass is say, 100, that means 99 grams of 100 grams of stuff ejected as propulsion is energy-mass, then, then you might as well do 100 percent energy-mass, if the operation is simpler, and you don't need a funky cyclotron.
I for one, love my little HP Mini 210 Laptop with a 5 W Intel Atom chipset and 9 hr battery life, and way more than sufficient computing power as far as I'm concerned, and all the recent creations on the web, such as semi-infinite-loop javascript webpages trying to tell me to upgrade, they can go stick their javascript where the Sun don't shine, because I think I have way too much computing power as it is, not too little, more than sufficient for my needs, only it's used incorrectly by shitty software, and we have a clash of mentality on this topic, and I beg to differ with them.
Then there'll be these secret places where people or monkeys with a lot of terraflops are bred in a dish, without having any fathers and mothers, are born and get eyes and ears excised so they don't develop normal sensory processing and world awareness (or they can even be genetic engineered and propagated like that, not to have eyes and ears, or even skin touch and taste and smell senses), so their whole brain capacity is available for some non-sensory, non-world-around-you-awareness-and-modeling computing task, and some fiber optic interconnect links like a hundred of them in a room, all being hooked up like hospital coma patients to a perfusion feed, and some automated excrement system that sucks the poop out of their butt automatically, and this "Beowulf cluster" of monkey brains (or human brains if they are sure not to get caught, because they get better bang per buck out of a human brain, per calorie of food invested - not necessarily, and chimp short term memory is proven to be better than a human's, so it depends on the task at hand) would be able to mine a whole lot of bitcoins very cheaply. Why worry about miniaturization, dust-free atmosphere chip foundries that cost near a trillion dollars, when life can miniaturize and create a supercomputing brain, in the middle of a dusty, putrefied swampy mud. The far future of computing, and even AI is biotech, or biotech-like miniaturizing self automation machines, and whether this bio-computer is a DNA based organic brain, or a silicon-chip based self constructing metal/silicon machine, only the future will tell.
I think we still got at least another 50-200 years to go before we match the computing power of a cheap human cranium, which has got to be way more than a terraflop. Next wonder of biotechnology: reworking a human brain - or more like a monkey brain that has no ethical issues - to efficiently compute floating point results that can be directly displayed on an LCD, instead of analyze visual signals.
Anybody in charge of handling nukes, or launching them knows the extreme danger they are tinkering with. I don't think the AI researchers minds are permeated by the same mindset, and if anything, handling a nuke or a nuke launch system is comparatively a piece of cake, a whole lot less dangerous than handling one of these supercomputer machines. They should mandate by law for every person that works with it to watch that movie "Screamers," just so that they are aware, and whoever works with it needs total psychological and security clearance, just like the people that work with nukes. You wouldn't want some egomaniac or one with charged with an agenda (such as greenpeace, vegetarian, any kinds of rights activist, i.e. anybody off the standard beaten path,) to tinker with one of these things, and in fact there is no guarantee that even people who seem completely sane, live normal lives, have families, 30 year careers, go to church, don't turn up like that bank president who after like 30 years he walked out with a few million dollars from his bank, in plain view in front of the camera, not even trying to disguise himself, left a wife, kids, and a community behind, and who knows what he did with that money, go to some Caribbean island and have fun watching young women in bikinis stroll before him on a beach sipping champagne? Some people's idea of fun is distorted like that, but it is usually an issue of ego, and in that, self interest, as opposed to religious people, who learned how to beat their self interest down, and aim for the collective self interest, but even that can turn into some racist stuff, like the God of my people vs. the God of your people, I'm a jealous God, say my God, and I'll blow you up over my God, my externalized ego, of my people, being greater than yours. Of course there has to be a balance between self interest and collective interest, as represented by the case of a cuckold fetish dude, at which everyone with common sense laughs at. On the other hand, male lions, when taking over a pride after a victorious fight, the first thing they do is kill all the pups that they can smell are not theirs, to bring the females into heat and have their own off-springs. That's what happens, speciest, racist, clanist stuff. Male lions are definitely not cuckolds, but they understand the concept of a social hierarchy too. So in all this, we humans have religion to help, to balance things out. So to speak. But even the Holy Quran complains how "they" (as in Allah speaks in the plural a lot in it) have never told the Christians to become monks, nuns and virgins, that was a human invention, not a divine one, as reproduction and propagation of life "they" consider holy. Yet all great religions in the world created monks, or monk-like off the social chart people, as a social , non-self-interest but community-interest driven individuals.
Just in case, I'll repeat the movie "Screamers" from 1996, that goes along this military intelligent robots automation design topic. And it's not a joke, it may seem like surreal and funny, but it's very serious stuff. The miracles of science and technology can create some really jawdropping stuff, but nothing as jaw dropping as the stuff created in that movie, so far.
What the hell are they gonna compute on it? The weather more accurately? Or Pi to a few more gazillion decimal places? How about create an artificial intelligence smarter than a human in it, that designs an even smarter core, and 3d-prints itself in a million copies all over the world into mobile robots by suddenly hacking into all networks, and then these million robotic copies of this smarter than human AI are gonna start eating humans alive for breakfast, and because they are a smarter predator than their human prey, so good luck outsmarting them. I think it all starts with design automation, design that designs the next design. That's how DNA works, it's a pretty simple design, A, C, G, T. It's a design that allows for automated design changes and selection. That's all they need to unleash inside one of these beasts. Make sure it's not connected to the wider Internet, or even power lines should be very isolated with many breakers that can be manually thrown, and the law should mandate some domestic ICBM's be pointed directly at the location, just in case it gets out of hand and needs to be annihilated. This kind of thing is the most dangerous threat to humanity, unlike the 2nd threat, biotech, against which the cure is simple: run away to quarantine yourself from the wider world (all interconnected through the atmospheric oxygen), such as in a few space stations. You can't really run away from AI if it's smarter than you and can chase you down. There is a Star Trek episode where some alien species, that is a predator, hunter, reminisces how he once chased another prized intelligent prey species through the core of a neutron star. That's what predators do, they go after you. Do you want to create a smarter predator, smarter parasite, than yourself? Only if you absolutely have to, should you. Are we in such dire circumstances? I don't think so. Life is good these days, for a while still, at least, in fact it's best it's ever been through history. We keep bitchin about oppression, but just look through human history, oppression was even worse. Well, except the intellectual property kind, we used to have a lot of freedom in that, and now the powers that be collect IP from creators for peanuts, and rape the rest of the population on royalties. The value they contribute to society is called "owning", or "hogging" and blackmailing everybody, over knowledge. They say it's expensive to think, just like this thinking machine proves it, and the value it generates should be possible to get "consideration" exchanged for, and the best way they can do it is turning it into a "property."
That's pretty neat that if you have a few planets orbiting a star, they pull on each other to end up in the same plane long term. I didn't know that was the case. So flat galaxies come about from the stars themselves pulling each other into a flat orbit and organizing the galaxy like that. So that would mean an elliptical galaxy is a young one, and a flat one is an old one, where enough pull on each other interactions have happened. I think officially they claim it the other way, that elliptical ones are the old ones. Hmm.
We simply cannot measure the speed of gravity because we cannot get the long distance out of it with exact position and accurate force measurements on a small time scale, like we can get out of measuring light, which can be bounced around with a mirror and stays high intensity for miles. Gravity always decays by r squared, an as far as I know there are no mirrors for gravitational phenomena, or high impedance zones for reflection or refraction of gravitational waves if it does indeed propagate by waves, and finite speed. Even the Sun's gravity, which is a huge mass, is barely pulling on my hair to make it stand up when the Sun is overhead, at noon, high up in the sky. It's too far, and its effects decay by r^2. So the best way to measure the speed of gravity is not through large distances, but short distances (and the need for mass and matter density puts a limit on how close you can get in r^2, as Iridium and Osmium are the densest things that we know of, at 22 g/cm3, only twice as dense as lead, and to build up weight you need to put some distance between the objects. There are some unstable artificial nuclei in the Periodic Table right under Iridium and Osmium, which may be the heaviest, densest things in existence under the physical conditions on this planet, but you can't really measure that if all you get in a reactor is like 5 atoms total that decay in 1.7 seconds half life. But if you could get a 50 kton dot 2 micron away from another one, that would be the way to go, as even a humongous weight Sun gives you almost nothing to measure. The shorter length drops linearly the speed measurement quantity, but it increases by the square the gravity effect. And under such short distances ultrashort time measurements are needed. Whatever the limits of short time measurements are, they can be pitted against this need of measuring speed of gravity in the lab, under the shortest possible distances.
For such an experiment to work, you have to get the ratios to do the magic, and, an exaggerated case would be having a lead ball the size of Jupiter inside the lab pulling on the spore of a plant suspended on a hair of quartz torsion spring, exerting a huge force on the spore by virtue of Jupiter's gravity. Then you suddenly pull Jupiter through the door out of the lab with a blast at the other end of the shaft outside the lab, and, because the spore does not have much inertia due to its own weight, the torsion sensor almost has to fight its own inertia as opposed to the spores, but the system is light and reacts fast to a gravitational change, you get a reaction, a sort of high speed gravitational sensor by virtue of its light weight that has just been influenced by huge gravity. If anything a super light sensor like spider web suspended stuff might be better than a quartz hair, and again you're looking for ratios, strength vs. mass, to minimize the mass of suspension equipment vs. the suspended small weight weight, and even going under a microscope to watch position vs. time of a 10 angstrom carbon nanotube suspended 1 microgram weight as a 50 kiloton "Jupiter" suddenly gets jerked out of the lab with a blast on the other end, might come up with some results. Even one significant digit, or just a hint, like a half a significant digit, might be useful, in the measurement of the speed of gravity, or at least provide a lower limit, as in is it the same or more than the speed of light. So one could budget for at least 2 light speeds, and if the experiment does not give a measurement, but comes up with no result in the sense that the speed is still infinite within the confines of the experiment and we can't measure it accurately, but definitely higher than 2 speed of lights, that would be a step forward.
If by GR you mean general relativity, it does not conclude or arrive at as a result, but postulates, presupposes, just like special relativity does, as an axiom, that the speed of light is constant. Also I just read the speed of gravity wikipedia page, and it smells like absolute bullshit, other than Laplace saying something that the speed of gravity must be 7x10^6 times the speed of light, which is an interesting number, but I don't know how he arrived at it. Then the page goes on discussing how Earth would be attracted to where the Sun was a while ago, as I assume, just like we see light get to us from the Sun in 8 minutes, so we see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and would have no idea if it disappeared or some extraterrestrial invaders suddenly stole it from us and towed it away, 2 minutes ago, for another 6 minutes, and see where it is now. Duh. But the arguments that finite speed of gravity would make the Earth spiral out of orbit is ludicrous. It is the direction and intensity of force vector that matters as it is encountered by Earth, and just because you see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and with gravity you feel where the Sun was distance/speed ago, it does not mean you get a forward or backward pull, because, where ever you are on the orbit, you meet up with the force or wave the Sun sent there 8 minutes ago, pulling you in a direction and intensity just right to maintain the same orbit as if it was sent 1 minute ago or 2 minutes ago, or even two millenia ago if that's how slow gravity propagated, or even instantaneously, you see the same force vector, pointing in the same direction at that point, with the same intensity. So why do you care it was sent right now or a while ago if it does the same thing? There is a lot of fallacy around this. Also observing a quasar as Jupiter passes in front of it, to measure the speed of gravity? What a fucking quack! A quasar and Jupiter are not gravitationally interacting, nor are you with the Quasar or Jupiter, practically speaking. The quasar does interact with its nearby objects. You can't measure speed of gravity between distant galactic objects, they don't interact, unless the mass you're dealing with is huge, and their corresponding distance is very small, so you're dealing with huge gravity forces, and almost the same dots in the picture image from the Hubble telescope. Then theoretically you could get some time measurements, as Kepler kept record, and once you calculate the GM (gravitational constant x mass) for the interacting objects, and can predict their orbits in the Kepler-like relativistic way, and then measure distance accurately too of a 3rd object flying by so close that it's a 3-body system instead of two, and affecting the quasars time periods by turning them into this 3-body system, and plotting the quasar frequency vs. distance of the 3rd object as it collides with them, and knowing the accurate distance, could let you calculate the speed of gravity. There are no accurate ways to measure distances in far galaxies. And good luck waiting out such a collision as they take millions of years to happen, and you need one that slams into a quasar with a timing on the order of the quasars pulses, so that's very fast, and the chances of catching one of these happenings in the sky, i.e. a 2 second event, colliding object position accurately plotted vs. time for those 2 seconds, while it blasted away the quasar, the chances of seeing one of these are pretty much zero in a lifetime, probably zero in a millenium too.
So quit trying to measure the speed of gravity waiting for and hoping to catch high speed gravitational events far away in the sky, and accurately plotting positions too, or computing them from a system of equations, for which you still need measurements of some kind, even if less accurate, for all the 7 actors involved in the system of 7 equations). So the best chances to measure speed of gravity are in the lab, repeating Cavendish's experiments (see the wikipedia page). Just like in the formula for attraction between electric charges, F=
OK, you're right. So I correct myself: In absolute void the speed of light is not infinite, but just simply does not exist, because it's undefined, 0/0 division, and there is actually no wave at all, because there is no medium to carry it. The speed of any wave is the square root of a driving force term divided by an inertial term, as in sqrt((1/epsilon) / mu) for electromagnetic waves, or sqrt(E/Rho) for mechanical waves, E being the Young modulus, or stiffness (potential energy), rho the mass density (inertia), epsilon the dielectric permittivity(potential energy), mu the magnetic permeability(inertia). In an almost perfect void inertial terms are zero, or very nearly so, infinitesimal, but we don't know how zero the potential terms are. It is the ratio of these residual infinitesimal quantities that determines the speed of the wave, and for light the potential energy inverse permittivity factor is much greater than the magnetic inertia factor, that's how we have a huge velocity. Obviously, in absolute void there is neither inertia nor potential energy, just as there is sound in air, but in absence of a medium, such as in outer space, you can yell all you want in your space suit, the other astronomers can't hear it, there is no air to propagate it, but through a radio that transmits waves through the non-perfect-void between you two he can, because the "aether", the electromagnetic medium between you two is still present, and were it not, there would be no means of communication such as light or radio, you'd be immersed in a completely blind and deaf world, other than actually shooting dee deet dah dah Morse code bullets at each other and maintaining the sense of touch, or even various chemicals, to maintain the sense of taste (imagine you were a metal robot with HF-like(hydrofluoric acid-reacting like) heavy liquid, that does not boil in outer space vaccuum, acid saliva, tasting rocks.) As a different view, imagine you only had ears like bats, and you were in outer space, and you did not even know light existed, so without air you can't see anything with your ultrasound ears, or talk to each other, but if you use a bunch of ping pong balls to shoot around you instead of ultrasound, and a sensor to detect if any bounce back at you, you got a rough image, and your buddy can ping ping some balls at you in a tee tee tah tah Morse code fashion and communicate. So in absolute void there is no wave of any kind, because there is no transmission medium of any kind. It's like saying what is the speed of sound in outer space? It is zero. It stops at the interface of the sound propagating medium, the hull of your spacesuit, and the high or low impedance outer space, with total reflection. I'm not sure the concept of "aether" that has been abandoned as a scientific concept deemed superfluous because we can't measure our speed against it in the Michelson Morley experiment, so it would require complicated behavior to adapt to these experiments, so I'm not sure this concept is useless, because it does provide a medium to discuss, through which a wave propagates. Enabling it with funky but complicated behavior might be an worthwhile thing to do, and maintain Newtonian absolute time and space, and all electromagnetic things bending in it according to the Lorentz rules, but space itself or time itself would not bend. If you can find any non-electromagnetic objects around you (good luck), you could see if that cares about the constancy of speed of light or not. We still don't know what Newtonian gravity is, is it a force that propagates through a medium, and then what are the potential and inertial terms of that medium that would determine the speed. Obviously gravity propagates either infinitely fast, or very fast, as a simple force measuring experiment along the lines of Eotvos Lorant suspending 50 kg lead Pb balls via a quartz hair, and a mirror to bounce light to measure the torsion and force, you could measure how fast the force signal reacts when you suddenly remove the gravitationally interacting objects, vs. initial distance, i.
Elliptical galaxies must have a lot of collisions as stars go about in perpendicular planes to each other. As there has to be a centrifugal force keeping the stuff from falling together right away, like in a vortex the spinning sets up a delay, and keep things from collapsing into each other, in the ellipsoid's vertical plane too, not just everything going about orderly in a horizontal plane.
As in is there a way to create absolute vacuum, pump out the electromagnetic field, or ether, or whatever you wanna call it? In the days of Toricelli they used to wonder whether absolute metaphysical void is philosophically possible, and the 760mm Hg mercury tube was their prime example of messing with such vacuum, and how it wants to suck on things, nature abhores emptiness, til someone came around and said no, it does not, what we got is atmospheric pressure pushing down on mercury, and vacuum not pushing down on it, and if you take your Toricelli tube up the mountain side, it will abhor the metaphysical void differently.
And the speed of gravity may indeed be infinite, if it propagates through a medium that's empty, even empty of electromagnetic vacuum. Does that sentence even make sense? It's like saying vacuum has mass per unit volume, that retards gravity, like, if you put electrically charged obstacles in the way of light, such as a zirconia crystal of a fake diamond ring, it will slow light down, so putting a lot of sand or earth or metal in the way of gravity slows it down too? Or does gravity penetrate mass unimpeded to the mass right behind it. We know an electric field propagates only with the speed of light, and speed of light is impeded by electric charges in abundance in the way.
Hidden variables are the simplest way to kill a probabilistic model of reality. Like every time I think of quantum theory, I think of the randomness of Brownian motion, how 900 trillion molecules are smacking the pollen under the microscope from the left, 900 million plust 53 from the right, and that 53 is heavy enough to make it move. But luckily, by the time we found the random Brownian motion of lifeless particles, we already had the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases, and its statistical rules, and the parameters, the rules, are not many in that model, but the actors are - 900 trillion of them at the same time. There may be a deterministic description to quantum theory, but you may have to come up with 900 trillion actors obeying simple rules, to accurately measure and describe at what localize point an electron wave function will decide to collapse on a screen from a double slit experiment. We have no way to measure 900 trillion different velocities and motions of things we don't even know what they are or whether they exist. By the way even into the 20th century there were prominent scientists, like Ostwald who denied the existence of atoms, and maintained that matter is continuous, and ascribed its success to just mere luck, and it will be a matter of time before we find something to disprove it as a valid theory, just like we abandoned phlogiston, caloric, vis viva, etc., but it's hard to hold such a view in face of an atomic force microscope today. We think atoms are real and Brownian motion is from 900 gazillion atoms smashing into each other at the same time. What stuff is there in vacuum, in emptiness, that acts like that? Vacuum, or complete physical void and emptiness, is definitely not empty, as far as I can tell. If it were, it would have a dielectric permittivity of zero, and the speed of light would be infinite.
Also, I seen a youtube video of a weird fluid, which under oscillations that resupplied the energy lost to friction, it grew tentacles, standing waves on its surface. Then you can ping ping these waves around.
I too am an elemtary bozo. And so are you.
Why combine the beams to see which path the neutrons took? Why not measure them individually? Because then you don't get the self-interference effects of the electron double-slit experiment. If you block either hole, it's easy to see that each electron wave-packet went through the other one. But if you keep both holes open, each wave-packet electron goes through both holes, and arrives at the screen in a self-diffraction pattern, with highs and lows in probability or abundance amplitudes. I.e., the modeling of the electron as a "particle", as a dot, as something limited in extent in space, is not correct, it does spread out, though I don't know if it spreads out to a mile, if that's the distance between the holes, or across the galaxy, it may be like a sound wave only spreads out to openings on a wall within a limited range, and the range, or amplitude of the unparticleness spread all over the place is limited to the nearby neighborhood, and not halfway across the globe, let alone the galaxy. But soundwaves get absorbed as thermal friction, while electrons live in an undecaying medium, and don't have a half life. So how far do the electrons spread out, halfway across the galaxy? With sound waves, in absence of decay, absence of friction, or light waves in absence of absorbance, there is an inverse square drop in amplitude vs. distance, and I assume this be the case with all waves, as the surface of a sphere is inverse square, it's where the term comes from, and such a rule represents conservation of something when it goes from a 1 cm radius to a 10 cm radius, if spherical, its amplitude as a wave drops as inverse square, but when confined to a reflecting waveguide, the aplitude is constant. Electron microscopy probably shows that electrons behave like other waves of sound, light, etc., and something is conserved, and they follow the inverse square law in a sphere, and a consant law if you can make a waveguide. So the electron self diffracts, and maybe these guys didn't have a neutron-screen to observe the diffraction effects, but a single neutron probe somewhere, so when they were expecting an increase in something, they measured a decrease, as the patterns get a little more complicated with diffraction, based on path length. They need a neutron "display screen", and even if they can't get 800x600 SVGA pixels, maybe 24x24 would be nice. That's a lot of neutron detectors. So even 2x2=4, 3x3=9 or 10x10=100 is better than just 1.
I think its the other way around, the dyed water has a ferromagnetic molecule whose color is sensitive to the applied magnetic field, but the distilled water lacks such a complex additive, and is not sensitive.
By the way, I forgot to add, that it amazes me how every galaxy is flat, or most of them are, and I can't really picture gravity keeping together a centrifugal balanced spherical galaxy, there is no way to have the rotations, and if there is, there'd be a lot of collisions. Like in outer space conquest by humans most of the space stations will have to get in line with the general flow of things, and stay in the flat orbit plane of the Sun, but just like Earth satellites, it's possible to go North-South as opposed to East-West in a geosynchronous orbit, as long as you don't collide. So why are galaxies flat? Why not just random spherically distributed debris going round and round, like we assume in the particle model description of how an electron goes round the atom, and the probability of finding it at any point. I don't like probabilities, I'm willing to trade for a 100 parameter deterministic theory describing quantum mechanics accurately compared to the few parameter probabilistic Schroedinger equation description, which is not as useful to me. Any takers on that deal? So anyway, how do we know neutrons are spherical? Are there such measurements? We have atomic force microscopy to show that molecular surface features are indeed spherical-elliptical, and not flat disk-like, like galaxies. Also the uniform bond angles in methane show that there is spherical uniformity in an atom. But it may turn out that neutrons are weird, and flat-like wave-soliton mixes, just like most debris around planets orbits as a spherical moon, but Saturn is different, it has a ring, that Maxwell conceptually derived, in his dream, not to be uniform continuity, but made up of debris. And so it is, we see it in the Voyager pictures.
There are wavepacket objects that can be knocked around. I forget, but I think the word is soliton, or something similar, a single wave-hump, or a wavehump plus some fast decaying amplitude fluctuations a couple wavelengths away, that travels, as if it were a particle. In order to understand quantum "particles" I think they need to delve into the math of ping pong-ing macroscopic single hump wave "particles" around - how they interact with each other, how to get a bounce out of each. Another thing that acts weird, as if it were a particle, but it's distributed, is a macroscopic vortex. Once you build up the intuition about these macroscopic "particles" that are simply a phenomenon of their medium - be it two vortices or two wave humps in macroscopic air or water, or quantum particles in the "ether" of vacuum - (I'm gonna leave this sentence hanging like this.) The math is really complicated with interacting vortices that bounce off each other, or wave solitons that bounce off each other, and conserve the terms of momentum, mv, energy, mv2, and I think angular momentum. What else?
A neutron having a magnetic moment means it has internal charge separation, and the sum of the internal charges is zero, but the "currents" of different charges are separated, such as the positive charges are flow in a small radius donut in the center, and the negative charges in a large radius donut around the small donut, or even if in the same donut (as in a copper donut wire you have both the positive and negative flowing in the same donut) at least at a different speeds relative to each other. If there are acually two donuts, not just one, then these two internal donuts may not be in the same plane, but say vertical to each other, and then the vector sum of the magnetic moments may act a bit more weird, if you can shift the relative plane of each donut differently with an externally applied magnetic field. It would be nice to know which ones are the magnetic field generators in a neutron relative to the lab's velocity taken as zero. In a copper wire we know it's the negative charge that flows, and the positive sits still. Is there a way to tell which one sits still inside a neutron, or what the speeds are? I think artifacts of such considerations might shed light on the devil is in the details of how they performed the experiment and what they actually measured and what actually happened, and it may turn out not to be a separation of the property of the wave from the wave, but some measurement artifact misunderstanding. And by the way I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, you could probably come up with a Schroedinger wave equation or Heisenberg particle matrix for macroscopic vortices or wave solitons, and then could take it to lower scales. Also Dirac's electron-positron pair rising out of pure vacuum is like a vortex and antivortex, or soliton and antisoliton arising out of the "ether" or medium of pure vacuum. And by the way some strange behavior of this "ether" might be deduced in how light travels in the Michelson Moreley experiment, and by the beding of starlight by gravity during a solar eclipse. By the way does light bend equally based on how its polarized vs. the gravitational field vector? A recent issue with a supernova explosion nearby showing two different neutrino peaks followed by a light peak that then stayed on continuously, brought up the idea that the difference in neutrinos might be polarization, as in birefringence in an anisotropic medium - which by the way splits a beam into two, not a spread spectrum like the prizm does with the rainbow. So this concept of ether was killed dead and deemed superfluous, but as all quantum phenomena are wave phenomena, and we can best understand waves by assuming a uniform medium that has properties x, y, z, w, etc., (gimme 19 parameters and I can fit an elephant with a mathematical curve, give me 20 and I can fit the tail too with high accuracy.) The less parameters you need the better, and if you can beat the 26 parameter string theory, with say explaining as much a
We need an overlord to top and reign in these loose corporate vagabond overlords, called a monarch, or king. The first king of the USA will shake things up and get everybody in line, and fix things up for good, if you only let him have a dynasty that lasts at least 300 years. Then his vision is set more long term than these 4-year or 2 term 8 year temporary corporate sluts who all they care about is stuffing their pockets or more like constituents pockets today, and they have no long term interest in what happens after they are no longer relevant, after leaving office. A king with a dynasty cares about what happens to his heir, first born son, and what he inherits from him.
Btw why they say ghosts are scary? I got pet ghosts all over the place here, and they make really good friends. They tell me all kinds of funny things and make me laugh all day. They come visit me from the nearby cemetery. That's like one of my primary concerns in looking for housing, what are the dead people like in the area, would their ghosts be friendly with me?
Or how about public domain? Microsoft and Apple would love to see public domain stuff they can pimp up in their stuff and sell it to everybody in the modified version. BSD is public-domain like, but why not call it public domain? I love public domain. That's how information - gossip, technology - is in a village, no cock blocks. It's like the next time someone offers me a "standard" intellectual property agreement disguised as a confidentiality agreement when I want to work as a free minded laborer on a shop floor, I'm walking off the job, unless they agree the stuff I think up is public domain, and they can't block me from thinking it, talking it or doing it somewhere else later. It means they can also do anything they want with it, and this would relate to what I come up with, not what they already claim as theirs. As I think that's what they worry about, you come up with something, and expect the world to be compensated for it as your intellectual property. Naw dawg, you can't shove an intellectual property down my throat with that excuse, worrying that I might claim and abuse the invention rights to something, so you confiscate them all, and stop me from thinking it again, because now these thoughts, these methods and technologies, these sequences of hand motions step 1 step 2 step 3, are yours. Intellectually speaking. I agreed and signed the rights over to them. Are you kidding me? How about we agree that nobody has it and we both have it at the same time? It's public domain, from the instant it was created. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do, with it, and I'll do whatever the fuck I wanna do? Are we cool on that? Freedom of mind is very important to me. I hate intellectual property agreements shoved down my throat, which is why I'll never be happy in a standard corporate world, no matter what the pay. Freedom of mind is very important to me, and it should be to everyone else.