"My intention was just getting a clear enough picture about what was going in in this specific setup."
Well, it looked as if you were dismissing the whole idea without any good reasons. That doesn't seem like a position of someone wanting to learn about what was going on.
"The classical mechanics theories are pretty solid for Earth, at the macroscopic level."
Nah. Maybe if you lived in the 19th century. Classical mechanics has nothing on lasers, GPS, even the internet or how fast you can get a signal around the world.
"It seems pretty sensible to guess that they are also somehow applicable to different scopes."
It would indeed be sensible as a starting point, but we have found out over a hundred years ago that that idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The universe (even here on earth) does not behave exactly according to classical mechanics.
"a theory whose sole purpose is accounting for the required correction factors at certain level,"
Not really. That was only the -result- of the theory. The theory itself was devised to answer questions like how space and time are related in a universe where light always seems to travel at the same speed from whatever perspective you care to take. It was only -after- he formulated it that Einstein realized that it was in fact a theory that -also- encompassed Newtons theory of gravity. So Einstein came in from a completely different angle than Newton. He tried to answer a different set of questions.
"That expectation, again. Why? Why do you expect something complex to be simple? "
Because that would be pretty darn consistent with what we already know about the universe.
"Simple answers to complex problems are usually incorrect (and/or dishonest)."
That seems to be very true if you're talking about humans.:) But the universe (and nature) does indeed seem to have fairy basic and 'lean' rules that lead to more complex stuff. This is actually one of the triumphs of physics, that the phenomena we see, even when they look complex to us, can often be best explained by simple interactions happening on massive scales.
Maybe it's just your (perfectly human) disbelief that simple interactions can lead to complexity? There is actually a lot of proof that a lot, if not all, complexity is due to relatively simple interactions that don't seem to imply any of this complexity themselves. I mean, even the computer you're reading this on is nothing more than a bunch of 2-state systems undergoing pretty simple interactions. Who could imagine you can edit pictures on it, or talk to people across the world with them or any other thing computers are used for. They are bloody simple mechanisms at the core. Reality is absolutely full of simple interactions leading to complex, seemingly unrelated, macro behaviors.
And talking about your worry that we make things too simple, even Einstein noted that 'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler'.:)
"My question is why starting assuming black holes (something against all what we have ever seen, experienced) from certain point onwards?"
The assumptions started when the theory of relativity was examined more closely. Relativity successfully explained some previously strange and inexplicable phenomena that physicists were finding in their labs. But there was a strange thing with this theory. It seemed to predict that if you put a LOT of mass in a relatively small space that you would get a place where no light could escape from. They called it a black hole. That's how the whole idea started. It was an after-the-fact comment on what the theory of relativity predicts and has nothing to do with the stuff relativity was designed to explain. So relativity was not created to explain black holes. You can see it as a side effect of the theory and no one had imagined such a thing could exist before the assembly of the theory of relativity.
So the believe in black holes is due to the success relativity has had in other parts of physics. At first there was little evidence for relativity ans so black holes, as an idea, were not taken very seriously. As more research was done it became more clear that everything we van test about relativity seems to coincide with reality. So the belief in black holes grew. Over the years we found much (circumstantial) evidence that there are indeed these incredibly dense regions of space. We found out, for instance, that galaxies would only behave like they do if there was a super massive and compact object at the center. The problem with black holes, of course, is that they are black. Very very black. So you can't actually SEE them directly. But from simulations and a lot of research we found out that there will be black holes out there that will have a doughnut-shaped ring around them of gasses that are in the process of being absorbed by the (theoretical) black hole.
We also found that there are these strange object lurking around in galaxies that spew out gigantic jets of stuff out into space. We see them regularly through telescopes. And we often see these jets originating from the centers of galaxies Theories predicted that these jets are caused by super massive black holes that convert part of the infalling matter into these jets. But that's just theory, right?
But now we have managed to zoom in on the source of one pair of these jets and LO AND BEHOLD. There is something there with a disc, a black center and the disc is even brighter on one side, which is -exactly- what relativity predicts. So it all adds up. None of these theories is simply thought correct on its own. It needs to support things we already know about the universe and it needs to predict new stuff which we can observe. If a theory contradicts reality it's not a good theory. And so far relativity never contradicted measurements. And it even predicts stuff we never knew about but now are finding to be real, like black holes and gravitational waves.
"Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics. Einstein was right on something: it is certainly a matter of frame of reference (or scope or size or scenario)."
Frame of reference IS relativity. And the actual point, the thing to take home from it, is that it is NOT a matter of frame of reference. Physics works the same way, no matter what frame of reference you happen to choose. Also, 'frame of reference' does not refer to 'scope' or 'size'. It is a very particular mathematical framework that describes how one part of space and time is related to other parts of space and time. So, sorry to say, no bubble to burst but your own...
"The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous."
Newton never gave his formula such meaning so you're just making this shit up now. He formulated what he measured and it turned out that what he devised held only within certain bounds. But this was discovered only much later. Before the development of relativity no one really expected Newtons formula to be a simplification of something bigger and more profound. It just turned out that in certain situations his theories didn't match with measurements and so a new theory was needed to explain observations.
Einstein arrived at relativity because it solved problems (like light speed being constant, which was known at the time) not related to gravity or black holes. And he hasn't been proven wrong. In fact, everything we find seems to confirm his theories.
"In fact, I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient."
That's a completely silly thing to state since (besides a buttload of other evidence) we now actually have a freaking picture of something that was predicted by this particular theory over a hundred years ago. It seems very much like we can indeed explain stuff that is going on at the other side of the visible universe. And what kind of argument is it anyway to throw your arms in the air and crying "It's so hard! It's virtually impossible"?
"Where have theories become our masters that we can't complain or say anything bad about any part of them?"
Well, of course you can complain all you like (and you'd not be the first person to do so), but if you can't come up with something better (or, indeed, anything at all, as you have so far managed) then you're just complaining for the complaining. You're not actually adding anything useful. And it doesn't even have to be a complete new theory. Just point out where the current theory is wrong or does not predict observations. Poking holes in existing theories, or, god forbid, actually stating new theories is science. Complaining is not.
"Why do you think that this is a take it or leave all kind of scenario?"
Because we have found nothing in the real actual universe out there and here on earth that disproves it. Again, if you have a better explanation for the stuff we see, be my guest, formulate it and be the king of physics. The thing is, this theory has a mountain of evidence behind it which you would have to surmount before you could formulate something better. You would have to formulate a theory that explains everything that relativity does but in a better way. And i just don't think you would be posting here on slashdot if you were capable of doing that. But no one on earth will actually stop you from attempting it.
Somehow i get the idea that you think that people think theories are real. That's not science. Theories tell us something useful about reality. They are not reality themselves.
"Why? Because we really don't use it."
Except that we do. GPS would not have worked if we hadn't compensated for t
"It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific."
It only looks to you like that because you don't actually know the science behind it.
In reality there are millions of observations done on every scale of the universe and all these observations are related to each other. You can't simply invent a theory that explains one observation but invalidates other observations.
The cool thing is that we knew about m87 because of other reasons than what you see in the picture. We had one set of theories that say that there should be some kind of very massive object at the center of galaxies. Another set of theories state that if an object is so massive it should collapse into something we call a black hole.
We now have looked at the center of a galaxy and lo and behold, there is a black hole there, just like predicted by the theories.
There are many many scientific puzzle pieces falling into place in that picture.
This is pure science. Multiple predictions made by multiple theories that look at things from a different perspective come together into a single observation.
"what if there is a star there which is 4k times our sun"
What if.. What if... We actually LOOKED and there is no such star. There is a cloud-like disk with a black center. See picture in TFA.
"(the end and beginning of everything, where time exist and not exist, where your dreams become true, etc.)"
Where do you get this bullshit from???? Hollywood?
"your conclusions and assuming that something 4000 times more massive is likely to be much more brighter and to have a much stronger gravitational force, you move to "black hole""
We haven't seen a star that is 4000 times more massive than our sun anywhere in the universe. This is one of the puzzle pieces. We see gigantic sources of gravity in very small volumes, but no star at the center. In fact, no light at all from the center. This is what we observe.
Another piece of the puzzle is that our current theories also say the same thing. You can't make a star bigger than a certain size. If you try to do it you will concentrate so much mass in a small space that it will collapse into a small point and will trap light. So theory predicts there should be very massive and very small objects that look black to us. So these theories explain and predict our observations.
"And why assuming a black or light-less or matter-less center rather than the much more logical tremendously bright and massive one?"
Again, we have never seen a star that is this big and bright. All stars that we have seen so far in our galaxy and in other galaxies are limited in size. Apparently the universe does not have big stars like you propose. If you can find one they you will become a science superstar.
"Because a century-old theory (about which I will better not talk) told you so?"
Everything we have observed so far is exactly like that theory predicted. If you don't want to talk about it you will never understand why we expected black holes in the first place. The theory says that mass bends space. We have observed this phenomenon without black holes. It is a true property of this universe.
Some smart person once noted that, according to this theory there can be a region of space where gravity is so strong that light can't escape it. A kind of black hole. That was about 100 years ago and at that time we had no instruments to observe such phenomena. So it was 'only' a theory. Over the years, as our instruments became better and better, we started finding such regions of space. But we never could get a good picture due to limitations of our instruments. But it was enough to develop our theories more. Now we have pointed our telescopes towards a place where the theories predict a black hole could be. And what do we find? A picture of a black hole surrounded by a fuzzy disk! It even includes other effects that the theory predicts, like that one side of the dust disk looks brighter. So this picture is exactly like the 'old theory' predicted! In over 100 years no one managed to create a different theory that predicted this picture.
Now, you could argue that the picture could be the result some other process. But then you would need to provide the mechanics of this other process. You have to make your own theory of why this picture looks like it does. But then your theory will ALSO need to explain why GPS needs time correction, why stars behind the sun can be observed to the side of the sun and why light always travels at a single speed and hundreds of other effects that are explained by "the old theory". Thousands of professional physicists haven't been able to create a different theory that explains all these effects. So good luck trying to invent your own.:)
If you do not provide an alternative explanation that covers everything we have observed then you have no right complaining. You should first study the 'old theory' and try to understand why it has been so successful and no one has managed to invalidate it so far.
What a joke. The US does as it likes and you, my friend, are its tool. The system you believe in and are so vocal in describing is a farce that is applied only when it gives the wanted results.
"You can download a game and then disconnect it from the internet."
Yeah, back in 1999 you could... But these days games won't start without internet because they say you *need* the social features. Of course this is not about the social features, it's about control and profit maxing. But you won't hear them say that they make more money off of you this way. They just say that they implemented some social shit that is woven into the game so deeply it won't start without it. And they can't change it because coding is magic and you can't change magic without killing some unicorns and at least a dozen dwarfs. And you're not unicorn haters, are you? Thought not. So eat it up you little shits!
"using complex numbers we can more conveniently do that BUT there is nothing in an electrical circuit that "is an imaginary number"... only reals." Your real numbers work great for DC circuits. But please explain complex impedance using only reals.
"the complex numbers are tool for useful model, but are human constructs." Let's be straight about this. ALL numbers are tools for useful models. If you consider 'real' numbers to be real then you must also consider complex numbers (which contain imaginary numbers) as being just as real. It seems you're trying to have the cake and eat it to.
"Part of the problem is that these services have too much blind faith in their ability to make predictions based upon incomplete knowledge. "
You're seriously overthinking this which makes you conclude they are in some way contemplating their actions. They're not. All they do is shove more of the same shit you watched towards you. That's all they do. They don't care for the consequences. There is no 'faith' or 'prediction' involved. The algorithm can be sumerized in five words: More of the same shit.
I'd say that they're more like 2D constants. Every singular number actually becomes a point on a 2D surface. Of course you can make a function out of them by substituting parts of it by a variable, but you can do the same with 'normal' numbers as well. If i have the complex number 3+5i then that's pretty much a constant. There is no variable and so it's not a function.
"Badly phrased, "we've made useful models for three centuries using imaginary numbers" is more accurate."
Are we talking about numbers or about phrasings of forum posts?
"nothing that corresponds to them, in the real world. "
That is not true tho, especially when you use the word 'correspond'. There are -relations- that are only described by using imaginary numbers (well, complex numbers). It's not about the actual magnitude of the numbers. Imaginary numbers are all about how they relate to our 'normal' numbers. And we see these relations in nature as well.
""Imaginary numbers" are less real than any other numbers."
No they're not. You just made the argument that all numbers are not real, but now you're trying to argue that some numbers are more unreal than others?
"There's good reason why a subset of all numbers is called "real numbers" and others are not part of that subset."
Not really. It's an arbitrary notion due to historic developments in mathematics. There is nothing less real about imaginary numbers than about real numbers or integers or rational numbers.
Also, real numbers, together with imaginary numbers, are in a superset called complex numbers. So real numbers are just a subset of other numbers. Not sure how you can see the 'real' part of real numbers signifying something 'real' when they combine perfectly into a bigger set of numbers that can also contain numbers you consider less 'real'. To me, it's just turtles all the way. Integers, rationals, real, imaginary etc.
But the most striking thing about imaginary numbers is how they enable one to describe real-world phenomena. So in some sense, the universe does indeed seem to behave according to laws that include imaginary numbers. We know of no other way to describe these things. So to me, that makes them at least at the same level of 'realness' as the other classes of numbers, possibly even more real because the math applies to more fundamental physical processes.
It was more meant as an observation than an insult. I really think its pathetically ignorant if in this day and age you don't know databases can be combined. This has been an issue for the last, i dunno, 15~20 years or so. There is real pathos to this type of ignorance, just as there is with arguments from climate change deniers and flat-earthers.
"LADOT is asking companies to provide the start trip and end trip of every vehicle as trips start and as trips end to make sure scooters are being parked legally and within the terms of the permit."
Wait, didn't the article say the tracking was just for 'city planning' ? But here they state that it's for finding parking offenders. So this is already being abused outside of it's stated scope.
"Route information is provided to the city after the trip has completed and within 24 hours and it doesn't include the name, age, gender, address of the user,"
Which is obvious BS as the devices will certainly send some sort of ID which can then be related to other databases which DO contain your name, age, gender, address, race, political stance and a whole lot more stuff about you you were never told was being collected.
So your post seems rather pathetically ignorant about the true nature of these kinds of systems and how they are and will be used against you by your government.
If what you say is true then no math exists in this universe. Imaginary numbers are just an extension of previous non-existent numbers. I mean, you can't have -3 cows, right? So by your reasoning negative numbers don't exist. And you can't have fractional cows either (well, not life ones anyway), so rational numbers have to go as well. Even more worrying is to consider what 1 cow is. Where does the cow end, exactly? Do you consider the smell of a cow to be part of the cow or not? What if that smell mixes with the smell of other cows? How do you singularly define a cow in the real world?
Imaginary numbers allow us to solve problems in this universe so one could say that the universe has no problems with producing problems that are better solved with imaginary numbers. In fact, many things we observe in nature are not solvable without imaginary numbers. Why would a number system that works fantastically well for solving real-world physical phenomena be less real than a number system we use for counting cows? It sounds like a prejudice for counting cows (which seems reasonable from an evolutionary standpoint, but is quite limiting once you start digging into the sort of stuff that really happens in the universe).
The fact is, you can't explain over a century of physics without using imaginary numbers. Basically anything involving waves is better expressed with imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are not less real than any other numbers we have 'constructed'.
Come on, everything about this thing has been known for centuries (theories go back to Newtons time) and the fact that it (logically) can only work for a single frequency means it is completely useless for blocking broad spectrum signals.
None of the proposed use cases are going to work with this thing since it only filters a single frequency and almost all noise sources have a bandwidth to them. The proposed applications are simply idiotic given what this thing does.
Moreover, the statement that it will "cut 94% of the sound blasting from the speaker, enough to make it inaudible to the human ear," is TOTAL BULLSHIT as this represents only a drop of 12dB, which is hardly enough to render a random noise inaudible unless its already very quiet. And i say 'noise' but it is of course just a single frequency that is affected while real-world noise is just about an infinite set of frequencies.
Man, i wish i knew the ascii for facepalm. This article and the fantasies surrounding this research is mind boggling. The worst part is that this is apparently a university making up fake stories to help them sell this tech. Fuck these lying scum universities telling scum lies to promote their own lying scum asses.
"It was clearly the worst of the commonly-used audio formats in terms of fideltity, "
With all the bells and whistles technological advancement brought, the later cassette systems actually sounded pretty good. The difference between that and, say, a CD are probably much smaller than you imagine.
"That's mainly because most people listened to their tapes on walkmen, whose pitch would change as you walked around with them. " I don't think this is the real reason. The real reason is that most people listened to copies (of copies, of copies) of tapes their friends brought around which they duplicated on their super duper all-in-one Onkyo double cassette decked tower they bought for $49.99 at the sale.
"Why not just create a time domain filter for digital music and play that?" Because that wouldn't work? For instance, how would you model wow and flutter with a filter?
" Even a raspberry pi or an amazon dash button has the horsepower to do that kind of filtering." A raspberry pi doing magnetic domain level simulations? I think you're mad, sir!
I mean, in THEORY you're right that this stuff can be done numerically. But the horsepower needed to do it is going to be ridiculous.
"Moreover you don't even need to do it in real time, just preprocess it." Oooor you could just put the cassette into the player and press PLAY.... And what are you talking about with your 'preprocessing'? You just told us that a humble RPI can do it, so why would one need to preprocess at all?
Slashdot Mirror
"My intention was just getting a clear enough picture about what was going in in this specific setup."
Well, it looked as if you were dismissing the whole idea without any good reasons. That doesn't seem like a position of someone wanting to learn about what was going on.
But whatever..
"The classical mechanics theories are pretty solid for Earth, at the macroscopic level."
Nah. Maybe if you lived in the 19th century.
Classical mechanics has nothing on lasers, GPS, even the internet or how fast you can get a signal around the world.
"It seems pretty sensible to guess that they are also somehow applicable to different scopes."
It would indeed be sensible as a starting point, but we have found out over a hundred years ago that that idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
The universe (even here on earth) does not behave exactly according to classical mechanics.
"a theory whose sole purpose is accounting for the required correction factors at certain level,"
Not really. That was only the -result- of the theory. The theory itself was devised to answer questions like how space and time are related in a universe where light always seems to travel at the same speed from whatever perspective you care to take.
It was only -after- he formulated it that Einstein realized that it was in fact a theory that -also- encompassed Newtons theory of gravity.
So Einstein came in from a completely different angle than Newton. He tried to answer a different set of questions.
"That expectation, again. Why? Why do you expect something complex to be simple? "
Because that would be pretty darn consistent with what we already know about the universe.
"Simple answers to complex problems are usually incorrect (and/or dishonest)."
That seems to be very true if you're talking about humans. :) But the universe (and nature) does indeed seem to have fairy basic and 'lean' rules that lead to more complex stuff.
This is actually one of the triumphs of physics, that the phenomena we see, even when they look complex to us, can often be best explained by simple interactions happening on massive scales.
Maybe it's just your (perfectly human) disbelief that simple interactions can lead to complexity?
There is actually a lot of proof that a lot, if not all, complexity is due to relatively simple interactions that don't seem to imply any of this complexity themselves.
I mean, even the computer you're reading this on is nothing more than a bunch of 2-state systems undergoing pretty simple interactions.
Who could imagine you can edit pictures on it, or talk to people across the world with them or any other thing computers are used for. They are bloody simple mechanisms at the core.
Reality is absolutely full of simple interactions leading to complex, seemingly unrelated, macro behaviors.
And talking about your worry that we make things too simple, even Einstein noted that 'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler'. :)
"My question is why starting assuming black holes (something against all what we have ever seen, experienced) from certain point onwards?"
The assumptions started when the theory of relativity was examined more closely.
Relativity successfully explained some previously strange and inexplicable phenomena that physicists were finding in their labs.
But there was a strange thing with this theory.
It seemed to predict that if you put a LOT of mass in a relatively small space that you would get a place where no light could escape from. They called it a black hole.
That's how the whole idea started.
It was an after-the-fact comment on what the theory of relativity predicts and has nothing to do with the stuff relativity was designed to explain.
So relativity was not created to explain black holes.
You can see it as a side effect of the theory and no one had imagined such a thing could exist before the assembly of the theory of relativity.
So the believe in black holes is due to the success relativity has had in other parts of physics.
At first there was little evidence for relativity ans so black holes, as an idea, were not taken very seriously.
As more research was done it became more clear that everything we van test about relativity seems to coincide with reality.
So the belief in black holes grew.
Over the years we found much (circumstantial) evidence that there are indeed these incredibly dense regions of space.
We found out, for instance, that galaxies would only behave like they do if there was a super massive and compact object at the center.
The problem with black holes, of course, is that they are black. Very very black.
So you can't actually SEE them directly.
But from simulations and a lot of research we found out that there will be black holes out there that will have a doughnut-shaped ring around them of gasses that are in the process of being absorbed by the (theoretical) black hole.
We also found that there are these strange object lurking around in galaxies that spew out gigantic jets of stuff out into space. We see them regularly through telescopes. And we often see these jets originating from the centers of galaxies
Theories predicted that these jets are caused by super massive black holes that convert part of the infalling matter into these jets. But that's just theory, right?
But now we have managed to zoom in on the source of one pair of these jets and LO AND BEHOLD. There is something there with a disc, a black center and the disc is even brighter on one side, which is -exactly- what relativity predicts.
So it all adds up. None of these theories is simply thought correct on its own. It needs to support things we already know about the universe and it needs to predict new stuff which we can observe. If a theory contradicts reality it's not a good theory.
And so far relativity never contradicted measurements. And it even predicts stuff we never knew about but now are finding to be real, like black holes and gravitational waves.
"Sorry to burst your bubble, but what explains that isn't the theory of relativity, but the limitations of the classical gravity/mechanics. Einstein was right on something: it is certainly a matter of frame of reference (or scope or size or scenario)."
Frame of reference IS relativity. And the actual point, the thing to take home from it, is that it is NOT a matter of frame of reference. Physics works the same way, no matter what frame of reference you happen to choose.
Also, 'frame of reference' does not refer to 'scope' or 'size'. It is a very particular mathematical framework that describes how one part of space and time is related to other parts of space and time.
So, sorry to say, no bubble to burst but your own...
"The classic formulae were meant to be used on small scopes/Earth, by logically being simplifications which, as such, were erroneous."
Newton never gave his formula such meaning so you're just making this shit up now. He formulated what he measured and it turned out that what he devised held only within certain bounds. But this was discovered only much later. Before the development of relativity no one really expected Newtons formula to be a simplification of something bigger and more profound. It just turned out that in certain situations his theories didn't match with measurements and so a new theory was needed to explain observations.
Einstein arrived at relativity because it solved problems (like light speed being constant, which was known at the time) not related to gravity or black holes. And he hasn't been proven wrong. In fact, everything we find seems to confirm his theories.
"In fact, I think that this is the main problem here: wanting to come up with something which can explain everything when some people should have accepted very long time ago that this is tremendously difficult, virtually impossible, and in any case very inefficient."
That's a completely silly thing to state since (besides a buttload of other evidence) we now actually have a freaking picture of something that was predicted by this particular theory over a hundred years ago.
It seems very much like we can indeed explain stuff that is going on at the other side of the visible universe.
And what kind of argument is it anyway to throw your arms in the air and crying "It's so hard! It's virtually impossible"?
"Where have theories become our masters that we can't complain or say anything bad about any part of them?"
Well, of course you can complain all you like (and you'd not be the first person to do so), but if you can't come up with something better (or, indeed, anything at all, as you have so far managed) then you're just complaining for the complaining. You're not actually adding anything useful.
And it doesn't even have to be a complete new theory. Just point out where the current theory is wrong or does not predict observations.
Poking holes in existing theories, or, god forbid, actually stating new theories is science. Complaining is not.
"Why do you think that this is a take it or leave all kind of scenario?"
Because we have found nothing in the real actual universe out there and here on earth that disproves it. Again, if you have a better explanation for the stuff we see, be my guest, formulate it and be the king of physics.
The thing is, this theory has a mountain of evidence behind it which you would have to surmount before you could formulate something better.
You would have to formulate a theory that explains everything that relativity does but in a better way.
And i just don't think you would be posting here on slashdot if you were capable of doing that.
But no one on earth will actually stop you from attempting it.
Somehow i get the idea that you think that people think theories are real.
That's not science.
Theories tell us something useful about reality. They are not reality themselves.
"Why? Because we really don't use it."
Except that we do. GPS would not have worked if we hadn't compensated for t
"It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific."
It only looks to you like that because you don't actually know the science behind it.
In reality there are millions of observations done on every scale of the universe and all these observations are related to each other.
You can't simply invent a theory that explains one observation but invalidates other observations.
The cool thing is that we knew about m87 because of other reasons than what you see in the picture.
We had one set of theories that say that there should be some kind of very massive object at the center of galaxies.
Another set of theories state that if an object is so massive it should collapse into something we call a black hole.
We now have looked at the center of a galaxy and lo and behold, there is a black hole there, just like predicted by the theories.
There are many many scientific puzzle pieces falling into place in that picture.
This is pure science.
Multiple predictions made by multiple theories that look at things from a different perspective come together into a single observation.
"what if there is a star there which is 4k times our sun"
What if.. What if...
We actually LOOKED and there is no such star. There is a cloud-like disk with a black center. See picture in TFA.
"(the end and beginning of everything, where time exist and not exist, where your dreams become true, etc.)"
Where do you get this bullshit from???? Hollywood?
"your conclusions and assuming that something 4000 times more massive is likely to be much more brighter and to have a much stronger gravitational force, you move to "black hole""
We haven't seen a star that is 4000 times more massive than our sun anywhere in the universe.
This is one of the puzzle pieces. We see gigantic sources of gravity in very small volumes, but no star at the center. In fact, no light at all from the center.
This is what we observe.
Another piece of the puzzle is that our current theories also say the same thing. You can't make a star bigger than a certain size. If you try to do it you will concentrate so much mass in a small space that it will collapse into a small point and will trap light. So theory predicts there should be very massive and very small objects that look black to us.
So these theories explain and predict our observations.
"And why assuming a black or light-less or matter-less center rather than the much more logical tremendously bright and massive one?"
Again, we have never seen a star that is this big and bright. All stars that we have seen so far in our galaxy and in other galaxies are limited in size. Apparently the universe does not have big stars like you propose.
If you can find one they you will become a science superstar.
"Because a century-old theory (about which I will better not talk) told you so?"
Everything we have observed so far is exactly like that theory predicted. If you don't want to talk about it you will never understand why we expected black holes in the first place.
The theory says that mass bends space. We have observed this phenomenon without black holes. It is a true property of this universe.
Some smart person once noted that, according to this theory there can be a region of space where gravity is so strong that light can't escape it. A kind of black hole. That was about 100 years ago and at that time we had no instruments to observe such phenomena. So it was 'only' a theory.
Over the years, as our instruments became better and better, we started finding such regions of space. But we never could get a good picture due to limitations of our instruments. But it was enough to develop our theories more.
Now we have pointed our telescopes towards a place where the theories predict a black hole could be. And what do we find? A picture of a black hole surrounded by a fuzzy disk! It even includes other effects that the theory predicts, like that one side of the dust disk looks brighter.
So this picture is exactly like the 'old theory' predicted!
In over 100 years no one managed to create a different theory that predicted this picture.
Now, you could argue that the picture could be the result some other process. But then you would need to provide the mechanics of this other process. You have to make your own theory of why this picture looks like it does. :)
But then your theory will ALSO need to explain why GPS needs time correction, why stars behind the sun can be observed to the side of the sun and why light always travels at a single speed and hundreds of other effects that are explained by "the old theory".
Thousands of professional physicists haven't been able to create a different theory that explains all these effects.
So good luck trying to invent your own.
If you do not provide an alternative explanation that covers everything we have observed then you have no right complaining. You should first study the 'old theory' and try to understand why it has been so successful and no one has managed to invalidate it so far.
But think of it this way. If this 'old theory' wa
"The US has no claim for him. We don't torture POW's or journalists."
If not POW's, then who populates sites like Guantanamo Bay?
What a joke.
The US does as it likes and you, my friend, are its tool.
The system you believe in and are so vocal in describing is a farce that is applied only when it gives the wanted results.
"You can download a game and then disconnect it from the internet."
Yeah, back in 1999 you could...
But these days games won't start without internet because they say you *need* the social features.
Of course this is not about the social features, it's about control and profit maxing.
But you won't hear them say that they make more money off of you this way.
They just say that they implemented some social shit that is woven into the game so deeply it won't start without it.
And they can't change it because coding is magic and you can't change magic without killing some unicorns and at least a dozen dwarfs.
And you're not unicorn haters, are you?
Thought not. So eat it up you little shits!
How long before china selects the most trainable soldiers for cloning?
I bet they're already planning for it.
"using complex numbers we can more conveniently do that BUT there is nothing in an electrical circuit that "is an imaginary number"... only reals."
Your real numbers work great for DC circuits.
But please explain complex impedance using only reals.
"the complex numbers are tool for useful model, but are human constructs."
Let's be straight about this. ALL numbers are tools for useful models.
If you consider 'real' numbers to be real then you must also consider complex numbers (which contain imaginary numbers) as being just as real.
It seems you're trying to have the cake and eat it to.
"Head honcho of world wide religious pedophilia ring learns to code. Indoctrinated sheep approve."
"Part of the problem is that these services have too much blind faith in their ability to make predictions based upon incomplete knowledge. "
You're seriously overthinking this which makes you conclude they are in some way contemplating their actions.
They're not.
All they do is shove more of the same shit you watched towards you. That's all they do.
They don't care for the consequences. There is no 'faith' or 'prediction' involved.
The algorithm can be sumerized in five words: More of the same shit.
I'd say that they're more like 2D constants.
Every singular number actually becomes a point on a 2D surface.
Of course you can make a function out of them by substituting parts of it by a variable, but you can do the same with 'normal' numbers as well.
If i have the complex number 3+5i then that's pretty much a constant. There is no variable and so it's not a function.
"Badly phrased, "we've made useful models for three centuries using imaginary numbers" is more accurate."
Are we talking about numbers or about phrasings of forum posts?
"nothing that corresponds to them, in the real world. "
That is not true tho, especially when you use the word 'correspond'.
There are -relations- that are only described by using imaginary numbers (well, complex numbers).
It's not about the actual magnitude of the numbers. Imaginary numbers are all about how they relate to our 'normal' numbers.
And we see these relations in nature as well.
""Imaginary numbers" are less real than any other numbers."
No they're not. You just made the argument that all numbers are not real, but now you're trying to argue that some numbers are more unreal than others?
"There's good reason why a subset of all numbers is called "real numbers" and others are not part of that subset."
Not really. It's an arbitrary notion due to historic developments in mathematics. There is nothing less real about imaginary numbers than about real numbers or integers or rational numbers.
Also, real numbers, together with imaginary numbers, are in a superset called complex numbers. So real numbers are just a subset of other numbers. Not sure how you can see the 'real' part of real numbers signifying something 'real' when they combine perfectly into a bigger set of numbers that can also contain numbers you consider less 'real'. To me, it's just turtles all the way. Integers, rationals, real, imaginary etc.
But the most striking thing about imaginary numbers is how they enable one to describe real-world phenomena. So in some sense, the universe does indeed seem to behave according to laws that include imaginary numbers. We know of no other way to describe these things. So to me, that makes them at least at the same level of 'realness' as the other classes of numbers, possibly even more real because the math applies to more fundamental physical processes.
It was more meant as an observation than an insult.
I really think its pathetically ignorant if in this day and age you don't know databases can be combined. This has been an issue for the last, i dunno, 15~20 years or so.
There is real pathos to this type of ignorance, just as there is with arguments from climate change deniers and flat-earthers.
"LADOT is asking companies to provide the start trip and end trip of every vehicle as trips start and as trips end to make sure scooters are being parked legally and within the terms of the permit."
Wait, didn't the article say the tracking was just for 'city planning' ?
But here they state that it's for finding parking offenders.
So this is already being abused outside of it's stated scope.
"Route information is provided to the city after the trip has completed and within 24 hours and it doesn't include the name, age, gender, address of the user,"
Which is obvious BS as the devices will certainly send some sort of ID which can then be related to other databases which DO contain your name, age, gender, address, race, political stance and a whole lot more stuff about you you were never told was being collected.
So your post seems rather pathetically ignorant about the true nature of these kinds of systems and how they are and will be used against you by your government.
If what you say is true then no math exists in this universe.
Imaginary numbers are just an extension of previous non-existent numbers. I mean, you can't have -3 cows, right? So by your reasoning negative numbers don't exist. And you can't have fractional cows either (well, not life ones anyway), so rational numbers have to go as well.
Even more worrying is to consider what 1 cow is. Where does the cow end, exactly? Do you consider the smell of a cow to be part of the cow or not? What if that smell mixes with the smell of other cows? How do you singularly define a cow in the real world?
Imaginary numbers allow us to solve problems in this universe so one could say that the universe has no problems with producing problems that are better solved with imaginary numbers. In fact, many things we observe in nature are not solvable without imaginary numbers. Why would a number system that works fantastically well for solving real-world physical phenomena be less real than a number system we use for counting cows? It sounds like a prejudice for counting cows (which seems reasonable from an evolutionary standpoint, but is quite limiting once you start digging into the sort of stuff that really happens in the universe).
The fact is, you can't explain over a century of physics without using imaginary numbers. Basically anything involving waves is better expressed with imaginary numbers.
Imaginary numbers are not less real than any other numbers we have 'constructed'.
Come on, everything about this thing has been known for centuries (theories go back to Newtons time) and the fact that it (logically) can only work for a single frequency means it is completely useless for blocking broad spectrum signals.
None of the proposed use cases are going to work with this thing since it only filters a single frequency and almost all noise sources have a bandwidth to them. The proposed applications are simply idiotic given what this thing does.
Moreover, the statement that it will "cut 94% of the sound blasting from the speaker, enough to make it inaudible to the human ear," is TOTAL BULLSHIT as this represents only a drop of 12dB, which is hardly enough to render a random noise inaudible unless its already very quiet. And i say 'noise' but it is of course just a single frequency that is affected while real-world noise is just about an infinite set of frequencies.
Man, i wish i knew the ascii for facepalm. This article and the fantasies surrounding this research is mind boggling.
The worst part is that this is apparently a university making up fake stories to help them sell this tech.
Fuck these lying scum universities telling scum lies to promote their own lying scum asses.
"It was clearly the worst of the commonly-used audio formats in terms of fideltity, "
With all the bells and whistles technological advancement brought, the later cassette systems actually sounded pretty good.
The difference between that and, say, a CD are probably much smaller than you imagine.
"That's mainly because most people listened to their tapes on walkmen, whose pitch would change as you walked around with them. "
I don't think this is the real reason.
The real reason is that most people listened to copies (of copies, of copies) of tapes their friends brought around which they duplicated on their super duper all-in-one Onkyo double cassette decked tower they bought for $49.99 at the sale.
"Why not just create a time domain filter for digital music and play that?"
Because that wouldn't work?
For instance, how would you model wow and flutter with a filter?
" Even a raspberry pi or an amazon dash button has the horsepower to do that kind of filtering."
A raspberry pi doing magnetic domain level simulations? I think you're mad, sir!
I mean, in THEORY you're right that this stuff can be done numerically. But the horsepower needed to do it is going to be ridiculous.
"Moreover you don't even need to do it in real time, just preprocess it."
Oooor you could just put the cassette into the player and press PLAY....
And what are you talking about with your 'preprocessing'? You just told us that a humble RPI can do it, so why would one need to preprocess at all?
"Small bones vibrate sympathetically with higher harmonics, for example. "
Yeah, at amplitudes of about 200dB+...
-facepalm-
"That link does not support your claim."
Only if you didn't read it.
Anyway, if you have actual arguments then we can discuss it, otherwise, you're wasting everyones time.