And the system that Britan has put up accomplishes that. The people who own TV's are now paying for the airwaves, it would pave the way for more community related broadcasting, the big broadcasting corporations wouldn't have the leg up that they do now.
Look at merre olde englande, roving vans to catch people receiving unpaid-for "illegal" TV broadcasts.
I wish the US would do that. You mention the enforcement but you don't mention why the law is there or what benifit it provides.
England pays a tax on watching TV. That tax pays for the BBC which delivers programming nearly commercial free. They don't have to sell advertising space so they aren't strong armed by companies into changing their content to fit into a corporate package. It's a definite plus.
But if you don't enforce the tax knowone's going to pay it, hence the hunt for unliscenced TV antennas.
Exactly, and if they can make the changes and get it either working or show some progress, then I'd say they learned much more then a team with a flawless project would ever learn.
That's correct, but the orientation of the pair is still random. If we're talking about spin up and spin dow for instance. You can use a splitter to create two particles, one going left and one going right. Each particle will randomly be spinning either up or down, but they will allways be opposites of each other. You may find that the left particle spins up and that the right particle spins down, or you may find that the right particle spins up and the left spins down. But you'll never find them both up or both down.
Generally the physics community is in agreement that Tachyons don't exist. We can't prove they don't exist, but their existance was postulated based on a mathematical peculiarity in the theory of relativity, and the effect of their existance would violate many of the core principles of physics.
The key to understanding this is to realize that the two observers have a seperate concept of time. Rate = distance / time. So if the rate is always measured exactly the same, and the distance is the same for both observers, then the time interval that they measure has changed. Time slows down as your speed approaches that of light.
That isn't a way of sending information. For starters I'm pretty sure that the entanglments does not survive for a second measurement. The thing is, we can't change the spin, we can only measure it, once measured the probability wave collapses and the particle chooses a particular spin. On our end, we can measure the particles spin, but we have no way of knowing whether or not these particles are entangled unless someone calls us up and says for such and such particles you should have gotten these answers. If the measurements correlate, then we know they were entangled. But we can't use that correlation to control the measurement or to indicate to anyone else that there actually is a correlation.
I really doubt this will ever work. It would be a violation of relativity for signals to travel faster then light.
Its probably a matter of _when_ the technology is available so that we can measure and accuately remeasure (without destroying - the hard part)
At the core of quantum mechanics is the simple fact that you cannot measure without disturbing. This is a theoretical limitation, not a technological limitation.
"nothing is wrong about foo" may be the default early on in life. But teaching doesn't allways involve areas that a student is 100% unfamiliar with. If they have preconcieved notions for one reason or another, then teaching involves getting rid of those notions and replacing them with the truth. Also there are areas where thinking something is wrong with it is not the default, although this situation isn't one of them.
Yes, it is a concept that is often used in mathamatics. But Math has a rigourous set of rules and definitions as to how these concepts can be applied to each other. According to those rules and definitions infinity is not a number. Zero often forms a singularity in mathamatical equations, but that is a seperate concept from the concept of infinity.
Also you might be interested in checking out cardinality. It applies to how infinite sets can be of a diffrent size then other infinite sets.
Anyway, the parent point uses infinity as if it were a number. So the logic does not hold.
Yes you can. Kids are told one thing, you can teach them that the opposite is true. It doesn't matter if that opposite involves something existing, or not existing, or being right, or being wrong?
Your comments about the writers of the bible dieing for their faith, you're still assuming that there was a paul, or that there was a joseph. I don't think that that's something that has been settled to a certainty outside of religious circles. A literary analysis of the bible has shown that the books are more then likely by multiple authors. That certainly casts doubt on the historical existance of the diciples. AFAIK there is no evidence of the existance of those events save the fact that they are recorded in the bible. Now that isn't proof that they never happened, but certainly the bible can't proove itself. Without any other evidence why believe that it is a work of fact vs. a work of fiction?
Theology can certainly give meaning to someones life, but so can belief in many other religions, in fact many things can give meaning to a persons life that aren't related to religion. The fact that it gives meaning is relevent when discussing the effects of religion, but it doesn't speak to whether religion is true or false.
Also, I don't agree that there are questions that science can never answer, nor do I agree that religion sufficiently anwers the question. There may be a problem science can't solve, but we are always finding solutions to known problems, it would be premature to say that any of them are never going to be solved. And as for religion explaining certain things. I don't believe it actually provides a true explanation, it simply pushes the question back a step.
That certainly was one of the reasons. Another was that Jefferson got Congress to appropriate funds to build a river fleet, and then gave the impression that he was going to take new orleans. Napolean was streched to thin to be able to build an empire in america so there was no reason to risk us forming an alliance with britan.
The radio communication leaking from this planet will also take a good bit of time to reach them. As will the light emitting from here. Hence the plains-dwelling ape comment.
Yes, but the main argument in favor of religion is the look how much good it's done card. Religion is not falsifiable, it has no basis to be judged on other then the actions of it practitioners.
Actually, most scientists would consider a willingness to change ones profession of beliefs upon gaining more knowledge as a good thing...
Yes, but doesn't that assume that one's beliefs were initially based on knowledge? The original religios beliefs are based on the bible, and then altered to encapsulate knowledge. Most scientists, when recieving evidence that a theory of theirs might be wrong, would seriously consider the possibility that that theory is wrong. They would also reject theories that cannot be tested.
I'm curious. With respect to the amount of certainty you give to concepts. What amount of certainty do you give to the bible being the word of god as opposed to being a work of fiction, meant to teach lessons not to be interpreted literally?
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.
1) If by "known" you mean suggested by scientists as one of many possible solutions, then yes, you are correct. But I don't think that's what you meant...
2) You cannot divide a number by infinity. Infinity does not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
And the system that Britan has put up accomplishes that. The people who own TV's are now paying for the airwaves, it would pave the way for more community related broadcasting, the big broadcasting corporations wouldn't have the leg up that they do now.
I wish the US would do that. You mention the enforcement but you don't mention why the law is there or what benifit it provides.
England pays a tax on watching TV. That tax pays for the BBC which delivers programming nearly commercial free. They don't have to sell advertising space so they aren't strong armed by companies into changing their content to fit into a corporate package. It's a definite plus.
But if you don't enforce the tax knowone's going to pay it, hence the hunt for unliscenced TV antennas.
Cabin Fever is a work of art, the crowning jewel of non-sensical movie humor. IMHO of course... Poptarts! *cue slow motion karate*
Exactly, and if they can make the changes and get it either working or show some progress, then I'd say they learned much more then a team with a flawless project would ever learn.
That's correct, but the orientation of the pair is still random. If we're talking about spin up and spin dow for instance. You can use a splitter to create two particles, one going left and one going right. Each particle will randomly be spinning either up or down, but they will allways be opposites of each other. You may find that the left particle spins up and that the right particle spins down, or you may find that the right particle spins up and the left spins down. But you'll never find them both up or both down.
You can't create a particle with certain properties. You create a particle and then measure it to find out those properties.
Generally the physics community is in agreement that Tachyons don't exist. We can't prove they don't exist, but their existance was postulated based on a mathematical peculiarity in the theory of relativity, and the effect of their existance would violate many of the core principles of physics.
The key to understanding this is to realize that the two observers have a seperate concept of time. Rate = distance / time. So if the rate is always measured exactly the same, and the distance is the same for both observers, then the time interval that they measure has changed. Time slows down as your speed approaches that of light.
That isn't a way of sending information. For starters I'm pretty sure that the entanglments does not survive for a second measurement. The thing is, we can't change the spin, we can only measure it, once measured the probability wave collapses and the particle chooses a particular spin. On our end, we can measure the particles spin, but we have no way of knowing whether or not these particles are entangled unless someone calls us up and says for such and such particles you should have gotten these answers. If the measurements correlate, then we know they were entangled. But we can't use that correlation to control the measurement or to indicate to anyone else that there actually is a correlation.
Its probably a matter of _when_ the technology is available so that we can measure and accuately remeasure (without destroying - the hard part)
At the core of quantum mechanics is the simple fact that you cannot measure without disturbing. This is a theoretical limitation, not a technological limitation.
"nothing is wrong about foo" may be the default early on in life. But teaching doesn't allways involve areas that a student is 100% unfamiliar with. If they have preconcieved notions for one reason or another, then teaching involves getting rid of those notions and replacing them with the truth. Also there are areas where thinking something is wrong with it is not the default, although this situation isn't one of them.
Also you might be interested in checking out cardinality. It applies to how infinite sets can be of a diffrent size then other infinite sets.
Anyway, the parent point uses infinity as if it were a number. So the logic does not hold.
Yes you can. Kids are told one thing, you can teach them that the opposite is true. It doesn't matter if that opposite involves something existing, or not existing, or being right, or being wrong?
I work for free, cause it promotes the shows that I get paid to do. That's how it works.
You can divide numbers. Infinity is not a number.
Theology can certainly give meaning to someones life, but so can belief in many other religions, in fact many things can give meaning to a persons life that aren't related to religion. The fact that it gives meaning is relevent when discussing the effects of religion, but it doesn't speak to whether religion is true or false.
Also, I don't agree that there are questions that science can never answer, nor do I agree that religion sufficiently anwers the question. There may be a problem science can't solve, but we are always finding solutions to known problems, it would be premature to say that any of them are never going to be solved. And as for religion explaining certain things. I don't believe it actually provides a true explanation, it simply pushes the question back a step.
That certainly was one of the reasons. Another was that Jefferson got Congress to appropriate funds to build a river fleet, and then gave the impression that he was going to take new orleans. Napolean was streched to thin to be able to build an empire in america so there was no reason to risk us forming an alliance with britan.
Congradulations, there is a complete absense of logical thought in those statements. What are you talking about?
Napolean didn't threaten the US. We threatened him. That's why he sold us the territory.
The radio communication leaking from this planet will also take a good bit of time to reach them. As will the light emitting from here. Hence the plains-dwelling ape comment.
Yes, but the main argument in favor of religion is the look how much good it's done card. Religion is not falsifiable, it has no basis to be judged on other then the actions of it practitioners.
Yes, but doesn't that assume that one's beliefs were initially based on knowledge? The original religios beliefs are based on the bible, and then altered to encapsulate knowledge. Most scientists, when recieving evidence that a theory of theirs might be wrong, would seriously consider the possibility that that theory is wrong. They would also reject theories that cannot be tested.
I'm curious. With respect to the amount of certainty you give to concepts. What amount of certainty do you give to the bible being the word of god as opposed to being a work of fiction, meant to teach lessons not to be interpreted literally?
Religion survives every discovery. That's why it's flawed. There is no way to prove religion wrong.
Don't try and apply logic to christianity... it just doesn't fit.
1) If by "known" you mean suggested by scientists as one of many possible solutions, then yes, you are correct. But I don't think that's what you meant...
2) You cannot divide a number by infinity. Infinity does not exist.