It's a Riemannian manifold. The "fabric" is made of Ricci curvature.
But Riemannian manifolds are a mathematical abstraction used to model spacetime. It just seems really bizarre that there isn't some actual concrete thing underlying it.
Assuming the big bang is how it all started, it seems like you're saying that what was spit out of the event was a purely mathematical space with an inner product. So would that make every massive body in the universe just a linear operator?
This expansion would have to be from something uniformly distributed throughout the universe with negative pressure (very reminiscent of phlogiston, isn't it?) which we call "Dark Energy". So, based on current data and using the standard model to explain certain properties of the universe, it must consist of around 73% dark energy. Considering that this is the bulk of the universe and that, other than negative pressure, we have no idea what dark energy is or what it's properties are, this leads to a scientifically troubling state of affairs.
People always talk about the "fabric" of spacetime. GR says massive objects warp spacetime, and that's what we see as gravity etc. So what is the actual "fabric" made of? Couldn't the uniformly distributed mass just be the actual mass of space itself?
That seems like an obvious question, so presumably I'm not the first to think of it and presumably it's a dumb question;-)
So, does anybody even know (or care) what spacetime itself is made of. Alternatively, why is it a dumb question?
Perhaps the very latest iPods run some kind of stripped-down OS X.
Here's what the iPhone runs:
# uname -a Darwin Darby's iPhone 9.0.0d1 Darwin Kernel Version 9.0.0d1: Fri Jun 22 00:38:56 PDT 2007; root:xnu-933.0.1.178.obj~1/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8900XRB iPhone1,1 Darwin
The iPod touch runs the same, and I don't have a clue what other iPods run.
Quite a while ago I was in a CompUSA and I saw someone plug an iPod into one of the demo machines, drag MS Office onto the iPod icon, and walk out with it. remember thinking that OS X made application installation and transfer easy, something that was great for users, but which retailers probably had not considered.
OK, maybe you really did see that, but that story was on/. like 6 months after OSX was released;-)
I had no idea people still even had a use for kvm switches.
Absolutely there's a use. KVM over IP, especially is critical.
none of ssh, remote X, or rdesktop let you get into the BIOS screens to adjust settings, RAID cards come up before the computer boots as well and without something like a KVM (or dedicated keyboard monitors etc), you don't get to fix those problems without driving down to the cage;-)
If that were true, then the US couldn't block the import of heroin.
Not true, because heroin isn't banned on "moral" grounds. Drugs are banned because there is a lot of money to be made in having them illegal plain and simple.
Damn near all of our laws are about somebody getting your money without providing anything worthwhile for it.
Most people would not celebrate Christmas if not for our attachment of it to Jesus, and it certainly would not be a national holiday.
Well, only if you ignore the simple fact that the planet has been tilted on its axis for far *far* longer than your religion has existed.
Jesus is, indeed, the reason why people care about Christmas at all. Funny how people like you complain about revisionism, and then try to ignore facts like this.
Ah, yes, the gospel of Pudge, where the only relevant facts are the ones you make up to support your position. No matter how much of history, climate, or the basic physics of our orbital mechanics prove you to be wrong.
Oh wait, you don't actually understand the difference between "settled", as in, "A large percentage of the people who settled the land we now call America were Christians (often radial extremists who were tossed out of their native lands for their murderous ways)" and "founded" as in "The vast majority of the founders of the nation we now refer to as America were Deists, if they had any religion at all,and had seen the evil inherent in religious rule as exemplified by such Christian things as the Salem witch trials, and so explicitly excluded such hateful delusions from the government of a free society".
No, you'll just claim that the celebration of the solstice, which far predates the invention of your religion or even your god's promotion from wind god of the Hebrew pantheon, would disappear if everybody grew up and forgot anybody ever believed such nonsense.
Keep in mind, Pudgie, that the Earth has been tilted on its axis for *billions* of years. Your religion was invented two *thousand* years ago. The farther you get from the equator, the more apparent that simple fact is. So if you seriously, believe that just because your late to the plate rebirth cult is magically right because it says the same things that were said for longer before your religion was invented than your religion has existed, you're really dumb.
If you attempt to claim, instead, that, regardless of millennia of history, all that matters is which cult is predominant in the here and now, then you're saying that if your cult were to magically die away tomorrow, then nobody would ever long for the end of winter again?
Seriously, your head has a long trip to get out of your butt if you're so simple that you think your Mediterranean death cult has much relevance to a climactic event that predates its entire lifespan by orders of magnitude.
By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
No, that's not by any even remotely sane standard.
Hillary is a *moderate* right-winger with many left-fascist elements. If she was far right, she wouldn't be cracking down on video games "for your own good", she'd be taking your taxes and giving kickbacks to the CEO of EA or whoever regardless of whether you wanted to buy their products or not and screeching hatred of gays or some other convenient minority.
Stephen Hawkin amongst others has explained this before. In short, time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang. During the inflationary period of the Big Bang time was probably faster than we observe it today. Currently time has stablised somewhat but is probably slowing due to the expansion of the universe.
All this suggests that time may be intertwined with space and now we're back to Einstein's space time continuum. This is one of consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
So are you saying it's like the picture of traveling through space time where you have a square where left right is travel through space and up down is travel through time, sitting still is traveling through pure time and the faster you go brings space into it to illustrate time dilation?
In this case since the square is stretching, that's the "slowing of time we're seeing?
I think that if you think republicans are for a "bgger more intrusive government than even the Democrats" that you're not quite in touch!
No, I'm quite in touch. The difference is that I use a little piece of advice my mom gave me many years ago.
Actions speak louder than words.
All you have to do is go run the numbers. Reagan led the largest growth of the US government in history. He put the demon of the right, FDR, to shame. This Bush is on track to be even worse. For all the conservative hate spewed at Clinton, he was far more of a "Republican" as you use the term than Reagan, or either Bush.
Not that the differences are huge, but in the Republican party there are still many people that want a smaller government. No, Bush is not one of them.
Again, if all you go on is what people say, then that might make sense. If you look at what they do, vote Reagan over Goldwater, vote Bush period, then it is crystal clear that for all the nonsense they spout about wanting smaller government, it's nothing but nonsense.
The intelligent Republicans who really believed that left the party back in the 50s to form the Libertarian party when it was clear the direction the party was heading. When Reagan was elected, even the dumb ones who really believed that left.
Anybody who actually believes in small government and yet votes Republican is batshit insane or dumber than a bag of rocks, because there is really nothing that would indicate to a sane person that will do anything to help achieve their goals.
I think many people forget what Democrats will do in power though--we'll see in 2008, I guess!
They will spend a crapload of money. If recent trends are any indication (they might or might not be), they'll spend much *less* than the Republicans. They will spend a lot of this money on programs which are designed to look like they're designed to actually help people, and help this nation. Who knows, a few of them might actually accidentally do that to a point. We know that the Republicans spend more toward no good end made up or otherwise. It's completely cynical profiteering at this point and if you really haven't noticed it, then I'd pity you if I didn't fear for myself, my family, my country and the people around me far far more for the damage that level of ignorance has already caused and will make far far worse.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican primary is the only place where candidates are even debating the role of government and the role of federalism--the preeminence of a large federal government is taken 100% for granted by al of the democrat candidates.
Which is nothing but pageantry for the fools who think the Republican party is about anything of the sort. Well, nothing except in the case of Ron Paul. Of course, that's why he gets laughed at by the audiences in the debates for making really basic sane statements like when that douche Giuliani demanded his apology for saying that maybe they don't actually hate us for our freedom. Paul is the only one there who doesn't know it's all a big joke.
Paul is NOT a Libertarian, get your facts straight--he's a Republican, that's his party, how he identifies, and why he says he will NOT run as a 3rd party candidate.
Say that all you want, but I don't read his writings on Fox's website, I read them on Lew Rockwells's. He has nothing in common with the Republican party of recent decades. I mean, I'm 38 years old, and I've never seen a Republican party that was about *anything* but big government war mongering and religious extremism. I mean, I like to describe myself as a Liberal, but that's only because I know what that word means, I know it's the basis of this nation, and I despise both the left for co-opting the term and the right for demonizing it, but I'm not stupid enough to think that I can use it in this country and have many people have the foggiest idea what I mean by it. It's long past time that you woke up to the fact that Republi
Personally I think they are both nuts, but for such different reasons that I don't understand how one person can support both. Unless you just like to support the underdog no matter who it is. I guess there is one more similarity, they both are vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq...could that be it?
I'd guess it's that they're the only candidates who seem even remotely honest? They also seem the be the only ones who actually want to deal in a realistic manner with real issues?
You might disagree with either or both of them on how those issues should be addressed, but at least they have something besides mindless bullshit, propaganda, and nonsense to talk about.
I'm a registered republican, I've donated to Ron Paul, I'm pro-choice, I believe in evolution. You tell me what that makes me;-)
Honestly it makes you completely out of touch with reality.
If you support Ron Paul, then you obviously stand firmly against the Republican platform of "bigger more intrusive government than even the Democrats, and religious extremism".
Seriously, unless that's what you support, then you'd have a hard time finding a way to work more against your own interests than voting Republican. Granted Paul is quite different than Republicans (since he's a Libertarian), which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.
So, all your stated views/actions say about you is that you really haven't been paying any attention at all for the last 30 years or so. Well, that or you really really hate yourself and think you deserve to be punished.
Thompson's platform is basically "I am more like Ronald Reagan than any of the other candidates, including the advanced age and partial dementia. Thus, since you are a good Republican and fellate statues of Reagan on a daily basis, you should vote for me."
Given that the only real difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was good at lying (he's an actor), it's pathetic that that delusional religious belief in Reagan still persists. Apart from that, they're carbon copies.
You're equating right of a human parasite to the slavery, internment, and mistreatment of women in a Wahhabi state under Sharia law?
Quite clearly not. That's a real stretch. Holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to bear children they don't want to satisfy your whims (which is what you favor) is what I'm equating.
See above. It is the same as killing the weak, old and annoying....its just easier when they are 2 pounds instead of 100 pounds.
Laughable. It's not at all the same since the weak, old, and annoying are independent life forms. A fetus isn't by any stretch of the imagination.
If you've got a beef with Saudi Arabia, seek an audience with King Abdullah. Unless you're a woman, then you should be happy to live here.
I have a beef with people like you trying to drag us down to their level, as I quite clearly stated.
Slashdot Mirror
I will NOT have you burn in hell for all eternity. There. Satisfied?
;-)
I dunno, I could just go with Catholicism. It has that plus ritualized cannibalism and an aerobics program (sit stand kneel etc.)
I think I'll have to stick with the FSM though
It's a Riemannian manifold. The "fabric" is made of Ricci curvature.
But Riemannian manifolds are a mathematical abstraction used to model spacetime. It just seems really bizarre that there isn't some actual concrete thing underlying it.
Assuming the big bang is how it all started, it seems like you're saying that what was spit out of the event was a purely mathematical space with an inner product. So would that make every massive body in the universe just a linear operator?
This expansion would have to be from something uniformly distributed throughout the universe with negative pressure (very reminiscent of phlogiston, isn't it?) which we call "Dark Energy". So, based on current data and using the standard model to explain certain properties of the universe, it must consist of around 73% dark energy. Considering that this is the bulk of the universe and that, other than negative pressure, we have no idea what dark energy is or what it's properties are, this leads to a scientifically troubling state of affairs.
;-)
People always talk about the "fabric" of spacetime. GR says massive objects warp spacetime, and that's what we see as gravity etc.
So what is the actual "fabric" made of? Couldn't the uniformly distributed mass just be the actual mass of space itself?
That seems like an obvious question, so presumably I'm not the first to think of it and presumably it's a dumb question
So, does anybody even know (or care) what spacetime itself is made of.
Alternatively, why is it a dumb question?
Thanks!
Perhaps the very latest iPods run some kind of stripped-down OS X.
Here's what the iPhone runs:
# uname -a
Darwin Darby's iPhone 9.0.0d1 Darwin Kernel Version 9.0.0d1: Fri Jun 22 00:38:56 PDT 2007; root:xnu-933.0.1.178.obj~1/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8900XRB iPhone1,1 Darwin
The iPod touch runs the same, and I don't have a clue what other iPods run.
Here's the original Wired article, and here's the Slashdot article.
;-)
Not that it really matters or anything
Quite a while ago I was in a CompUSA and I saw someone plug an iPod into one of the demo machines, drag MS Office onto the iPod icon, and walk out with it. remember thinking that OS X made application installation and transfer easy, something that was great for users, but which retailers probably had not considered.
OK, maybe you really did see that, but that story was on
and meth has made burglaries and even home invasions far more common around here.
;-)
To be more accurate, drug laws are the culprit far more than the drugs themselves.
Every one of my neighbors has multiple guns, and I'm glad they do. Personally I have multiple dogs.
Maybe you should look into a gun that fires dogs to get the best of both worlds
All hail Kazymyr, benevolent Lord Universal, Spirit Eternal, most Righteous one!
Hmmm what do you have to offer for my eternal devotion?
The current bid stands at a beer volcano and a stripper factory.
I had no idea people still even had a use for kvm switches.
;-)
Absolutely there's a use. KVM over IP, especially is critical.
none of ssh, remote X, or rdesktop let you get into the BIOS screens to adjust settings, RAID cards come up before the computer boots as well and without something like a KVM (or dedicated keyboard monitors etc), you don't get to fix those problems without driving down to the cage
If that were true, then the US couldn't block the import of heroin.
Not true, because heroin isn't banned on "moral" grounds.
Drugs are banned because there is a lot of money to be made in having them illegal plain and simple.
Damn near all of our laws are about somebody getting your money without providing anything worthwhile for it.
Maybe I remember wrong, but I vaguely remember making a backup was fair use. It doesn't surprise me, with my memory as bad as it is.
No worries, as long as you remember to pay me back that 20 bucks from that time we were at that place to see that thing with those guys.
Most people would not celebrate Christmas if not for our attachment of it to Jesus, and it certainly would not be a national holiday.
Well, only if you ignore the simple fact that the planet has been tilted on its axis for far *far* longer than your religion has existed.
Jesus is, indeed, the reason why people care about Christmas at all. Funny how people like you complain about revisionism, and then try to ignore facts like this.
Ah, yes, the gospel of Pudge, where the only relevant facts are the ones you make up to support your position. No matter how much of history, climate, or the basic physics of our orbital mechanics prove you to be wrong.
Oh wait, you don't actually understand the difference between "settled", as in, "A large percentage of the people who settled the land we now call America were Christians (often radial extremists who were tossed out of their native lands for their murderous ways)" and "founded" as in "The vast majority of the founders of the nation we now refer to as America were Deists, if they had any religion at all,and had seen the evil inherent in religious rule as exemplified by such Christian things as the Salem witch trials, and so explicitly excluded such hateful delusions from the government of a free society".
No, you'll just claim that the celebration of the solstice, which far predates the invention of your religion or even your god's promotion from wind god of the Hebrew pantheon, would disappear if everybody grew up and forgot anybody ever believed such nonsense.
Keep in mind, Pudgie, that the Earth has been tilted on its axis for *billions* of years. Your religion was invented two *thousand* years ago.
The farther you get from the equator, the more apparent that simple fact is. So if you seriously, believe that just because your late to the plate rebirth cult is magically right because it says the same things that were said for longer before your religion was invented than your religion has existed, you're really dumb.
If you attempt to claim, instead, that, regardless of millennia of history, all that matters is which cult is predominant in the here and now, then you're saying that if your cult were to magically die away tomorrow, then nobody would ever long for the end of winter again?
Seriously, your head has a long trip to get out of your butt if you're so simple that you think your Mediterranean death cult has much relevance to a climactic event that predates its entire lifespan by orders of magnitude.
You would be merry, but you're Hebrew ;-)
By any sane standard, she's a far-right conservative except on one or two points.
No, that's not by any even remotely sane standard.
Hillary is a *moderate* right-winger with many left-fascist elements.
If she was far right, she wouldn't be cracking down on video games "for your own good", she'd be taking your taxes and giving kickbacks to the CEO of EA or whoever regardless of whether you wanted to buy their products or not and screeching hatred of gays or some other convenient minority.
So for ten times the cost (ouch) I could get 250,000 times the RAM, 1,000 times faster clock speed, and at least 10,000,000 times the storage.
Yeah, there's no arguing that's a steep price jump, but based on your calculations it seems like prety good value.
I hope my games still run: Parsec, Congo Bongo, and my favorite Alpiner.
This should help
Good luck! Maybe we'll see you on the interweb one of these days.
BTW, love your nick.
Yeah, but you'd *hate* his bills.
Blasphemer! Cheese be upon him!!
Oh for FSM's sake, the cheese is grated over the sauce you heretic.
What if we ran out of beer?
I suspect World Politics would change pretty quick.
Oh great, thanks a lot. Good luck, me getting to sleep thinking of all those rat bastards on tequila.
Stephen Hawkin amongst others has explained this before. In short, time as we know it didn't exist before the Big Bang. During the inflationary period of the Big Bang time was probably faster than we observe it today. Currently time has stablised somewhat but is probably slowing due to the expansion of the universe.
All this suggests that time may be intertwined with space and now we're back to Einstein's space time continuum. This is one of consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
So are you saying it's like the picture of traveling through space time where you have a square where left right is travel through space and up down is travel through time, sitting still is traveling through pure time and the faster you go brings space into it to illustrate time dilation?
In this case since the square is stretching, that's the "slowing of time we're seeing?
I think that if you think republicans are for a "bgger more intrusive government than even the Democrats" that you're not quite in touch!
No, I'm quite in touch.
The difference is that I use a little piece of advice my mom gave me many years ago.
Actions speak louder than words.
All you have to do is go run the numbers. Reagan led the largest growth of the US government in history. He put the demon of the right, FDR, to shame. This Bush is on track to be even worse. For all the conservative hate spewed at Clinton, he was far more of a "Republican" as you use the term than Reagan, or either Bush.
Not that the differences are huge, but in the Republican party there are still many people that want a smaller government. No, Bush is not one of them.
Again, if all you go on is what people say, then that might make sense. If you look at what they do, vote Reagan over Goldwater, vote Bush period, then it is crystal clear that for all the nonsense they spout about wanting smaller government, it's nothing but nonsense.
The intelligent Republicans who really believed that left the party back in the 50s to form the Libertarian party when it was clear the direction the party was heading.
When Reagan was elected, even the dumb ones who really believed that left.
Anybody who actually believes in small government and yet votes Republican is batshit insane or dumber than a bag of rocks, because there is really nothing that would indicate to a sane person that will do anything to help achieve their goals.
I think many people forget what Democrats will do in power though--we'll see in 2008, I guess!
They will spend a crapload of money. If recent trends are any indication (they might or might not be), they'll spend much *less* than the Republicans. They will spend a lot of this money on programs which are designed to look like they're designed to actually help people, and help this nation. Who knows, a few of them might actually accidentally do that to a point. We know that the Republicans spend more toward no good end made up or otherwise. It's completely cynical profiteering at this point and if you really haven't noticed it, then I'd pity you if I didn't fear for myself, my family, my country and the people around me far far more for the damage that level of ignorance has already caused and will make far far worse.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican primary is the only place where candidates are even debating the role of government and the role of federalism--the preeminence of a large federal government is taken 100% for granted by al of the democrat candidates.
Which is nothing but pageantry for the fools who think the Republican party is about anything of the sort. Well, nothing except in the case of Ron Paul. Of course, that's why he gets laughed at by the audiences in the debates for making really basic sane statements like when that douche Giuliani demanded his apology for saying that maybe they don't actually hate us for our freedom. Paul is the only one there who doesn't know it's all a big joke.
Paul is NOT a Libertarian, get your facts straight--he's a Republican, that's his party, how he identifies, and why he says he will NOT run as a 3rd party candidate.
Say that all you want, but I don't read his writings on Fox's website, I read them on Lew Rockwells's. He has nothing in common with the Republican party of recent decades. I mean, I'm 38 years old, and I've never seen a Republican party that was about *anything* but big government war mongering and religious extremism. I mean, I like to describe myself as a Liberal, but that's only because I know what that word means, I know it's the basis of this nation, and I despise both the left for co-opting the term and the right for demonizing it, but I'm not stupid enough to think that I can use it in this country and have many people have the foggiest idea what I mean by it.
It's long past time that you woke up to the fact that Republi
Personally I think they are both nuts, but for such different reasons that I don't understand how one person can support both. Unless you just like to support the underdog no matter who it is. I guess there is one more similarity, they both are vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq...could that be it?
I'd guess it's that they're the only candidates who seem even remotely honest?
They also seem the be the only ones who actually want to deal in a realistic manner with real issues?
You might disagree with either or both of them on how those issues should be addressed, but at least they have something besides mindless bullshit, propaganda, and nonsense to talk about.
I'm a registered republican, I've donated to Ron Paul, I'm pro-choice, I believe in evolution. You tell me what that makes me ;-)
Honestly it makes you completely out of touch with reality.
If you support Ron Paul, then you obviously stand firmly against the Republican platform of "bigger more intrusive government than even the Democrats, and religious extremism".
Seriously, unless that's what you support, then you'd have a hard time finding a way to work more against your own interests than voting Republican. Granted Paul is quite different than Republicans (since he's a Libertarian), which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.
So, all your stated views/actions say about you is that you really haven't been paying any attention at all for the last 30 years or so.
Well, that or you really really hate yourself and think you deserve to be punished.
Thompson's platform is basically "I am more like Ronald Reagan than any of the other candidates, including the advanced age and partial dementia. Thus, since you are a good Republican and fellate statues of Reagan on a daily basis, you should vote for me."
Given that the only real difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was good at lying (he's an actor), it's pathetic that that delusional religious belief in Reagan still persists. Apart from that, they're carbon copies.
You're equating right of a human parasite to the slavery, internment, and mistreatment of women in a Wahhabi state under Sharia law?
Quite clearly not. That's a real stretch.
Holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to bear children they don't want to satisfy your whims (which is what you favor) is what I'm equating.
See above. It is the same as killing the weak, old and annoying....its just easier when they are 2 pounds instead of 100 pounds.
Laughable. It's not at all the same since the weak, old, and annoying are independent life forms. A fetus isn't by any stretch of the imagination.
If you've got a beef with Saudi Arabia, seek an audience with King Abdullah. Unless you're a woman, then you should be happy to live here.
I have a beef with people like you trying to drag us down to their level, as I quite clearly stated.
No, Ford helped with the "why", not the "how".