Don't forget the character you never see - the blue screen.. Probably also partly responsible for Jar Jar + plus a total miscasting. Jar Jar reminds me of 'Ford Prefect' from HHGTTG another total miscast from a movie that totally massacred its source..
Jar Jar existed from the time of the first movies, he was definitely in the first comics. The scary thing is that I remember him being funny. Something really weird happened between 1980 and TPM, and Jar Jar wasn't even the worst of it either.. I'M PERSONALLY TERRIFIED OF THE COMING MOVIE - I think it could make the worst of the Prequels look like great films.. Disneyfication - the reduction of something to grotesquely child like elements to make it more appealing to small (sub 10 yr old) children.. And worse - the removing of anything intelligent in script or story or characters..
Sorry bad terminology. Time does exist but is point like. It is coherent dimensional time that I was referring to.. and there is basically no real irrefutable proof at all for dimensional time. The nearest thing to proof of dimensional time is the observation of time dilation, but the problem there is that speed is a component of a vector and the vector looks and behaves just like a time dimension...
Ironically like I said, in my model general relativity does work on quantum scales, and in fact the model resolves all non-FTL physics to originating at quantum scales. The headache is that the models maths is very alien to current physics. Rather than using renormalisation it uses infinite numbers directly using a piece of logic called scalar windows. It also describes a non-continuous geometry - in other words its mathematically piecemeal and that means that it cant (currently) be analysed using higher mathematics. The basic problem is the speed of light itself which behaves differently between FTL and STL geometries, in FTL geometries the speed of light is a minima that tends to limit towards zero. The model also resolves imaginary mass as having a basic superposition geometry, and these two factors put together imply strongly that quantum physics is a type of FTL physics. That's basically the bottom of the rabbit hole. A unification between general relativity, quantum physics, & FTL physics.
There is actually a way of testing my model against standard general relativity because they both predict different shapes for the gravity fields of black holes, the FTL model predicts a single central singularity while general relativity generally predicts a distributed mass..
Many physicists obviously have thought about this - but none have reached the point of breaking it, or at least of publishing the results of breaking it..
Put very simply there are two basic competing models. - The FTL absolute frame model which has a stable FTL 3D geometry and an FTL simultaneity. The General Relativity model where either the FTL universe resolves to being completely unstable, or doesn't exist, or the past and future are completely fixed.. The biggest difference between the two is that in the FTL model there is no need for a time dimension, or rather the time dimension exists but is only coherent at quantum scales. Time on classical scales is treated as point like so the model is effectively very similar to the Galilean geometry of Newtonian physics but with a new correcting factor for general relativity.. - In the FTL model time travel is impossible because time as such does not exist.. FTL travel is also restricted to finite speeds and probably to negative mass objects.. - The observation of things like space like time and frame dragging can be explained because all physics extends from and to the quantum scale where general relativity remains valid.. - Here Special Relativity can generally be treated as a special case in general relativity where space time is flat..
Normally I'm always a scientific progressive but something about this idea horrifies me. Doing analysis on data while it still remains encrypted? better hope that nothing goes wrong, better hope that there isn't some hidden unknown variable that develops. Kind of like a magic trick and magic tricks have a habit of going wrong..
I agree with that as far as it goes. Cryopreservation is probably not a good option, fortunately it is not the only one. There is hot hibernation, cool or cold hibernation, or possibly 'reverse entropy' preservation. There is nothing fundamental to stop humanity in the future genetically engineering a race of people 'engineered' for a life in space - including modifications to make hibernation easier. In physics terms living things are already entropy pumps, its just that evolution has never had a reason to perfect or create an 'immortal' human.. Artificial evolution in the lab can run up to a billion times faster than natural evolution, its just a matter of figuring out how to apply it to genetic engineering..
Sure you can argue that its impossible and will never happen - but then people in exactly your position have said the same thing about the Moon landings, reaching orbit, manned HTA flight, heart surgery, discovering DNA, computers, etc, etc.. In Von Braun's and Willy Ley's first designs for what became the Apollo program the astronauts carried slide rules, and they separated the craft stages by going outside and unbolting them with spanners. The first designs for the Moon landers were also about 100 times heavier than the final real vehicles..
Ranked in rough order of probability - (Est 100 : 1) - Some kind of FTL travel (Est 200 : 1) - Prolonged stasis (Est 250 : 1) - Immortal crew (Est 1000 : 1) - Generations of crew / Generational
I'd add in 'seed' ship. A purely robotic system that looks for suitable worlds then seeds them with a suitable bio-system and humans. Every part of that is essentially doable within about 30 to 50 years.. (Est 20 : 1) - Seed Ships.
An even better example - told that FTL travel is impossible tens of thousands of physicists have dismissed it out of hand without even thinking about it. All based on a supposition for which there is not the tiniest piece of real proof - that general relativity remains correct above the speed of light. It is hard to think of anything in pseudoscience or religion for which there is less proof..
There are at least two or three outer system moons that have liquid water on them. Are you saying that they are forever unreachable? We may not have the technology to do it now but we were well on the way there in the 1960's, all we have to do is resurrect that research and complete it. Project Orion, Sea Dragon, Super Orion, Project NERVA. Add in later abandoned research like - the 'GCCCNR Liberty' the 1000 ton to orbit per trip nuclear lifter, or even Project Daedalus..
Even during the Apollo era the US spent less than 1 tenth on space that they did on the Vietnam war and nuclear weapons. The US total budget on nuclear weapons is $8.7 trillion - that's easily enough to put a human colony on Mars...
You can dry run a computer division by zero operation, and the operation produces a result of zero leaving a remainder that equals the nominator. At its heart division is a multiple subtraction and the result is an accumulation therefore division by zero produces zero.. On the opposite when you do the formal theory of calculus you get to play with infinitesimals and zero, and the infinitesimals map the graph of division and multiplication by zero - to produce the familiar tangent curve. (summing the (+)(-) infinity to zero is my own observation) Quite a lot of complex maths in there, Riemann spheres, Riemann metric, inner products, etc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cant say that I understand half of it myself, but its the maths that leads to tensor manifolds, Lie algebras, and General Relativity..
A much simpler explanation is that general relativity fails at the light speed barrier. In that case we only need three dimensions and one universe. General relativity still works except that the time dimension is restricted to quantum scales..
You threw that in there.. The very definition of the unanswerable question. What is the nature of the observer paradox? Answering that question can take you down some very pretty rabbit holes. The answer that the consciousness does collapse the wave function would be pretty irrefutable evidence that some 'psychic' model of the universe is correct.. There are two obvious alternatives - a physical mechanism in the observers brain, or in the process and instrumentation of the observation itself. What we are looking for is the ultimate smoking gun for the superposition breaker - and ultimately the most likely probable answer is very simple, it is quantum noise that breaks the superposition. In fact this is really the opposite to the described experiment - quantum noise gets in and destroys the superposition the moment the box is open. In the real universe Schrodinger boxes themselves are actually virtually impossible to build anyway, the walls of the box are essentially virtually identical to the event horizon of a black hole. But even event horizons cannot stop gravity and gravity carries information about mass and energy. As the joke goes you can choose two - general relativity, black holes, or the conservation of momentum..
"Re point 4: my understanding of current theory was that if you can send information faster than light, then it is possible to send information back in time."
That would only be correct if General Relativity remains correct at FTL speeds, and there's more empirical proof for Leprechauns or homeopathy than there is for that.. A much simpler FTL model is that time is point like and not a dimension, and that dimensional time is just a delusion - an abstraction.. As for dilation and space like time they can be explained by treating speed as a component of velocity. For an object moving in a straight line its velocity forms a line that behaves like a dimension local to the object..
Oh boy if only it were that simple. Technically the modern definition of antimatter defines it as matter with positive mass but opposite charge. We can add another type of antimatter that has negative mass, but this isn't generally compatible with a lot of modern physics theory, which says that with negative mass you also get negative time. I'm working on a new physics model that solves this problem, but to do it the model has to replace general relativity at FTL speeds with a new modified 'absolute frame' model.. There's a reason that Einstein hated the FTL , its maths is complex disjointed and not pretty..
Its undefined unless you define it. - Division by zero does have a defined value of - imaginary infinite. That is a positive infinity and a negative infinity, or if you sum them together zero. - An alternative derived using permutation also sums to zero, with the numerator becoming the remainder.. This is the value that computer ALU's would actually produce if allowed to calculate division by zero..
0/0 = 1 is just a formalism, and is technically incorrect because it produces a signed value from a signless operation.. A similar formalism is to assign the value of roots as positive when in reality their sign is by definition unknown. m^2 = n, root (n) = +m or -m.
Ok if you think asbestos is so safe go and find some and try breathing in the dust.. I heard one of you idiots say DDT was safe the other day. Next you will be telling us being shot in the head with a gun is safe - 'It wasn't the gun shots or the holes in their bodies that killed those children it was the evil commie rays from Ronald Reagan's dead corpse...'
Some trolls are amusing, some trolls are annoying, but APK is one of the worst I have seen in a long time.. Definite psychosis in the writing style and demeanour. Repetition and denial of logic, plus bizarre absolute beliefs. False belief systems driven by paranoia. Sad to say it but APK seriously needs the help of mental health professionals.
With that number of warrants I would bet the judge is either signing them as bulk warrants or delegating it to a clerk using an authorised signature machine.. He might even just be using a rubber stamp..
The US does not have a very good record on this. What they should have done is go in and capture the guy. Stuff like this is what is supposed to separate us from the terrorists...
"I don't dispute that it is a war crime... but it still might be worth doing, if it really got the entire leadership in one shot....."
Oh dear there's that lack of basic military intelligence again. These are not rigid hierarchies. Killing the leaders does not stop the rest, it often makes them worse. They expect the US to try to assassinate their leaders. Also as I pointed out above the US's current attacks on the Taliban are actually helping ISIS to infiltrate them and take over.. That will only make things worse. - The right hand panel of this cartoon sums it up nicely - http://www.cagle.com/2015/11/t...
Why do people like you keep wanting us to sink to ISIS's or the Taliban's level. Come to think of it where is military intelligence on this - attacking the Taliban at the moment is helping ISIS to insert themselves into Afghanistan instead.. ISIS are worse than the Taliban.. probably even worse than Al Qaeda..
Slashdot Mirror
Lucas probably wanted to have another shit on the fans.
Don't forget the character you never see - the blue screen.. Probably also partly responsible for Jar Jar + plus a total miscasting. Jar Jar reminds me of 'Ford Prefect' from HHGTTG another total miscast from a movie that totally massacred its source..
That would explain a heck of a lot.
Jar Jar existed from the time of the first movies, he was definitely in the first comics. The scary thing is that I remember him being funny. Something really weird happened between 1980 and TPM, and Jar Jar wasn't even the worst of it either..
I'M PERSONALLY TERRIFIED OF THE COMING MOVIE - I think it could make the worst of the Prequels look like great films.. Disneyfication - the reduction of something to grotesquely child like elements to make it more appealing to small (sub 10 yr old) children.. And worse - the removing of anything intelligent in script or story or characters..
Sorry bad terminology. Time does exist but is point like. It is coherent dimensional time that I was referring to.. and there is basically no real irrefutable proof at all for dimensional time. The nearest thing to proof of dimensional time is the observation of time dilation, but the problem there is that speed is a component of a vector and the vector looks and behaves just like a time dimension...
Ironically like I said, in my model general relativity does work on quantum scales, and in fact the model resolves all non-FTL physics to originating at quantum scales. The headache is that the models maths is very alien to current physics. Rather than using renormalisation it uses infinite numbers directly using a piece of logic called scalar windows. It also describes a non-continuous geometry - in other words its mathematically piecemeal and that means that it cant (currently) be analysed using higher mathematics.
The basic problem is the speed of light itself which behaves differently between FTL and STL geometries, in FTL geometries the speed of light is a minima that tends to limit towards zero. The model also resolves imaginary mass as having a basic superposition geometry, and these two factors put together imply strongly that quantum physics is a type of FTL physics. That's basically the bottom of the rabbit hole. A unification between general relativity, quantum physics, & FTL physics.
There is actually a way of testing my model against standard general relativity because they both predict different shapes for the gravity fields of black holes, the FTL model predicts a single central singularity while general relativity generally predicts a distributed mass..
Many physicists obviously have thought about this - but none have reached the point of breaking it, or at least of publishing the results of breaking it..
Put very simply there are two basic competing models. - The FTL absolute frame model which has a stable FTL 3D geometry and an FTL simultaneity. The General Relativity model where either the FTL universe resolves to being completely unstable, or doesn't exist, or the past and future are completely fixed.. The biggest difference between the two is that in the FTL model there is no need for a time dimension, or rather the time dimension exists but is only coherent at quantum scales. Time on classical scales is treated as point like so the model is effectively very similar to the Galilean geometry of Newtonian physics but with a new correcting factor for general relativity..
- In the FTL model time travel is impossible because time as such does not exist.. FTL travel is also restricted to finite speeds and probably to negative mass objects..
- The observation of things like space like time and frame dragging can be explained because all physics extends from and to the quantum scale where general relativity remains valid..
- Here Special Relativity can generally be treated as a special case in general relativity where space time is flat..
Normally I'm always a scientific progressive but something about this idea horrifies me. Doing analysis on data while it still remains encrypted? better hope that nothing goes wrong, better hope that there isn't some hidden unknown variable that develops. Kind of like a magic trick and magic tricks have a habit of going wrong..
I agree with that as far as it goes. Cryopreservation is probably not a good option, fortunately it is not the only one. There is hot hibernation, cool or cold hibernation, or possibly 'reverse entropy' preservation. There is nothing fundamental to stop humanity in the future genetically engineering a race of people 'engineered' for a life in space - including modifications to make hibernation easier. In physics terms living things are already entropy pumps, its just that evolution has never had a reason to perfect or create an 'immortal' human.. Artificial evolution in the lab can run up to a billion times faster than natural evolution, its just a matter of figuring out how to apply it to genetic engineering..
Sure you can argue that its impossible and will never happen - but then people in exactly your position have said the same thing about the Moon landings, reaching orbit, manned HTA flight, heart surgery, discovering DNA, computers, etc, etc.. In Von Braun's and Willy Ley's first designs for what became the Apollo program the astronauts carried slide rules, and they separated the craft stages by going outside and unbolting them with spanners. The first designs for the Moon landers were also about 100 times heavier than the final real vehicles..
Ranked in rough order of probability -
(Est 100 : 1) - Some kind of FTL travel
(Est 200 : 1) - Prolonged stasis
(Est 250 : 1) - Immortal crew
(Est 1000 : 1) - Generations of crew / Generational
I'd add in 'seed' ship. A purely robotic system that looks for suitable worlds then seeds them with a suitable bio-system and humans. Every part of that is essentially doable within about 30 to 50 years..
(Est 20 : 1) - Seed Ships.
There's no fool like an 'Expert'.
An even better example - told that FTL travel is impossible tens of thousands of physicists have dismissed it out of hand without even thinking about it. All based on a supposition for which there is not the tiniest piece of real proof - that general relativity remains correct above the speed of light. It is hard to think of anything in pseudoscience or religion for which there is less proof..
"Which is why Dr. Friedman is, in very technical language, "a goddamn fucking senile idiot"."
I wouldn't put it as politely as that. He's a goddam Luddite..
There are at least two or three outer system moons that have liquid water on them. Are you saying that they are forever unreachable? We may not have the technology to do it now but we were well on the way there in the 1960's, all we have to do is resurrect that research and complete it. Project Orion, Sea Dragon, Super Orion, Project NERVA. Add in later abandoned research like - the 'GCCCNR Liberty' the 1000 ton to orbit per trip nuclear lifter, or even Project Daedalus..
Even during the Apollo era the US spent less than 1 tenth on space that they did on the Vietnam war and nuclear weapons. The US total budget on nuclear weapons is $8.7 trillion - that's easily enough to put a human colony on Mars...
You can dry run a computer division by zero operation, and the operation produces a result of zero leaving a remainder that equals the nominator. At its heart division is a multiple subtraction and the result is an accumulation therefore division by zero produces zero..
On the opposite when you do the formal theory of calculus you get to play with infinitesimals and zero, and the infinitesimals map the graph of division and multiplication by zero - to produce the familiar tangent curve. (summing the (+)(-) infinity to zero is my own observation) Quite a lot of complex maths in there, Riemann spheres, Riemann metric, inner products, etc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cant say that I understand half of it myself, but its the maths that leads to tensor manifolds, Lie algebras, and General Relativity..
A much simpler explanation is that general relativity fails at the light speed barrier. In that case we only need three dimensions and one universe. General relativity still works except that the time dimension is restricted to quantum scales..
You threw that in there.. The very definition of the unanswerable question. What is the nature of the observer paradox? Answering that question can take you down some very pretty rabbit holes. The answer that the consciousness does collapse the wave function would be pretty irrefutable evidence that some 'psychic' model of the universe is correct.. There are two obvious alternatives - a physical mechanism in the observers brain, or in the process and instrumentation of the observation itself.
What we are looking for is the ultimate smoking gun for the superposition breaker - and ultimately the most likely probable answer is very simple, it is quantum noise that breaks the superposition. In fact this is really the opposite to the described experiment - quantum noise gets in and destroys the superposition the moment the box is open.
In the real universe Schrodinger boxes themselves are actually virtually impossible to build anyway, the walls of the box are essentially virtually identical to the event horizon of a black hole. But even event horizons cannot stop gravity and gravity carries information about mass and energy. As the joke goes you can choose two - general relativity, black holes, or the conservation of momentum..
"Re point 4: my understanding of current theory was that if you can send information faster than light, then it is possible to send information back in time."
That would only be correct if General Relativity remains correct at FTL speeds, and there's more empirical proof for Leprechauns or homeopathy than there is for that.. A much simpler FTL model is that time is point like and not a dimension, and that dimensional time is just a delusion - an abstraction.. As for dilation and space like time they can be explained by treating speed as a component of velocity. For an object moving in a straight line its velocity forms a line that behaves like a dimension local to the object..
Oh boy if only it were that simple. Technically the modern definition of antimatter defines it as matter with positive mass but opposite charge. We can add another type of antimatter that has negative mass, but this isn't generally compatible with a lot of modern physics theory, which says that with negative mass you also get negative time. I'm working on a new physics model that solves this problem, but to do it the model has to replace general relativity at FTL speeds with a new modified 'absolute frame' model.. There's a reason that Einstein hated the FTL , its maths is complex disjointed and not pretty..
Its undefined unless you define it.
- Division by zero does have a defined value of - imaginary infinite. That is a positive infinity and a negative infinity, or if you sum them together zero.
- An alternative derived using permutation also sums to zero, with the numerator becoming the remainder.. This is the value that computer ALU's would actually produce if allowed to calculate division by zero..
0/0 = 1 is just a formalism, and is technically incorrect because it produces a signed value from a signless operation.. A similar formalism is to assign the value of roots as positive when in reality their sign is by definition unknown. m^2 = n, root (n) = +m or -m.
The Ars Technica one - terrifying..
LOL from that I just got his full name and address from 2000, I don't really want it. :(
Ok if you think asbestos is so safe go and find some and try breathing in the dust.. I heard one of you idiots say DDT was safe the other day. Next you will be telling us being shot in the head with a gun is safe - 'It wasn't the gun shots or the holes in their bodies that killed those children it was the evil commie rays from Ronald Reagan's dead corpse...'
Some trolls are amusing, some trolls are annoying, but APK is one of the worst I have seen in a long time.. Definite psychosis in the writing style and demeanour. Repetition and denial of logic, plus bizarre absolute beliefs. False belief systems driven by paranoia. Sad to say it but APK seriously needs the help of mental health professionals.
With that number of warrants I would bet the judge is either signing them as bulk warrants or delegating it to a clerk using an authorised signature machine.. He might even just be using a rubber stamp..
The US does not have a very good record on this. What they should have done is go in and capture the guy. Stuff like this is what is supposed to separate us from the terrorists...
"I don't dispute that it is a war crime... but it still might be worth doing, if it really got the entire leadership in one shot... .."
Oh dear there's that lack of basic military intelligence again. These are not rigid hierarchies. Killing the leaders does not stop the rest, it often makes them worse. They expect the US to try to assassinate their leaders. Also as I pointed out above the US's current attacks on the Taliban are actually helping ISIS to infiltrate them and take over.. That will only make things worse. - The right hand panel of this cartoon sums it up nicely - http://www.cagle.com/2015/11/t...
Why do people like you keep wanting us to sink to ISIS's or the Taliban's level. Come to think of it where is military intelligence on this - attacking the Taliban at the moment is helping ISIS to insert themselves into Afghanistan instead.. ISIS are worse than the Taliban.. probably even worse than Al Qaeda..