A later comment mentioned earth rotation. This and your plate tectonics sound not convincing for me. If it was that easy I'd expect that all neutrinos show a systematic error. AFAIK only a few, just enough to be statistically relevant, were 'early'.
True. And some sort of 'replicator' would be nice. Not necessarily Star Trek stuff. Probably no law of nature against "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot", but more perfect 3D printer are much more realistic for the next years.
Maybe. No one knows if the universe gives a damn about cause and effect..we know it opperates that way, but does it care is we violate it?
Perhaps it does not. But unless there is a really strong evidence that the universe does not care, I really don't think we should give it up.
Anyways, I suspect it [moving really fast] will only happen by shifting a ship into another dimension that is smaller, move in that dimension, and appear here the ration of the distanced travels away from your starting point.
I am not a physicist, so I might have gotten it wrong. But as far as I understood it, it does not matter how you achieve ftl. Other dimension or not. If you get faster from point A in our universe to point B in our universe than a ray of light could do it, you automatically get all kinds of paradoxes, e.g. a possible inversion of cause and effect, or time travel.
With all the mind boggling stuff quantum mechanics brought us, I would not be too surprised if reality was even stranger than we know now. But as far as I know, it does not look that way. Too bad.
Wouldn't it be easier to set up a base on the far side of the Moon? Then you'd at least have sunlight half the lunar month.
Sorry, little English problem.
:-)
This was exactly what I meant. The side facing away from Earth. I think this side might be more interesting for astronomers. Shielded from some of the earth electromagnetic 'pollutions'.
If we could develop a system that could sent information at FTL, think how much better our exploration vehicles could operate.
True, but even information sending at more than light speed is extremely unlikely. If current physics is not wrong, it would play havoc with cause and effect. Reality is strange, especially at quantum level, but to give up this.... only if very strong evidence that this is necessary
Actually, a permanent space station on Mars will not make interstellar travel any more feasible. We do not have any even semi-realistic propulsion system to get to the nearest stars in less than a few thousand years. Until such system exists, interstellar travel will remain sci fi.
I am well aware of that. At least what you said about propulsion systems. There is a good chance that ftl is generally impossible regardless of level of technology. Even travel close to light speed would be absolutely deadly for humans. However, I disagree with what you said about a permanent Mars station, that it will not make interstellar space travel any more feasible. A contradiction? Yes. But in case I am wrong and ftl is possible one way or the other, many things we would learn from a manned station on moon/mars would be applicable for interstellar travel, too. So why not use the synergies, strive for something feasible and useful now and not literally reach for the stars with uncertain outcome? Not only uncertain but most likely inherently damned for failure?
I rarely say this. I am always willing to spend money for basic research, where an immediate benefit is not obvious. But interstellar travel? Now? Ridiculous. Baby steps, please. Such a project for a permanent station on the dark side of the moon would already be very ambitious, but at least not totally scifi. Next step a permanent space station on Mars. If this can be accomplished and is more or less routine, it might start to make sense to think about interstellar travel. But certainly not earlier.
You get a reaction -- if you can get them to collide. You still need a linear accelerator to do it.
You need an accelerator to get two protons to collide. Two protons have a positive charge, so they repel each other. The acceleration is necessary to overcome this repellent force. Between a proton and an anti-proton there is no repellent force. They actually attract each other.
There is absolutely no open question when it comes to matter/anti-matter annihilation. It has been done with anti-hydrogen and container walls more than once.
I don't care too much about the RPM internals. I use CMake as build system. This includes CPack. Set a few variables in the CMakeLists.txt file and you get an RPM or DEB package just by typing 'make package'.
When I started computing in the early 80th there were plenty of magazines, which 'taught' programming. Small games, which explanations, which one had to type in oneself. This automatically invited to experiment with the code. Change a line here or there and see what happens. Today? Download everything from the internet. Even if the sourcecode is available, there is no real reason even to see it.
Strange. People don't buy a phone because it is the last of its kind? I read statements like yours whenever there is an article about Nokia and the N9. But as consumer, if the N9 is a good phone, why should one care that there probably won't be an N10? Was there something ever a free upgrade plan N(X) -> N(X+1)?
...I assume crap. Why? There are plenty systems to get finer grained rights, e.g. acl. Problem is, most developers or administrators are unable to cope with even the most simple owner/group/other access controls. Make it more flexible and powerful and you get that much more security risks that the advantages by far outweigh the problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I would just leave. I don't jump through hoops to be allowed to work someone.
Sarcasm? Where?
A later comment mentioned earth rotation. This and your plate tectonics sound not convincing for me. If it was that easy I'd expect that all neutrinos show a systematic error. AFAIK only a few, just enough to be statistically relevant, were 'early'.
I know, I know, In German this would have never happened. But I am far from perfect in English. Especially when it comes to specific topics like that.
True. And some sort of 'replicator' would be nice. Not necessarily Star Trek stuff. Probably no law of nature against "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot", but more perfect 3D printer are much more realistic for the next years.
Perhaps it does not. But unless there is a really strong evidence that the universe does not care, I really don't think we should give it up.
I am not a physicist, so I might have gotten it wrong. But as far as I understood it, it does not matter how you achieve ftl. Other dimension or not. If you get faster from point A in our universe to point B in our universe than a ray of light could do it, you automatically get all kinds of paradoxes, e.g. a possible inversion of cause and effect, or time travel.
With all the mind boggling stuff quantum mechanics brought us, I would not be too surprised if reality was even stranger than we know now. But as far as I know, it does not look that way. Too bad.
Sorry, little English problem.
:-)
This was exactly what I meant. The side facing away from Earth. I think this side might be more interesting for astronomers. Shielded from some of the earth electromagnetic 'pollutions'.
True, but even information sending at more than light speed is extremely unlikely. If current physics is not wrong, it would play havoc with cause and effect. Reality is strange, especially at quantum level, but to give up this.... only if very strong evidence that this is necessary
I am well aware of that. At least what you said about propulsion systems. There is a good chance that ftl is generally impossible regardless of level of technology. Even travel close to light speed would be absolutely deadly for humans. However, I disagree with what you said about a permanent Mars station, that it will not make interstellar space travel any more feasible. A contradiction? Yes. But in case I am wrong and ftl is possible one way or the other, many things we would learn from a manned station on moon/mars would be applicable for interstellar travel, too. So why not use the synergies, strive for something feasible and useful now and not literally reach for the stars with uncertain outcome? Not only uncertain but most likely inherently damned for failure?
I rarely say this. I am always willing to spend money for basic research, where an immediate benefit is not obvious. But interstellar travel? Now? Ridiculous. Baby steps, please. Such a project for a permanent station on the dark side of the moon would already be very ambitious, but at least not totally scifi. Next step a permanent space station on Mars. If this can be accomplished and is more or less routine, it might start to make sense to think about interstellar travel. But certainly not earlier.
You need an accelerator to get two protons to collide. Two protons have a positive charge, so they repel each other. The acceleration is necessary to overcome this repellent force. Between a proton and an anti-proton there is no repellent force. They actually attract each other.
There is absolutely no open question when it comes to matter/anti-matter annihilation. It has been done with anti-hydrogen and container walls more than once.
You are aware that anti-protons and protons just like anti-electrons and electrons have opposite charges? And what do opposite charges?
I don't care too much about the RPM internals. I use CMake as build system. This includes CPack. Set a few variables in the CMakeLists.txt file and you get an RPM or DEB package just by typing 'make package'.
Unless you are a developer who is interested to start developing for the upcoming N9, believe me, you don't want it.
This is a sure sign there is not intelligent life out there. The galaxies still exists.
...or it is a sign that there is _only_ intelligent life out there. ;-)
...the more the complaints about bad language features.
Yep, most likely a retard who fell for some internet scam. :-)
Buahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
How surprising.
She had to. Else she'd have had no chance to win.
..or languages.
When I started computing in the early 80th there were plenty of magazines, which 'taught' programming. Small games, which explanations, which one had to type in oneself. This automatically invited to experiment with the code. Change a line here or there and see what happens. Today? Download everything from the internet. Even if the sourcecode is available, there is no real reason even to see it.
Strange. People don't buy a phone because it is the last of its kind? I read statements like yours whenever there is an article about Nokia and the N9. But as consumer, if the N9 is a good phone, why should one care that there probably won't be an N10? Was there something ever a free upgrade plan N(X) -> N(X+1)?
...I assume crap. Why? There are plenty systems to get finer grained rights, e.g. acl. Problem is, most developers or administrators are unable to cope with even the most simple owner/group/other access controls. Make it more flexible and powerful and you get that much more security risks that the advantages by far outweigh the problems.
1 Linux Debian
2 Firefox
3 Libreoffice
4 Blender
5 mplayer
6 pan
7 kate
8 latex
9 xbmc
10 okular
11 kde
12 Thunderbird
13 gimp
14 Windows 7 --- gotcha!