Strange

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/news.2011.321.html

I was reading the other day that neutron stars are pretty close to perfect spheres. However, even if there were a perfect Platonic solid, you couldn't know. You could only say that it appeared to be perfect within the limits of measurement.

That is a bit of a non-sequitur. (Although, that is one possible answer to the riddle - depending on the definition of "sound") You said you don't know how far away it is. Therefore you don't know where it is. But it is still somewhere. But if you are just making up random contradictory statements just for the sake of arguing, then there isn't much point to this. I had a vague hope you might actually be interested in learning. But that now sounds unlikely.

I think it is OK to say that phones have evolved. Just as long as you don't confuse that meaning of the word with the biology meaning. (Which mistermack may have done.)

You would find that the ratio of radius to circumference was no longer equal to pi. Weird, huh? And I am just pointing out that the length contraction and time dilation is not inherent on the movement of those stars around the galaxy, it depends what you measure relative to. Compared to other stars orbiting with them there will be (approximately) no relative motion and hence no length contraction. You cannot ascribe length contraction as being caused by "movement through space" because that leads to logical contradictions. (Actual logical contradictions, not just "it doesn't make sense".)

Are you dyslexic by any chance? Or is your native language not English? I just ask because you seem to have problems understand simple statements, and I wonder how much allowance I should maker natural disadvantages. I did not say string theory is bollocks. I said the quantum-woo-spiritual-energy-hippy-crap website you linked to was bollocks. Because, in technical terms, that is what it is. "they're both allowed! Spelled is by far the most common past tense form in America, and spelt used to be the most common past tense form in Britain " http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/spelled-versus-spelt

What does that even mean? That I don't see why I should accept your faith in a 4th spatial dimensions which you think are useful for reasons your are unable to explain or justify? Sounds more like a rational view, to me. You seem to have misspelt "complete bollocks". "Quantum energy: Get your own spiritual experience" Nein Danke.

Length contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. 0.00003% Insignificant, I would think. This is the trouble with thinking that it is caused by "moving through space": it leads to confused ideas like this. It is a relative effect. It is not caused by moving through space, it is caused by movement relative to the observer.

The information is transferred classically (i.e. at, or below, light speed).

How can you not have them? Apart from cost? I guess the code running on the computer that is detecting them and opening the appropriate file will need to determine the correct one by choosing the strongest signal from those present. This is the sort of thing beacons are used for in shops, museums and art galleries. Do you actually need sensors/beacons over the entire area? How about using something like two or three ultrasound sources in the corners and use them to triangulate the position of the computer. Without knowing what you are trying to achieve, it is hard to say what solutions might work.

Sounds like a job for Bluetooth beacons. (RFID doesn’t have enough ugh range)

You might not like relativity for some reason but it works. And that is the only basis for judging a theory. Whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not is irrelevant.

Well, if you don't know how far away t is then, by definition, you don't know where it is (in at least one dimension). And that mans that you don't know what the time difference is either. But so what? Events there still have a location in space and time, even if you don't know what the coordinates are. Time doesn't tell you anything about location because the coordinates are independent, by definition. At the very least, knowing that you need to specify coordinates means you can meet people for dinner or land a spaceship on Mars. Beyond that, understanding the relationship between them (e.g. the theory of relativity) has enabled the technology we are using to communicate, which would have been possible otherwise. The fact that you, personally, don't understand what someone says doesn't make it word salad. It just means you have an opportunity to learn (if you want to).

Not quite sure why you think that. Someone far away would see us delayed ("in the past") because of the time it takes for light to reach them.But if they can see my watch (*) and the clock at the place I am meeting, then they would see that they say the same time when we meet. (*) Yes, it's a really big watch. Or do you mean, if I am far away from the people I am intending to meet? Again, I will see the time on their clocks delayed. But I can take that into account. I know how long it will take to get there and I can plan to leave based on the time on my watch which will (ignoring relativity) be in synch with theirs, even if it doesn't;t look like it.

It may be worth adding that because they are independent, they are also the minimum set of values required. So, for example, you could specify the position of a place on a map by using x (along the bottom) and y (up the side) and d (a measure diagonal from the corner). But if you consider two points at the same y coordinate but with different x coordinates, then they will also have a different d value. The same is true if you keep x constant and vary y. So x and y are independent of one another (you can vary one without changing the other) but d isn't independent; it changes when x or y changes. Which means that d doesn't provide any more information. It may be convenient but it is redundant. The same argument can apply to adding other "dimensions" like ringing bells or dog smells; they may be useful but they don't tell you anything new.

Cost? Larger pieces of fabric might cost more? But then stitching together more small pieces might cost more too. Probably better to ask the balloon makers

There are lots (I don't know much about any of them). String theory, causal dynamical triangulation, loop quantum gravity, etc. And there are wackier ideas about everything emerging from information and entropy ... From other things you measure, I think.

No, it is a measured value (like the permittivity and permeability of free space). I really hope that one day some "deeper" theory will explain why these things have the values they do....

Dimensions are (independent) values for defining the location of an object. So, for example, if you want to meet someone then you would need to specify the location, which is in three dimensions in space and the time you are meeting, for four dimensions in total. The three spatial dimensions can be defined in many ways, for example on the surface of the Earth we normally use latitude, longitude and altitude as x,y,z. These are often "encoded" for human use in things like a postal address ("Apartment 501, 82 Main Street, Hometown") but if you use GPS then these will be decoded to the latitude, longitude and altitude used by the navigation system. You might use references to describe to someone how to find it ("it's two doors down from the church where you can hear the bells ring" or, if you are a dog, "its where you can smell that chihuahua") but that doesn't change the location in space and time, it is just an aid to finding it. These don't provide any more information about the location (you could find it via the x,y,z coordinates or via some sequence of landmarks or smells - but you can always map from one set of coordinates to another. In the same way you can map from a street address to an x,y,z location. We might use different coordinates in different places. So, for example, latitude and longitude don't help much in space, so we are more likely to use a coordinate system based on the position of the Sun etc. And these might be based partly on angles (e.g. the angle up from the plane of the Earth's orbit) as well as lengths (distance form the Sun). But we will still end up needing three spatial dimensions to specify the position. You can use all sorts of methods to find things (smell, landmarks, sound, bouncing radar signals off of airplanes or planets) but you will at some point find you need to convert those to the three dimensions in space (and the time that it was there). Note that dimensions are also used in a more "abstract" sense to define locations in a conceptual space. For example, if you were studying people's sensitivity to different tastes you might define a multi-dimensional "taste space" where the dimensions were things salt, sweet, sharp, bitter, heat and savoury, etc. You could then define the "position" of each flavour within this space. So dark chocolate would be quite high up the sweet dimension and the bitter dimension, milk chocolate would be the same position on the sweet dimension but not as far up the bitter dimension, and so on. You could then plot different peoples responses to a new flavour within this space. This might help you say "if you like the food, then you might also like this one" or "this flavour generates a similar response to chocolate".

I can think of a couple of counter-arguments: We are looking at coping ideas from nature where evolution has come up with clever solutions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimetics) Genetic algorithms are used to come up with engineering solutions that no human would think of. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm)

It can do a lot more than that. Resetting some of the radio circuits etc.

That's good. I was trying to think of an analogy for the difference between the electrons in a metal and firing electrons through a vacuum.

Have you tried turning it off and on again? (Seriously.) Sometimes its enough to just turn on airplane mode for about 30 seconds.

OK. So studiot already gave the example of electrons passing through space and carrying current. This is what happens in vacuum tubes and cathode ray tubes (old-timey TVs). And this is where I guess it comes down to a definition of terms. I wouldn't describe this as "space" conducting electricity because you have to put the electrons into the empty space; it is the electrons that carry the current. But as the electrons are flying through space (instead of, say, a piece of metal) then you could say that the current is flowing through space. The difference is that a metal has lots of electrons already available to carry the current. Space doesn't until we add them (or ionise the gas atoms to create an arc). Does that make any more sense? (p.s. where did the quoted text come from? It is always helpful to provide sources!)

I’m a bit out of touch, but he’s the President now, right?