-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
It could be referring to almost anything (but not black holes). And the only reason it is hard is because you are being irrational. So some of the reasons it can't be referring to black holes are: black holes do not have "speed like the light of the speed", black holes do not "sweep" and black holes are not invisible. There are plenty of other things that fit parts of that description. But not black holes.
-
You would, I assume, also need to know what values were swapped at each pass. There is, in general, no algorithm for reversing a sort other than either recording the original order or recording what was done at each step of the sort. But well done for choosing a bubble sort if you want a slow algorithm. (Although it is one of the fastest algorithms on some parallel architectures.)
-
Indeed. It would only make sense if there were no other masses in the universe. In which case we would not see any receding galaxies!
-
Use a really slow computer. There are quite a few compression algorithms that are asymmetric. For example, many video compression algorithms cannot be compressed in real time (or need specialised hardware to do so (1) ) but must (by definition) be decompressed in real time. The compression algorithm will do fairly complex image analysis to find parts of the image that have moved and then encode that as a vector ("this block of pixels has moved by dx, dy"). The decoder just needs to copy a block of pixels without any real "intelligence". (1) Or, at least, they did back in the day, when I was involved in such systems. Several racks of noisy hardware to do the compression. A cheap embedded processor to do the decode.
-
Just to make that really explicit: [latex]\frac{t_{observer-at-r_{observer}}}{t_{observer-at-infinity}}=\sqrt{1-\frac{r_{schwartchild}}{r_{observer}}}[/latex]
-
M theory/string theory limits dimensions to 11?
Strange replied to Almighty's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Orthogonal is also used (informally) in the more general sense of independent, which could cause some confusion. -
How is this formula derived? And what evidence do you have that it is correct?
-
Your new idea will have to be sufficiently different that it is not considered "obvious" with respect to the posted description.
-
Copyright is irrelevant. Yes, he holds the copyright to his posts here, but not to the ideas. The derivative work (after 12 months) would have to be sufficiently new that it passes the novelty and inventive steps by itself. And you would not need to be the original author, in that case. Anyone could patent such an idea.
-
The fraud would be pretending it hasn't been published when it has. Even if you got away with it initially, it would only need someone here or someone using one of the Internet archives to spot it and your patent would be invalidated.
-
I am not suggesting that at all. I am just pointing out that one test of the value of an idea (before it becomes a theory) is that it can make predictions which can be tested. And, in science, the word "theory" doesn't mean some vague supposition but rather a detailed explanation of phenomena that has been confirmed by evidence, probably from multiple experiments. I am not sure that Einstein was the first to realise that quantum theory predicted entanglement, but he was certainly the first try and use the apparent paradoxical nature to show that QM was incomplete. Turns out he was wrong that time. Well, not really. Although you can extrapolate back to an infinitely dense point, I don't think anyone believes that is a realistic thing to do. I don't believe there is any current theory that says space existed before time. (Personally, I'm not even sure what "before time" would mean; you need time to define "before".)
-
Well, the thing is we have an existing, very precise theory, which predicted entanglement (and then decades later, it became possible to demonstrate it in the lab). You seem to be taking the existence of entanglement as a given and then trying to describe what happens. Would you have been able to predict something as unitutitive as entanglement if you hadn't already known about it? OK. But space-time is not a fabric. Not even metaphorically. It isn't made of anything. It is just a mathematical description of the distances (in both time and space) between events.
-
I think serif fonts are preferable for technical writing because they distinguish more clearly between things like l and I for example. Unfortunately, I am never allowed to use them, because our documentation has to look "modern" (so we end up writing things like "lower case L" in brackets to explain what a symbol is). There are a few modern fonts which have a slightly serify feel that can distinguish these characters and I have, occasionally, managed to use those.
-
Those that decay convert into something else. The others (which is pretty much all of them) stay as they are.
-
Well, obviously not "everyone". There is at least one person in the world who doesn't think that. It seems unlikely I am unique. And, the fact that those people who think their rights are "just out there" disagree on what those rights should be suggests that they aren't "out there" but are a personal concept.
-
Just removing the from the server will not mean the information has not been published. Therefore applying for a patent would be fraud.
-
We have an existing theory that predicted and explains entanglement, so I'm not sure what the point of this is. And I think you are taking the "fabric" metaphor a little too literally.
-
Most of the atoms carry on unchanged. There will be a few radioactive isotopes in there; those will decay to something else. Most famously, perhaps, carbon-14. That undergoes beta decay and produces nitrogen-14.
-
how to remove yellow stain from white clothes made of pure cotton ?
Strange replied to fresh's topic in Applied Chemistry
Some sort of mold? -
It is thinking rationally that tells us we can never know anything about what things "really" are. It is important to be able to understand it and describe it and make use of it. And we can do all those things. You are chasing unicorns. And that is not important. It is a waste of time. Unless you want to find a philosophy forum instead of a science one. In fact there is a thread here on this very subject that has been going on for even longer than this one: "Is Space-Time a Physical Entity or a Mathematical Model?" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/ And it could go on forever because there is no answer to the question.
-
I am amazed how often the same thread comes up with exactly the same arguments on both sides. Physical processes are how we measure time. Time is not defined by that. And not all physical processes involve motion.
-
An experiment / observation like this will not tell you anything about possible quantised effects of gravity. We have no evidence for that from the most extreme cases, so you are definitely not going to see it on the table top. All we can do is describe what we see. That is all we can EVER do. That is not just gravity or not just science. That is every aspect of life. We can describe what we see, but we cannot ever say anything about what those things "really" are. It is a meaningless question. (And one that philosophers have wasted a great deal of time on.) We know exactly what a field is and how to describe it. Whether it is real or not is (a) unknown and (b) meaningless and © irrelevant.
-
You are right, of course. I think I should stop posting for a while: I keep posting things that I know are wrong!
-
Doh.