Carrock

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

Famously (and tangentially again) Lemaitre and Hoyle were very close friends. I'm sure they had some "interesting" conversations about their different views of cosmology. (Of course, for a long time there was not overwhelming evidence on either side.)

Tangentially again, Einstein came up with his own Steady State cosmology, probably just before he abandoned the idea of a cosmological constant. He didn't think the concept worthy of publication.

From A new perspective on steady-state cosmology: from Einstein to Hoyle

Quote

Indeed, an expanding cosmos in which the density of matter remains unchanged seems a natural successor to Einstein’s static model of 1917, at least from a philosophical point of view.
However, such a steady-state universe demands a continuous creation of matter and, as Einstein discovered in this manuscript, a successful model of the latter process was not possible without some amendment to the field equations.

This is consistent with Einstein's 1952 statement

Quote

The cosmological speculations of Mr Hoyle, which presume the creation of atoms from empty space, are in my view much too poorly grounded to be taken seriously.

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The problem here is that it snaps if stretched too quickly, such as in the case of a seat belt in a collision. It would make a great bumper though, wouldn't it? Or boxing gloves?

I was rather intending a fun/annoying quick answer.

I wouldn't be very keen on any seat belt that went rigid just when I wanted it to spread out stresses...

It does have lots of potential uses such as you've suggested. It's 'only' a matter of engineering.

My favourite (Daedalus in New Scientist) was as the paving for (very) short stay parking.

Silly putty.

6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Currently, there is a system for relaying aircraft data at regular intervals. ACARS
 

From  ACARS

Quote

In the wake of the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009, there was discussion about making ACARS an "online-black-box"^[10] to reduce the effects of the loss of a flight recorder. However no changes were made to the ACARS system.

So another problem is that it's easier and cheaper to do nothing.

On 3/8/2019 at 9:32 AM, harlock said:

Does [A moon coverall to simulate Earth gravity on the Moon] exist or are we too much enthusiastic for these things? 

I suspect it would be unnecessary.

Apollo astronauts quickly developed gaits for fast movement on the moon, which likely included peak muscle and joint stresses similar to movement on earth.

Indoors, I suspect it wouldn't be long before an astronaut achieved a sextuple backflip.

Perhaps living in 1/6g would be physiologically quite similar to 1g, unlike living in microgravity.

Astronauts could spend a few weeks on the moon first to find out if they really need to sleep in a centrifuge.

This is the sort of potential problem that can be ignored as long as it doesn't become a real problem.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

But I also think that Wikipedia is wrong to suggest that there are no methods of measurement that are theoretically error free or that quantum effects should be attributed to the observer.

Confusing Wikipedia article at best.

I read it as

Quote

I think that Wikipedia is wrong to suggest that there are methods of measurement that are theoretically error free and correct that quantum effects should not be attributed to the observer.

From Wikipedia

Quote

In particular, a measurement of momentum is non-repeatable in short intervals of time.

The clear implication (in context) is that momentum is unchanged if you take a longer time. Contradicted by the equation a few lines later.

Just working out what the author means is an effort and I'm not sure which of us got the meaning right.

3 hours ago, taeto said:

Don't lie please...

If "Spacetime" is modelled at least topologically as R4 as it usually is (disregarding BH's and the time before BB), then some people might argue exactly that.

I notice you maintain that most people think that and don't provide a single reference. I couldn't find anyone other than you claiming the above.

23 minutes ago, taeto said:

Excellent idea. If you claim that any region of R4 is not uncountaby infinite, it is very extraordinary and needs references. I will not hold my breath.

Nice vague statement, to which the only answer is yes or no, depending on what you mean.

44 minutes ago, taeto said:

However, the outcome of the experiment does mean the same as a function with domain "one flip" to the set of outcomes {H,T}. Which is what I indicated.

No comment. I'm done with wasting my time.

As you've called me a liar and a troll, why not report the relevant posts?

1 hour ago, taeto said:

If a monkey is represented by a real number in (0,1) and a typed sequence is representing a real number in (0,1), then the outcome of the entire experiment means a function f:(0,1)→(0,1). Let us be generous and assume that as we sit and stare at these words on the screen, the function f will form in something like a minute. That is, if we want at all to assign a time duration to its creation. No, let us be even more generous and give it five minutes; you should be able to prepare a kettle of water for tea while it works.

Experiments don't mean or create functions.

2 hours ago, taeto said:

Don't lie please...

You think
 

Quote

 

From this session interdict

Every fowl of tyrant wingg,

Save the eaggle, feather’d kingg:

Dam machine the g is stick'd.

 

was serious?

2 hours ago, taeto said:

If "Spacetime" is modelled at least topologically as R4 as it usually is (disregarding BH's and the time before BB), then some people might argue exactly that.

Extraordinary claims need references.

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

You are trying to map the reals to the integers by trying to do it this way.

note my question to wtf.

You cannot have 0.5 of a monkey or 0.5 of a letter typed.

I presume we agree an uncountably infinite set of actual monkeys is impossible?

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

44 minutes ago, Carrock said:

In all, an uncountably infinite length of time would be required.

 

Why?

 

Use an uncountable set of points rather than the nonexistent uncountable monkeys.

Give each point a finite time, say 1 second, to do its thing.

Total time required is one second times the number of uncountable points.

That time would have a length equal to the number of points on that length.

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

You are trying to map the reals to the integers by trying to do it this way.

BTW I hope it's obvious I'm not taking this thread too seriously....

x-posted with taeto

1 hour ago, taeto said:

They are not meant to be actual living monkeys, for those who still wonder.

There are other opinions.

Does an e.g. random number generator not require space and time?

From the Shakespearian monkey/random number generator defence league website:

Quote

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

42 minutes ago, taeto said:

Test the monkeys one by one instead of in a shared location, thus no extra space needed.

Each monkey would require a finite amount of time to do its thing.

In all, an uncountably infinite length of time would be required.

In a shared location, uncountably infinite volume would be required.

Either way, uncountably infinite spacetime would be required. Spacetime may be infinite, but it's not uncountably infinite.

8 hours ago, wtf said:

I'd expect the number of monkeys to type the CWS to be an uncountable infinity. That's because the chance of each one doing so is 1, as we've already seen. And now there are uncountably many monkeys.

As each monkey has finite volume, where would you put an uncountably infinite volume of monkeys?

If each monkey can be numbered and assigned a unique integer, can you create an uncountable list of these monkeys?

Or are most of the monkeys so bored and irrational they can be assigned zero volume and an irrational number?

(I'll eventually get round to responding to your post on another thread.)

x-posted with studiot

An extract from a story I read years ago that stuck in my mind.

Readable ( but not easily ) at https://archive.org/stream/Fantastic_v20n02_1970-12/Fantastic_v20n02_1970-12_djvu.txt

Quote

 

So Michael made him a clock. It was a cube of dressed stone measuring a parsec on each edge.

“You don’t have to wind it, you don’t have to do a thing to it, Bosh,” Michael explained. “A small bird will come every millennium and sharpen its beak on this stone.

......

what Pithekos Pete had written was nearly, but not quite, the same thing:

‘From this session interdict

Every fowl of tyrant wingg,

Save the eaggle, feather’d kingg:

Dam machine the g is sticked.’

And if you never saw an angel cry, words cannot describe to you the show that Boshel put on then.

They are still at it tonight, typing away at random, for that last sad near-victory was less than a million billion cycles ago. And only a moment ago — half way back in the present cycle — one of the monkeys put together no less than nine Shakespearian words in a row.

There is still hope. And the bird has now worn the rock down to about half its bulk.

 

4 hours ago, Vexen said:

What about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Please define the particular Copenhagen interpretation you're referring to.

Quote

According to an opponent of the Copenhagen interpretation, John G. Cramer, "Despite an extensive literature which refers to, discusses, and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, nowhere does there seem to be any concise statement which defines the full Copenhagen interpretation."

1 hour ago, Strange said:

With an even distribution of matter, there would be no curvature (imagine the rubber sheet being pressed evenly, it would remain flat). 

So the presence of mass, by itself, doesn’t tell us about the overall curvature

It would only necessarily be flat in three spatial dimensions.

If e.g. the density were greater than critical, the universe would eventually stop expanding and contract i.e. it would be a closed 3-sphere.

Parallel light beams would converge.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Quote

A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat.

This is a quite old idea, and an oversimplified description - see beecee's response - but does indicate how the universe can be flat on a sufficiently large scale.

41 minutes ago, Vexen said:

I was wondering when was the soul imparted into humans during the course of evolution?

Still waiting.

1 hour ago, niwrad said:

I can repeat the question for you: why would I have to know how electric cars work if my claim is that electric cars cannot run without a traction battery?

I would be unable to explain in a way you could understand that electric cars can run without a traction battery.

Thanks for the reference which I read a while ago but lost.

I think it's worth reading in its entirety, particularly for its description of how action at a distance can, by delayed choice, either provide essential  information to show an interference pattern or show which slit the entangled particle passed through... all with information limited to lightspeed.

9 hours ago, Strange said:

So I assume you mean the quantum version of the experiment where only one photon or electron goes through the slits. (If so, this thread should be moved.)

The quantum version of the experiment uses entangled pairs of particles: one particle goes through the double slit apparatus, while the other goes to a detector. The detector measures the spin of the particle which can be used to deduce which slit the other particle went through. The particle that goes through the apparatus is not measured or affected at all.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So this is the quantum, not classical, version.

Quantum entanglement is used to measure which slit an electron went through. Directly measuring an electron (or photon) at one of the slits would destroy the particle. Measuring an entangled pair means that the particle going through the slit is not (directly) affected.

These seem to me, rightly or wrongly, like oversimplified descriptions with details essential for (my) understanding omitted. And I suspect you meant "Directly measuring an electron at one of the slits would destroy the interference pattern."

Please provide reference(s) and/or more info.

36 minutes ago, DrP said:

Maybe you are right and she was coerced into going out there against her will. we'll see.

You have attributed to me a view I have not stated and do not hold.

Still, that's better than quoting part of a sentence to change its meaning.

You haven't broken any forum rules and your opinion of due process is clear.

On 1/21/2018 at 1:26 PM, swansont said:

Furthermore, changing what others have written for the purpose of misquotation is equally unacceptable

 

 

This is meant to apply to willful changes to the material, making it appear that the member said something which they did not. I suppose it's just not obvious that this is dishonest, and as it happens now and again, we've codified it.

21 minutes ago, DrP said:

Diddums.

So... I pointed out you have contradictory opinions, you ignored that and every other point, selectively quoted my post to change its meaning, and responded 'Diddums.'

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

46 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Several of these factors probably involved in her 'confession:'

....

•ignorance of the law

...

•misunderstanding the situation 

None of these were issues when she chose to go out there. She went of her own accord (or so it has been reported - unless the press made that up).

Maybe she was lied to and was disillusioned when she got there - some things are a little hard to come back from though (like ISIL/ISIS).  

 

She may have been lied to but understood the law and the situation and may have been disillusioned when she discovered the situation was as she expected ... really.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amira_Abase%2C_Shamima_Begum_and_Kadiza_Sultana

Quote

At a 2015 Home Affairs Select Committee, then Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe stated that they would not face criminal charges if they returned to the United Kingdom.^[10]

.....

Contrary to the stance of the Metropolitan Police, Cameron said, "Whoever has gone out to join a terrorist organisation is breaking the law and has to face the consequences of breaking the law and we have to let the law take its course in the proper way".^[13]

No criminal charges so far....

One more response as you quoted me...

2 hours ago, DrP said:

There are those here that would lynch her without trial -  but I don't get on that well with that sort of people.

Such people don't have executive privilege and could be tried and convicted. The government can do what it likes with no fear of legal sanctions for those who made its decisions, even if unlawful.

1 hour ago, DrP said:

There is no doubt here - she said it herself that she chose to leave the UK to join ISIS. There is no doubt to her guilt regarding that.

About 20% - 50%(depends on source) of US death row inmates exonerated by improved DNA forensics had made false confessions.

No worries about informal, probably edited interviews as evidence of her guilt?

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what do you expect her to say when surrounded by them? All we know is she tried to be a member of ISIS.

Several of these factors probably involved in her 'confession:'

Quote

According to the Innocence Project, Damon and Barry's experience mirrors the trends that occur in nationwide wrongful conviction cases caused by false confessions. Factors include:

•duress 
•coercion 
•intoxication 
•diminished capacity 
•mental impairment 
•ignorance of the law 
•fear of violence 
•the actual infliction of harm 
•the threat of a harsh sentence 
•misunderstanding the situation 

Regarding his false confession, Damon had this to say (minutes 5:25 - 5:59 in video):

"I used to be one of the people who believed that someone would never confess to something they didn't do and society as a whole believes that. But yet, here I am, here I sit.

19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

And I agree. She deserves a trial to determine the punishment. But until then, she's already been convicted of high treason against the United Kingdom.

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Stateless or not, I don't see why the UK can't just revoke her citizenship. 

etc etc

This whole thread seems to be basically about whether due process, e.g. innocent until proved guilty etc, is a right or a privilege granted at the discretion of the government.

I'm done here.

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Could you link me to the law that states this?

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47301623

Quote

 

In 2017, the government lost an appeal case brought by two British citizens of Bangladeshi origin who were stripped of their citizenship when they were abroad.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that E3 and N3 had not tried to retain their citizenship before they reached the age of 21, and so it had automatically lapsed.

That meant that the decision to strip them of their UK citizenship had rendered them stateless.

Ms Begum's case is different. Her Bangladeshi citizenship remains intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.