Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alan2here

  1. Can this be done practically. Using the IPhone for example could provide a controller and display for the video feed all in one. www.boingboing.net/2011/06/03/rc-planes-with-pilot.html By practically I mean without the need to solder things together, employ anyone, combine to many technologies, use obscure things that are hard to get hold of, use old planes\helicopters that are too hard to fly etc... If not then what is the best that can be achieved at this time?
  2. Crossing it an infinite time after falling into the black hole with respect to an outside observer?
  3. I think stars actually tend to colapse into a black hole as a result of a change within them. It's not always mass coming together untill there is enough in one place, for example if a star took on some more mass and as a result had enough gravity to be considered a black hole. It's more that there is already enough mass but the star has structure that holds the star together (or more to the point holds the star appart), this then collapses when the star runs out of some sort of fuell it needs and the star becomes more dense in the process making it dense enough to become a black hole. But if somone is saying that new matter cannot merge with a black hole by reaching its surface then that makes sense, it just adds to the black holes gravity near the black holes surface. It dosn't bode well for my reasoning but the gravitational signals given off by orbiting black holes show a distinct change as they go in a quick step from orbiting to merged. Maybe I'm wrong. I would like to know if I am and to understand why. I can't make it make sence any other way. (the falling observer observes (maybe he can't see it with his eyes but it occurs) infinite time passing out side the black hole before he reaches it's surface, how long the falling observer experances it taking to reach the black holes surface dosn't matter in this case but should be some finite time) and (some or all black holes evaporate to nothing after a finite time) and (the falling observer reaches the black holes surface eventually). A, B and C can all be true on there own. It's (mostly certainly and probably entirely) logically possible in pairs, but certainly paradoxical when all three statements are taken together. Someones reality is going to be way out of whack with somone elses, and it's not just in a relativity thing. It's increasingly hard to get someone away from of a black hole nearer they get to it, so maybe it doesn't matter if there reality becomes out of sync with everyone elses.
  4. For matter it takes an infinite time to reach the black hole from the point of view of an outside observer, or infinite time would have passed after a finite time from the point of view of the matter before it reaches the black hole, either way when the mass gets there the black hole dosn't exist anymore. For a photon is this no longer the case? maybe not, photons are not like other matter. If it is still the case with a photon then the photon won't become infinitly redshifted untill after the black hole has evaporated.
  5. Read what I said in previous posts. I would appreciate your feedback.
  6. Thanks. There appears to be some uncertainty here but if due to the speading of background radiation. Presuming the universe continues to expand for a while. Then if even large black holes evaporate, then it brings me back to my earlier point about ever reaching the surface of a black hole if you fall into it.
  7. This makes sence given that all except unnaturally small black holes don't evaporate away and also answers some others questions. It would also mean that cosmic background radiation for a given place is constant throughout all of time or at least that the amount the black hole is being fed is always enough to prevent it from evaporating entirely.
  8. Thanks. So the least massive black hole that would take a finite time to evaporate taking into account the cosmic background radiation that keeps falling into the back hole would be a fraction of a solar mass and 0.8 times the mass of the earth? Discounting that he can't actually see it due to the redshift of light bouncing off it then how much time would an outside observer have to wait to see a falling object that started outside the black holes event horizon reach the surface of a large black hole?
  9. I'm not using your reply to as you put it justify my ignorance. It's common knowledge that black holes evaporate and that smaller ones evaporate more quickly. If this means that microscopic black holes evaporate and that larger ones take forever to do so then they must evaporate at no speed at all or infinitely slowly once beyond a cirtain size, either way this is not how black holes are normally described, and we wonder why it's hard to get the general public to understand these things. If this really is the case then it has been misrepresented a lot.
  10. Hooray, yes, that's what I was saying. From the falling observers point of view the rest of the universe continuously speeds up and at some point the black hole will have evaporated. So you would expect the falling observer to see the black hole rushing towards him, faster and faster as he is accelerated by it. There will be a finite time from the falling observers point of view before he hits the black hole, lets say 5 minutes. From the falling observers point of view soon the non-falling observers movements would be speed up more and more over time, then the movement of other solar bodies would noticeably speed up and before verry long a million years will have passed from the outside observers point of view but only a few minutes from the falling observers. Lets say nothing else falls into the black hole and it completly evaporates in a million years, the outside observer still hasn't seen the falling observer reach the black hole, because it would take forever from the outside observers point of view for that to happen. So the falling observer sees all this speeding up occuring around him, and his perfectly normal seeming fall towards the black hole, as if falling off a building on earth but then that the black hole is shrinking, the black hole will be gone before he reaches it. If the falling observer was not a scientist he might reply when asked what just happened to him that floating though space he encountered an entity that sucked him towards it shrinking and disappearing as it did so and that he was now moving much faster through space and in the future.
  11. The gravity on the surface of a black hole is infinite. So presumably one could replace the person in my above example with any matter, once the black hole was above a cirtain mass then the matter would never be able to reach the surface from the point of view of an outside observer as all of time would have passed before it could do so. However, when converted to sound, the gravity waves of matter spiralling into black holes are predicted to sound like an increasing frequency until collision, so presumably gravity increasing to infinity counters this. In other words it dosn't matter how slow time is for the matter very close to a black hole from the point of view of the rest of the universe it can still make increasing amounts of progress from the point of view of the rest of the universe due to gravity also being verry large. So is it true to say that for a person, who would have increasing amounts of force up to infinite pulling them into the black hole countered by time dilation giving them much more time than is normal relative to the rest of the universe before they reach the black holes surface, that they might see even a large black hole evaporate before the reach it, but for something heavier relative to the black hole itself there is more likely to be a collision?
  12. Does an answer exist to my question or is it an as off yet scientifically non understood one?
  13. Thanks all. Also what I'm saying about the bike for example is that it should be chaper in recources, including effort, time etc... for the bikes to be maintained by a single group than by multiple individual owners. If some of the people picking up a bike for the day want to spend the whole day in one long wheely then they would likely want to do this with their own bikes as well, so the amount of maintenance is the same just distrabuted differntly. It should still take less total recources (including effort) to maintain and monitor the bikes in mass.
  14. Is there a word or short way of refering to having more things public and shared, appart from Recource Based Ecconomy or Venus Project like. It seems so ineficent to me for everyone to sepratly own everything, your computer only uses a small proportion of it's capability at one time, the rest goes to waste. Stuff is hard to upgrade and maintain sepratly etc... The problem ofc being uniformity, but technoligy brings with it customizability, even if there was a city wide central processor it dosn't mean everyone using it needs to be running the same operating system. Some examples of this are the BBC's big screens, bikes for hire in London and hotels, although none of thease are long turm cheaper and better than the private alternatves, appart from in the sence of greater community involvment and less isolation, which is important but not enough alone, they should be able to be techolicially far superiour, more conthatable etc... as well at a lesser cost even in the long turm.
  15. Sorry if this is a sufficently different question, or has already been answered but it has been bugging me for a while. Even if they cannot see this due to the propagation of light, redshift or whatever and taking out dangers like tidal forces, presume this person is the super hero "super resilient man". Then from the point of view of one falling into a black hole the rest of the universe will speed up, for example if the person looks at a clock a long way from the black hole as they fall into it then the ticking of clock will appear to speed up. From the point of view of an observer elsewhere in the universe the black holes will evaporate to nothing after a finite time but the person they see falling into the back hole will take an infinite time to reach the surface. So how come the falling persons information will also be lost forever even though they never reach the black hole, from anyones point of view, before it evaporates?
  16. The stuff they got partially wrong is about something different, but even there they seem to be trying to do the right (correct) thing. The improvements to the website are fantastic. I'm not complaining about them. The conservatives are in coalition with the lib dems but this push for transparency is quite conservatively (by the conservatives) driven and it might seem an odd thing to everyone else but in my experience UK conservatives seem suspicious of this sort of transparency.
  17. I don't get it. Labour created data.gov.uk and the conservatives seem intent to make it better, more stuff, better organised etc..., implementing a lot of the unlikely seeming stuff in the TED talk they did before the election like the crime portal, they even seem embrace open source software, although they are still getting stuff wrong on that front. I can see the political motivations for saving money, but it still seems out of charecter.
  18. Solar panels run themselves, a coal fuel power station requires constant feeding by people, so in many cases green energy requires less employment which is good. Also if being green is bad for the economy then perhaps the economy is a bad indicator of whats a good. I completly agree with that more jobs for the same output = bad.
  19. According to Zeitgeist 2011, GDP increases due to inefficiency because efficiency reduces need and peoples need increases GDP. In other words the economy suffers when everything runs smoothly. Zeitgeist has a bad track record with accuracy, exaggeration, seeing links where there are none etc..., but braudly speaking I think it gets things right. Do we think this assertion about GDP by the Zeitgeist is correct?
  20. The online backup service Mozy looks like there in trouble this month as they are revealing that next month prices will go up a huge amount. To be fair in some circumstances they might occasionally make things cheaper for users with multiple computers but at the expensive of what I should think is nearly all their customers who will now be forced to leave. For example to back up 1TB used to be something like $4 a month (can't remember the exact value) but is now $89.99 per month. To put it another way thats about $48 per year before vs $1200 per year now for that amount of data. If you think there is some possibility that the company has a future look on their forums. There is ofc the tendancy for contented people to be absent from such places, however this is more than that. Every post in the many pages that I looked though of the offical thread about it is a customer saying that they will now leave Mozy. Dropbox is too small. Carbonite appears to have a similar aproach to what made Mozy so good, but it apparently has special tedious looking treatment of cirtain filetypes and completly ignores others. Some other services appear to exist that are just like FTP folders. Some services appear to have changed there name and\or associated company several times since creation, have considerably out of date information prominently on their website, according to wikipedia don't have supporting companies anymore ect... and others have just gone bust. Are there economic factors behind this mess and what software can we use now that works in a similar way?
  21. Id like to see number 6 that works with C++, your C++, my languege, functional languages and really low level languages. I agree that interfaces are verry important, everything else is just detail.
  22. Totally weekly typed OO language where. Any function or object instance in scope can be used on the fly stand alone, as an operator or as a member. Never specifiy type anywhere such as when passing and returning values. No inheritance although similar things can easily be done. Functions can code up other new functions. Like Java in that everything is like a pointer to an object, where there is automatic cleanup. Dissimilar types can be compared with == and where there are no comparison members for them in scope or in either object then the result is false. Individual members can be removed from or added to an object instance at any time. Instead of 'book b = book()' then it would be 'obj b = book' where book is the name of a function that composits a "book" object from other members, each of which are created by functions. Buit-in types (at the bottom level) also look like functions. Code can be passed around as well, for example 'obj c = {some code...}' allowing you to roll your own flow controll structures such as various sorts of loops, case statements etc... Everything that is typed from the keyboard is effectively a string, so number(42) that returns the number 42 would be writtain as number("42"). A built-in type called 'set'. In this example there are 3 elements: obj s = {number("42") some code... "cheese" member(key {some code...})}. Notice the similarity between entities conventionally thought of as sets, functions and objects. There is a libary of construction functions that is synchronized to a central online one. Add and remove things from scope as you need them from the libary so the number of symbols in scope stays small. Store various ways of achieving the same result in functions so that other code can request the most appropriate version based on its requirements. The library includes things like strings that can be spellchecked in specified langueges and polygons where details can be specified such as lengths and angles and other details can be quiried such as what other lengths and angles are. A member of the number built-in type would allow you to specify the maximum precision the number could if required go up to instead of there being various number types of differnt precisions. A built-in type for storage of data which is just binary information. Open a file and easily store instances of anything that is in scope inside it. Semi-defined values, for example it's less than 4, it's a value valid in this equation, it's an item in this set, it's got multiple values all of which must be true, or(and(1 2 3), and(4 5 6)) etc... In all 3 of thease cases result occurs if n is 2 or 3, if(n == 2 || n == 3, result), if(n == {2 || 3}, result), if(n == (2 || 3), result) Usefull default loops such as for("5") to occur 5 times, for(bool) where bool is a function that creates a default bool, the loop would then occur twice, once for true and once for false, a more difficult but not insurmountable obstacle for compound types given the very weakly typed nature of this language, for(set_name) would loop once for every item in a set. Use the 'param' function to get a parameter, for example left\right for when used as an operator or a number or key to get a specific parameter. gate("2") == gate({bool, bool}, {bool}, "2") == and. gate("8") == gate({bool, bool}, {bool}, "8") == and. I have an abstraction for generic mathematical operations that occur between integers as well. inputs.keyboards.0 to get the first connected keyboard to the device that the program is being run on. Whatever is actually the case this will appear to return Unicode charecters. Similarly, inputs.key("a"), the device might have no keyboards but a few individual keys instead. set_name.every.increment() to perform increment on every member of a set. Tasks are like functions but where the function that called them continues to execute immediately instead of waiting for the function that has been called to finish, like threads. 'obj n = {some code...} [new line] n.task' or 'obj n = task({some code...})' Objects from the libary wouldn't contain tasks that outlived there member functions unless they were named accordingly. Objects from the libary would have a names member which was a set containing strings, this would be referenced when refering to high level abbilites of the object where 'does it have a member with thease properties' and similar requests would become tedious and unreliable.
  23. It's not exactly like that no, there are significant differences in my design that make this work and that (possibly including other designs that use magnetic levitation but differently) not work well at verry high speeds. It's a nice animation though.
  24. Thanks, so yes, mW and not MW. Also, it's interesting and pleasing that they are organized together by one group like that. I imagined it as being more organic. Back on topic. I don't see where anyone has either tried this or why it would be impractical. It probbably would be with more conventional forms of magnetic levitation or anything with any sort of contact at all, even if only on a pinhead.
  25. I presumed you meant milliwatts in the same way that if a ruler was 300mm long I would presume you meant millimeters not megameters. Thanks for the correction. I still can't do the rest of the maths. I also forgot to factor in the air resistance of the fins in my 1min to half speed in air estimate. In a vacume though the fins would make almost no difference.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.