Jump to content

Endy0816

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Endy0816


  1. @IDoNotCare Sorry if you're feeling attacked but you need to be able to summarize(and no I'm not a sock puppet). Nobody can read minds here. I might hazard a guess that you're talking about a post scarcity society and more specifically 'fully automated luxury communism', but you need to spell that out. Without a good reason to, nobody wants to sit through a bunch of YouTube videos or go offsite to a random link.

     

    5 hours ago, swansont said:

    “We will automate everything” is a pipe dream.

    1. For processes where it was cheaper to automate, it would have already happened.

    2. Some things we are trying to automate and are finding that it’s very hard (see:self-driving cars)

    3. Things like R&D will likely never be automated 

     

    Also, if you want to propose communism, you need to not only draw a path of how to get there, but also how you will avoid the catastrophes observed in previous attempts

    In some cases there is just an initial investment hump that automation has to be pushed over. Admittedly communist countries also tend to nationalize simultaneously, which is a great way to kill outside investment. I think we'll at least see automated trucks. For long-hauls along a highway it would be simple enough. Even if legally they end up needing a truck tender, you could find someone cheaper than a full time driver.

    At it's heart most R&D boils down to an optimization problem, so algorithms can work for some things. We might still need either a person or possibly a well trained AI, to define problem constraints.

    I don't think work will be truly eliminated but it might be more of what people actually like or want to dedicate themselves to.


  2. @sethoflagos

    You can read about an experiment showing this here:

    Quote

    Denis J. Evans and colleagues have discovered, not how to beat the house, but what happens in the realm between a single coin toss and a weekend in Las Vegas. To do so they measured water molecules' influence the motion of tiny latex beads held between lasers.

    They found that over periods of time less than two seconds, variations in the random thermal motion of water molecules occasionally gave individual beads a kick. This increased the beads' kinetic energy by a small but significant amount, in apparent violation of the second law.

    The gain is short-lived, and so could never amount to a source of free energy or perpetual motion. But it is big enough to confirm what physicists have long suspected.

    https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html

    Second Law is true on average though, so you won't ever see a cup spontaneously unbreak or all the air move to one side of a room.


  3. Quite a bit is pretty fanciful from a scientific perspective, but is an extremely well done production. The setting is a fair sized city set inside of a large martian dome. Heavily modified assets and ridiculous level of detail really make the city come to life.

    The actual build aspects may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I've found it easy enough to skip past when things become too dry.

     

     


  4. 6 hours ago, iNow said:

    When the US was first founded, there was no "VP pick." Whomever came in 2nd place (the runner up) was automatically the VP.

    It'd almost be worth bringing it back for the entertainment factor.

    "I know you just lost to that guy, but guess who your new boss is?"

    Always wonder what the Founding Fathers' thought process was on that one.


  5. 20 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

    "Habitable for humans" rather than habitable in the sense of being able to support it's own biology. Habitable for humans is going to be a very narrow subset of "capable of supporting life that is like life on Earth".

    Any native life would not only be of exceptional scientific interest it seems like a big assumption that human life would be compatible with the biochemistry. Surely life throws up more complex poisons and allergenic compounds than lifeless processes - besides the more obvious hazards like wrong atmosphere or getting eaten or parasitised.

    Very true.

    Quote

    If we have the technology to get to the planets of other stars we won't need planets for survival purposes - but that urge to find new pastures, to occupy and possess, is a primitive one and I would not trust humans from Earth to restrain themselves if they are within landing distance of a world they thought they could conquer and occupy.

    This does make you think. We have the Antarctic as an example where we have exercised restraint, but whether this will remain so is of course unknown.

     

    Quote

    Although humans with a long history of life in artificial habitats/spacecraft may not find planets or life supporting moons attractive.

    Yeah, main thing is that they simply wouldn't be accustomed to the rigors involved or would consider the risks to be extreme compared with their controlled environments. Reasonable to assume by then that they could build habitats to suit any particular preference both in space and on lifeless bodies. Possible though that some might not find that as enough of a challenge.


  6. I earnestly hope not. I've had dreams that would be bad for our whole species.

    Practically speaking you never actually gain any outside knowledge as you dream beyond what your standard senses provide. If it is something possible/probable you might however imagine it occurring only to see it actually happen later. Should note that false memories can also play a role here.


  7. The ones around our own Gas Giants do tend to have some decent resources or novelties so similar exomoons would definitely be of interest.

    Realistically travelers would have to be living in space already to reach that far. One that shared a similar atmospheric composition might even be forbidden from inhabitation as that could harm future research into native life.


  8. 2 hours ago, Mordred said:

    Unfortunately this is not true in the case of a coordinate singularity such as the EH. 

    A coordinate singularity is not invariant under coordinate change. The r_s=2GM is an artifact of the Schwartzchild metric. 

    I'm going to add a hypothetical question. Would a near c observer see the same radius for the event horizon as the at rest observer. You would see a different Blackbody temperature and as a result a different rate of Hawking radiation. Ie Unruh effect.

    (PS the answer cannot rely on the Schwartzchild metric ). One can argue the Schwartzchild metric is only suitable to a far away observer.

     

    Wouldn't the radius shrink and mass increase proportionally?


  9. 1 hour ago, random_soldier1337 said:

     

    Lol, I dunno. I just take people's word for these things. For all I know everything is an anime behind the scenes with cyborg ninjas and psychic super soldiers running around performing black ops, having death battles and philosophizing in the quiet moments, especially their death throes. Or maybe it's like a schoolyard with someone being nice and then someone being a jerk, "Hey you can't do that!" "Why not?" "Because you can't." "Sure I can." and that's all that happens.

    Anyway the project was supported by the IAEA.

    Yeah, might have been the IAEA. Considered a generally authorized destination for distributions(assuming I've parsed the legalese correctly).

    https://rsicc.ornl.gov/default.aspx

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/appendix-A_to_part_810


  10. 2 hours ago, rjbeery said:

    GR's treatment of gravity already accounts for stellar motions and accretion discs without requiring event horizons. It's entirely possible that black holes exist, but then it's also possible that the center of galaxies are full of unicorns and lemon ice cream. If GR has "a number of failings with regard to BHs" then you have no model whatsoever to predict them.

    No. We know something has to occur due to the finite speed of light when density crosses the critical threshold.

    Other thing is nothing else can match a BH for compactness. Accretion disk of an equally massive star still can't orbit as closely.

    Whatever goes in is lost. Outside we never learn what has happened, if anything, past the Event horizon.


  11. 4 hours ago, rjbeery said:

    I have some problems/questions regarding the existence of black holes. First, here is the current state-of-affairs in the physics community AFAIK:

    1. Black holes "exist" in the sense that they are physical objects in the Universe
    2. Black holes contain an event horizon, located at the Schwarzschild radius, beyond which "nothing can escape"
    3. Black holes are likely located at the center of many galaxies, including our own; "micro black holes" are also likely formed and quickly evaporate in our atmosphere due to relativistic cosmic rays
    4. Quantum mechanics is anticipated to resolve any mathematical singularity issues at the center of black holes
    5. There are a variety of theories, most notably Hawking Radiation, that predict an "evaporation" of black holes over extraordinarily long periods of time

    Does anyone feel this any of these statements are inaccurate?

    The last is potentially inaccurate.

    Only fairly large ones take long periods of time.


  12. 1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

    "...temperature is the measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and represents the motion of molecules."

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=heat+is+molecular+motion&form=ANNTH1&refig=9be9ea3c8025480ca952a6dd3e8bea9d&sp=1&qs=HS&pq=heat+is+&sk=PRES1&sc=8-8&cvid=9be9ea3c8025480ca952a6dd3e8bea9d

    "...Based on observations of distant objects and measurements of the cosmic background radiation, scientists have deduced the temperature at the Planck time, which is 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second. At that instant, the temperature was 100 million trillion trillion kelvins (180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit). The universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion that ended well before a second had elapsed. By this time, it had cooled to a temperature of 100 billion kelvins (180 billion degrees Fahrenheit)."

    https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html

    My question is how can the universe be so hot at the first Planck time  when the universe was so dense that the particles could not move? 

    BTW, at the center of a black hole are molecules in motion?  It seems to me that at near infinite density there is no space for motion.

    I think average KE would stay the same as they only have each other to run into.

    For the center of black holes the formulas fail to give meaningful values. Trying to find density, results in a division by zero situation, a mathematical singularity.

     


  13. 2 hours ago, swansont said:

    The problem I see is that Planck units are a unit system 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Definition

    “the system is internally coherent. For example, the gravitational attractive force of two bodies of 1 Planck mass each, set apart by 1 Planck length is 1 coherent Planck unit of force. Likewise, the distance traveled by light during 1 Planck time is 1 Planck length.” Notice how it’s not referencing any actual particles, or measured phenomena 

    I don’t understand why anyone is ascribing more significance. It doesn't seem to justified anywhere.

    You can do your exercise with other units. The SI energy density is 1 Joule/m^3.The cgs energy density is 1 erg/cm^3, which is not the same - the differ by a factor of 10. That’s OK, though, because there’s no physical significance here. 

    I have seen reference to the vacuum energy calculation from the Casimir effect, and from a particle in a box. Those have QM significance. 

     

    Yeah, often incorrectly thought of as the be all end all, when in some cases you can have even smaller measurements.


  14. 22 hours ago, swansont said:

    One thing that comes to mind is hostility toward the celebration of Columbus day.

    State adoption of MLK day was not unanimous, at the outset

    (edit to add: a push to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill)

    Relevance?

    Ironic

    index.jpg.8054b626202dcfb7e9f2bd99cfbcca46.jpg

     

     


  15. 3 hours ago, Mordred said:

    That is a common error. We can predict far more than we can accomplish through technology.

     We know the limitations of space travel. We also know the consequences of near c velocities.

     The near c or greater than c velocities are incredibly problematic when you study the physics and time aspects. Even the Alcubierre drive has consequences such as gamma ray production. ( It could literally radiate your destination)

     

    Does the math say anything about causality issues if your travel was to somewhere in the Unobservable Universe?

     


  16. Buoyancy would be correct to use for both. Air and water are both formally considered fluids.

    Buoyancy is ultimately due to Earth's gravity pulling on whatever fluid you are displacing.

    Fluids: Archimedes' Principle | Paige's Physics Blog
    A simpler way to say it is:
     
    FB = mfl * g
    or
    Buoyant Force = Weight of the displaced Fluid
     

    A wet-suit could help you to displace more fluid and increase your buoyancy that way.

     

    Net force would be the Buoyant force minus the object's own weight.

     

    Hopefully this helps, interesting question.

     

     


  17. On 5/6/2014 at 5:03 PM, MirceaKitsune said:

    This is one thing I was always curious about regarding the evolution of life and people. It's known that most things which define living beings descend from features that were essential for survival. We have limbs, eyes, ears, etc. because with them we could fight or escape predators (or be predators) and avoid dangerous environments. From a psychological point of view, we developed a language because it allowed us to work in teams and survive. Moving away from features essential to survival, people also developed activities / games / fun ways of passing the time, but which can also be explained as they satisfy certain features of the mind and body.

     

    For example, sport requires physical effort which in turn releases hormones related to positive feelings. Combining that with the joy of a victory, it makes sense from a biological perspective why sport existed since the earliest days of mankind. Or let's take art, which is a way for people to visualize scenarios which can't happen in their physical reality... a desire once again explainable by how the brain works. Yet there's one... which I can't understand how biology and the brain lead to, but which also doesn't feel like something learned; Music.

     

    It's an obvious fact... everyone likes music, and we couldn't imagine the world without it! Of different types and genres, by different artists, and for different messages it transmits. But unlike other things, it's hard to understand how this came to be. After all, music is just a precise arrangement of various overlapping sounds in a logical loop... with voice added on top in some cases. It also doesn't describe an actual place or object like drawn art, so it's not an efficient method of transmitting essential information. Somehow, the brain takes liking to translating those precise noise patterns, rather than finding it all a senseless sound.

     

    One could argue that our like for music might be taught. For example, the ancestors of humans would play the war drums to announce their people of an upcoming war. Not with the intent to compose music, but as a way of making noise to attract attention. From that, people could have later developed a liking for sorted beats. It sounds logical after all.

     

    But personally, I tend to disbelieve that. Primarily because no one is taught to like music. People like it simply because they like it... it's something which is part of them. Even if you take a man who lived isolated in a forest all his life and play him a nice song, he will enjoy it and not find it some gibberish noise. The official theory of evolution also ruled out the idea that learned experiences become part of the genetic code in offspring. Further more, it doesn't appear to be just a human thing either. I remember a cat expert confirming that symphonic music calms cats down and makes them feel happy. Yet to cats found in nature, nothing similar to symphonic music is ever heard, which could explain them associating the sound of a violin with a happy feeling... after all it's not that close to purring and meowing.

     

    So has anyone figured out how this works? What is it in our genes and the structure of the brain that makes us like music?

     

    One theory I've read is that it allows us to pick up on and mimic the various bird and animal calls. This would have given our ancestors a sizable advantage both in their own hunting and knowing when a predator was about.

     

×
×
  • 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.