Favourite computer history books?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Scanning to a multipage pdf?
Next: Apple co-branding
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 18:53 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <1b1vdr4c7q.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe > Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > >>> You base this on what? we know gravity can warp space. In fact, that's what gravity IS. > >> And we also know *how* it warps space-time. And it doesn't warp it in >> any way useful to FTL travel. > > We know how gravity warps space-time? When did this happen? Early 20th century or there abouts. It's basically what general relativity is all about (alternatively, gravity might be how we interpret the warping. The math works both ways). > But the point is that space time *can* be warped. Hey, since weaving involves the warp and the woof, we can use a loom to transmit a dog to Pluto. The claim follows about as closely. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 4 May 2010 19:46 Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > In message <1biq736zzi.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe > Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >> Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: > >>> In message <1b1vdr4c7q.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net> Joe >>> Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: >>>> Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes: >>> >>>>> You base this on what? we know gravity can warp space. In fact, that's what gravity IS. >>> >>>> And we also know *how* it warps space-time. And it doesn't warp it in >>>> any way useful to FTL travel. >>> >>> We know how gravity warps space-time? When did this happen? > >> Early 20th century or there abouts. It's basically what general >> relativity is all about (alternatively, gravity might be how we >> interpret the warping. The math works both ways). > > No, that is proof that gravity DOES warp space time, it says nothing > about HOW this happens. Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the earlier question: when I said we know *how*, I meant we know what the warping "looks" like. I didn't mean we know the mechanism (two different senses of the word "how"). > As far as I know we still haven't proved how mass exists as we can't > explain what mass actually *is*. There's a very big tunnel in Europe > that was built specifically to find a particle that we hope will explain > mass. If we don't discover that particle we're kinda FUBAR and we may > have to re-assess a lot of Quantum Mechanics. > > We are a long way from understanding *how* gravity bends space time. >>> But the point is that space time *can* be warped. > >> Hey, since weaving involves the warp and the woof, we can use a loom to >> transmit a dog to Pluto. The claim follows about as closely. > > Warping space is possible. We know this because it happens. Whether or > not it is possible to use that to transport and object 'the short way' > is certainly science fiction. Claiming that it is absolutely outside the > bounds of possibility is nothing more than your opinion. People smarter > than you or I have certainly considered whether or not this might be > possible. But "there is absolutely nothing in the math that leads to the slightest reason to think there is any remote possibility that it can be used for FTL travel" is a reasonable summary of what those smarter people have come up with. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: hancock4 on 4 May 2010 20:48 On May 4, 12:26 pm, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...(a)eircom.net> wrote: > You can get as close as you like to the speed of light - provided > you have enough energy to hand. Getting nice little things like electrons > and protons very close to the speed of light is common practice, getting > big things like spaceships up there is rather harder. I have 'hunch' that (1) it is possible to go faster than the speed of light and (2) there are heavier elements beyond what can be synthesised today. Basically, my hunch is that there's laws of physics that go beyond what we know and simply haven't been discovered yet.
From: Walter Bushell on 4 May 2010 21:15 In article <1baasf4cph.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > Charles Richmond <frizzle(a)tx.rr.com> writes: > > > Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> In article <1b4oin4ow5.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>, > >>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>>> That's a common response, but simply is not true. Nobody laughed at > >>>> Copernicus and Galileo; Galileo wan't placed under house arrest because > >>>> his ideas were regarded as crazy, it was because the Church was afraid > >>>> of the theological implications of those ideas. Nobody laughed at > >>>> Newton. Nobody laughed at Darwin (and, once again, the only real > >>>> opposition to evolution is based on theology). Nobody laughed at the > >>>> Wright Brothers or Edison. > >>> But they _did_ laugh at Tesla. > >>> > >>> <http://recombu.com/news/nikola-tesla-predicted-mobile-phones-in-1909_M116 > >>> 83.html> > >> > >> Because Tesla was the single best example I've ever heard of of somebody > >> who was both a genius and a certifiable loon. > > > > And even Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air machines can *not* > > fly. > > I wonder in what context he said it -- he must have been talking > engineering practicalities, not violations of fundamental laws of > physics. > > > Different groups of scientists often propose different theories of how > > things work. Their support of their theories is often highly colored > > by their opinions and egos. > > > > For a new theory to be fully accepted, often the "old guard" have to > > die out. > > You don't appear to understand the extent that virtually everything we > think we know about relativity would have to be completely wrong for > those theories to work even remotely as presented in science fiction. Didn't he also say that the Sun couldn't shine long enough for evolution to happen? -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: Jennifer Usher on 4 May 2010 21:41
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hrovgt$ggh$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Someone of Newton's generation would have been quite happy with atomic > physics. Put your lead into a reactor instead of some retort and out > comes gold. Obvious. That reminds me of the story about the guy who travels back in time to take Newton a calculator, thinking it would advance science. He is in the process of demonstrating some things when the answer happens to be, "666." Newton does not take that one well at all. -- Jennifer Usher |