fargolime

5 ms·

1.
by fargolime 11y ago
Look up the relativistic rocket equations on the Usenet Physics FAQ. Calculate in a spreadsheet what a crew member of a thrusting rocket would observe after throwing a ball upward at close to the speed of light. Chart the path of the ball&#
2.
by fargolime 12y ago
> I would argue that the Constitution absolutely overrides laws to the contrary We're agreeing with each other? It's up to each person who takes an oath to defend the Constitution, to ignore and even fight against unconstitutio
3.
by fargolime 12y ago
Thanks downvoters! One of the sources listed above is the first link Google showed. It really does work.
4.
by fargolime 12y ago
So was Rosa Parks. We have a whistleblower law, along with a gov't oath to defend the Constitution, that potentially trumps other laws. So his prison potential isn't so clear.
5.
by fargolime 12y ago
To get sources, I highlighted the sentence, right-clicked and chose Search Google for...
6.
by fargolime 12y ago
He'd be imprisoned for a long time for sure. But note that Rosa Parks wasn't. As a nation we're more ruthless now.
7.
by fargolime 12y ago
The average American thinks an arrest is tantamount to guilt; one of many signs of this is that mugshots are made public here. Snowden should stay exiled.
8.
by fargolime 12y ago
I had a reasonable polite comment here but got a downvote within 10 seconds. Downvote away further. Geez.
9.
by fargolime 12y ago
We should consider the alternatives. We're borrowing $trillions annually, so we have to pick our battles carefully. Why spend $billions to maybe possibly discover something like that, when the same $$$ can definitely pay back on some o
10.
by fargolime 12y ago
That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It&
11.
by fargolime 12y ago
Are you suggesting there are no adverse consequences to the "borrowing", similar to borrowing?
12.
by fargolime 12y ago
If the benefits and carryover paid for it, fine. But I doubt it, not now anyway. If it wasn't borrowed money, I'd say throw .5% at at it. But no way when it's borrowed, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that the outcome is
13.
by fargolime 12y ago
Note that some of the private sector can't fail now either.
14.
by fargolime 12y ago
It's fine by me if a dictatorship takes the lead in space. Their people might suffer as a result. Our goal should always be to raise the average standard of living. If that means taking a back seat in some area, why not?
15.
by fargolime 12y ago
Well put. Of voters that have long term vision, I can't see them wanting space exploration over many better investments. We have so many huge problems to deal with that need funds before space exploration and its relatively small chanc
16.
by fargolime 12y ago
Maybe it's the voters? I'm all for space exploration paid in advance, when the national debt is falling as well. Otherwise, no way. Why should my kids get only the bills? That would be rude. Let downvotes commence.
17.
by fargolime 12y ago
Imagine how interesting this is going to get. You call up some bank to plead with them that you're the real you, the loan wasn't your doing, and the person you're talking to, who's disbelieving you, just spent their morn
18.
by fargolime 12y ago
Nor does the US' past direction. Since the 1950s it has toppled two democracies and thwarted another. The (final) overthrow of its own democracy may become possible through such technology.
19.
by fargolime 12y ago
Well put. I know someone who has elegantly solved five major outstanding problems in physics. The mystery of dark energy, one of the top 10 physics problems, is only one of them. But science is an industry nowadays, and there's no gran
20.
by fargolime 12y ago
> But if you have an inertial frame which is falling into a black hole any signal sent from beneath the event horizon will not reach any other point until that point has also fallen beneath the event horizon. Problem is, the escaping par
21.
by fargolime 12y ago
See https://finbot.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/toward-a-new-theory/ . It's not my blog.
22.
by fargolime 12y ago
As not a physics PhD it seems so much easier to realize that GR's equivalence principle fails at the event horizon, in which case black holes are a mistake of GR. (Let downvotes commence since I must be a crackpot.) Let a particle be
23.
by fargolime 12y ago
Liked the story! > near–terrorist plofkraak squad How terrorist in any regard? The word seems to be thrown around these days.
24.
by fargolime 12y ago
They get the PIN with a video camera; this is why you are wise to cover the keypad with your other hand. They get the card number from a skimmer.
25.
by fargolime 12y ago
There's an update on the blog post now.
26.
by fargolime 12y ago
If a paper describing the new theory of special relativity would be round-filed today, it tells me that Einstein got lucky. In 1905 he was in the right place at the right time, getting reviewed by Planck, perhaps the only reviewer who would
27.
by fargolime 12y ago
> In physics now there are plenty of people with world-class math talent, but no one with Einstein's intuition, insight, and creativity. I think because physics is now an industry in which deep creative insight is pretty worthless.
28.
by fargolime 12y ago
The way I see it, you hear about thought experiments in physics because of Einstein. Because of him they can't avoid giving them some credence. But the odds of a new thought experiment purporting to show a bug in general consensus ph
29.
by fargolime 12y ago
Yep, yours is probably different from physicists' mental experiences, not software developers'. One thing I've learned from discussions about physics is that the thought processes that are common to software development are
30.
by fargolime 12y ago
> This was mostly based on the fact that Albert approached Physics as a "New age day dreamer" (e.g.: thought experiments) rather than primarily from mathematical models or experimental insights. Remains true today. Certainly no

More ›