On 23-Sep-11 6:16 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
> at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
>
> Udhay
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
Update: relativity may not be in danger after all.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:49:19AM -0700, Heather Madrone wrote:
> I had an experience of the illusoriness of time when I was 18 that has
> stuck with me. Whatever time might be, if it has any sort of existence
You suggest that first-person experiences, especially vivid ones, are
particularl
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 22:56, Venky TV wrote:
> Must have been quite terrible in the bad old days before these laws
> were passed -- with brash young photons skipping mass and harassing
> poor, defenseless, church-going neutrinos. (As someone once said,
> "Neutrinos has mass? I didn't even know
On 23 September 2011 06:16, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
> at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
Well, I was quite interested to discover, courtesy of Mint, that these
laws of physics are a century-old.
http://ww
On 24-Sep-11 6:43 PM, ss wrote:
> How small can you slice time? What is the smallest unit of time. Would time
> appear as a discrete particle if you sliced it small enough.
This may be of interest [1]
Udhay
[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4354
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www
On Saturday 24 Sep 2011 9:42:53 am Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> Dave Long is a model you have constructed in your head based on a
> dataset gathered by your senses. In the second case the model is
> somewhat less accurate, that's all.
>
Absolutely. But the point here is that if a "single moment
On 24-Sep-11, at 5:46 AM, ss wrote:
[snip]
Well tell me your take on this. If I see you lying in bed from the
foot end of
the bed, I am technically not seeing you at any single moment in
time. What I
see of your feet comes to me a short time before what I see of your
nose.
My ability to s
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Thaths wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>> If future visitors can't really communicate ever or offer evidence of
>> their existence then afaics time travel is kind of useless.
>
> As useless as going to a film? As useless as visi
Deepa Mohan wrote [2011-09-23 07:07]:
> Just wish to point out that there are many concepts that are fact
> today...and which were considered utterly impossible beforean airliner
> weighing several tons, flying in the air; man reaching the moon; talking in
> real time, with hardly an effort,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> If future visitors can't really communicate ever or offer evidence of
> their existence then afaics time travel is kind of useless.
As useless as going to a film? As useless as visiting a historical ruin?
Thaths
--
Marge: Quick, someb
On Saturday 24 Sep 2011 4:52:16 am Dave Long wrote:
> If one has already observed an event, it's definitely in the past.
> (and our past light-cone intersects its future light-cone)
> If another event observes our present, it's definitely in the future.
> (and our future light-cone intersects
Somehow this brings to mind Minkowski's space time. All in all it
consitutes gobbledygook to me.
It's probably gobbledygook because you're attempting to let a
philosopher (who apparently can't even manage simple calculations
with complex numbers) explain it. Gobbledygook In, Gobbledygook O
On 9/23/11 8:42 AM September 23, 2011, Deepa Mohan wrote:
I am quite sure that this view of time, along with the other views
of time that we have good metaphors for, is quite wrong.
How are you so sure that "this view of time...is quite wrong"?
I feel it deeply. This might make me
>
>
> I am quite sure that this view of time, along with the other views of time
> that we have good metaphors for, is quite wrong.
How are you so sure that "this view of time...is quite wrong"?
On 9/22/11 8:28 PM September 22, 2011, Deepa Mohan wrote:
I somehow have a sense of time as a kind of tapestry hanging on a
wall; we move past; what is behind us at right in front of us is
visible to us, but what is ahead is hidden. Suppose we find a way of
approaching the tapestry from the oth
On 9/23/11 6:06 AM September 23, 2011, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
That said, the day they disprove the Laws of Thermodynamics is the day
I move to the forest and learn Stone Age subsistence agriculture,
because I would at that point be unfit to be anywhere near technology.
-Taj.
I am so lo
On Friday 23 Sep 2011 6:36:27 pm Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> Otherwise any opinion I have on any public policy that depends on
> science would be "provably" correct one day and laughably wrong and
> dangerous the next.
>
> That said, the day they disprove the Laws of Thermodynamics is the day
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> Yesterday: coffee/alcohol is bad for you!
> Tomorrow: coffee/alcohol will save your family!
Am currently reading this:
http://www.flipkart.com/books/0007326769
which tends to address the food type news reports. Worth a read.
-- b
On 23-Sep-11, at 6:16 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
[snip]
Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso
laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second
early.
You know, I'm convinced that the real victim here is not the Standard
Model but us half-educ
On Friday 23 Sep 2011 6:16:30 am Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
> at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
>
Well the only thing I can recall about a layman's view of the theory of
relativity is that at the sped of lig
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Guillaume Marceau wrote:
> >> I wish it is possible, it is kind of exciting to imagine...
> >
> > Just wish to point out that there are many concepts that are fact
> > today...and which were considered utterly impossible before
>
> This one, it is really a mind b
>> I wish it is possible, it is kind of exciting to imagine...
>
> Just wish to point out that there are many concepts that are fact
> today...and which were considered utterly impossible before
This one, it is really a mind bender to consider how it could be possible.
Because of the relativist
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> >
> > Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
> > at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
> >
> I wish it is possible, it is kind o
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
> Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
> at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
>
Let's just say the chances of an experimental error are staggeringly
larger than the overturning of the the
Erm. I don't have either details or theoretical background to say more
at this point, but does anyone else have any thoughts?
Udhay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
22 September 2011 Last updated at 17:28 GMT
Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern
By Jason
25 matches
Mail list logo
