Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Black holes are real, we observe them all the t (Score 1) 356

by Tyler Durden (#47987139) Attached to: Physicist Claims Black Holes Mathematically Don't Exist

Just adding my own simple, non-calculus solution, to the mix.

When the radius of the earth is r we have...
Length of string around earth = 2*pi*r
Length of string around earth and poodle evenly = 2*pi(r + poodle)

Subtract former from the latter and it's 2*pi*r + 2*pi*poodle - 2*pi*r, so just 2*pi*poodle more.

Comment: Re:But the movie selection still sucks (Score 2) 178

by Tyler Durden (#47945815) Attached to: Native Netflix Support Is Coming To Linux
You can find a selection of pretty good movies they offer here. I ended up watching Dredd and was blown away - something I wouldn't have done if not for word of mouth. (So you're trying to tell me someone made another movie on Judge Dredd that's actually good?) And of course, sometimes the movies you at first don't recognize end up being the ones you love the most.

Comment: Re:Hillerious (Score 1) 202

by Tyler Durden (#47768987) Attached to: How the Ancient Egyptians (Should Have) Built the Pyramids

They built a pyramid, we havn't.

How can we tell them how to build it better, when we cant even achieve what they did 4000+ years ago? lol

But my point is it may be the only thing preventing us from achieving the same is an unwillingness to be blatantly immoral (not to mention finding a compelling reason to build one in the first place). If that's the case then, yeah, we might very well have grounds for telling the a better way to do the same thing. You never know. *shrug*

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 144

Electrons interfere with themselves, because the fluctuation (which is the electron) exists in the full region between the source and screen. The interference pattern is the same no matter how slowly (in terms of electron rate) you fire the electrons, so build up is not a concern.

And this is an important point. I'm not a physicist, but one thing that helped me understand this better is to consider firing a single electron (for example) at the two slits one at the time. It could be at the rate of one per minute, one hour or whatever.

Every electron that makes it through to the screen behind the two slits will hit it at a single point. Nothing unusual there. However, if you make a histogram on the screen based on how frequently each spot gets hit by an electron you'll see the interference pattern you'd expect from a wave being split in two from the two slits. So each electron is a wave that travels through both slits, not one or the other.

Comment: Re:No real surprise (Score 1) 710

If there is true consensus about global warming, then science should be inviting opposing thought - not trying to stifle the discussion like a dictator.

But what if the opposing "thought" you're inviting is simply a bunch of specious reasoning debunked a long time ago? Repeated over and over. To the point that you realize that the ones doing the arguing have no interest whatsoever in any kind of objective truth. How long should you be inviting it then? How long do you pretend they deserve respect?

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"