Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why is information movement a paradox? (Score 1) 226

by presidenteloco (#47531877) Attached to: Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

My understanding of time in physics and thermodynamics is that time-forward is the direction in which information spreads out in space (at least on average). That is the meaning of increasing entropy. Time is not symmetrical backwards forwards, once you take into account the spatial location of information.

What this would mean is that as time passes forwards, information about other things becomes less and less accessible/available to an observer at any particular point/trajectory, because the (same amount of i.e. universally conserved) information is being diluted and mixed into more spatial locations.

"Information radiates" (at max C^2, notably!!) is pretty much the same thing as "thermodynamic entropy increases".

Couldn't the information falling into black holes just be a part of that "information becoming less and less accessible to any particular observer" trend of universal entropy increase.

Interestingly, black holes (any mass, actually) would seem to be local concentrators of information, acting in opposition to the normal tendency of information to radiate/spread with forward passage of time. Note the close relationship also of density of mass and density of local mutual information. Very interesting.

 

Comment: Why is information movement a paradox? (Score 1) 226

by presidenteloco (#47526891) Attached to: Black Holes Not Black After All, Theorize Physicists

Just because the information might have gone somewhere (inside a black hole) where we can't determine the information any more doesn't mean the information was lost to the universe.

It just means it was lost to us (and others on the outside of the event horizon.) It takes a pretty enormous ego (as an observer) to think that it matters to information's existence whether some particular external observer (like us) can detect the information.

So I don't get the paradox at all. The information is just inside the event horizon, isn't it? Inaccessible to us, but accessible to something else that was also inside the event horizon.

Anyone see where I'm going wrong here?

Comment: Lack of rigour in math teaching made math suck (Score 1) 241

by presidenteloco (#47486613) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

It was all the shortcuts, left out "intuitively obvious" steps, and sloppy use of variable names and symbols that drove me up the wall trying to learn advanced math from (imho crappy) math profs.

Let me tell you about the lecture with no less than three different Epsilons (a rounded one, a less rounded one, and something in between) used in the exposition of the proofs. That and my slight myopia kind of did me in in that class (or would have if I hadn't cribbed notes from my neighbour.)

Or, when, as a math prof, giving an example of applied math used for something like physics, why don't we just pick completely random variable names, instead, of, say, using m for mass consistently, v for velocity, etc.

I understand some kind of need to force people to think only of the form and not imbue terms with more semantics that aren't necessarily there in a particular mathematical formal system, but holy cow, could you be more obscure? Why yes I could. I will use 's' for mass on this page, and r' for mass on this next page, just to see if you are paying attention. !!!

Comment: Re:dumbo (Score 1) 291

by presidenteloco (#47485665) Attached to: Australia Repeals Carbon Tax

Sorry, did you say a public debate about the science.

You mean by all those public people properly qualified to assess the process and outputs of science?

Yeah, that sounds like a great idea to assess the truth of the claims of "expert consensus" science.

While your at it, why don't you start a public debate on whether the Higgs Boson exists, and if so,
which God it is the God particle of.

Comment: Re:Why so worked up? Answer. (Score 1) 291

by presidenteloco (#47485585) Attached to: Australia Repeals Carbon Tax

Per capita CO2 emissions is the only fair way to assess this:

Tonnes CO2 per person per year
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Australia: 16.75
China: 6.18
India: 1.64

2010 data:
Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Se...

So in summary Australia is 2.7 times as bad a greenhouse gas emissions offender as China and more than 10 times worse than India, on a per person basis.

It's not going to work to say: You poor guys tighten your belts a bit more eh, when the real numbers are as they are shown above.
It's massive hypocrisy to blame China and India for this problem.
Lead by example Australia. Cut your emissions in have to 8 Tonnes CO2 per person, then you might ask China not to grow to more than 8 Tonnes per person.

Comment: A massive carbon tax funding green energy R&D (Score 1) 291

by presidenteloco (#47485377) Attached to: Australia Repeals Carbon Tax

Would be the right kind of carbon tax to have.

The world needs several "Manhattan Project" scale initiatives to invent and commercialize effective zero-greenhouse-emissions energy and transportation technologies.

If it's cheaper to pay the carbon tax than to change your ways (i.e. your industry / transport) then the carbon tax isn't high enough, and hasn't been put into funding effective alternatives to fossil fuel energy infrastructure.

Replicant wisdom applies:
Roy: There's only two of us now.
Pris: Then we're stupid and we'll die.

Comment: Rationale for the ban is??? (Score 3, Insightful) 199

by presidenteloco (#47310229) Attached to: FAA Bans Delivering Packages With Drones

Presumeably the FAA doesn't think that hobbyists are much more responsible flyers than corporations doing business, so there must be another reason for this ban, yes? What could it be?

a) Corporate business use would amount to greatly increased drone flights, and the FAA just doesn't think its regulatory ability, or the safety aspects of the technology, is ready for prime time wide scale use yet? For example, the interaction of drones and conventional aviation would have to be worked out in great detail for safety, and more technology and rules would be needed.

b) Nuisance aspect of the technology? Noise? If widely deployed?

c) The FAA just likes banning stuff in general, and new stuff in particular?

d) Some vested competing interests (say, trucking industry? teamsters?,...?) are lobbying / bribing FAA senior administrators and/or politicians who have a say?

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...