Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re: And GOD said (Score 1) 107

by towermac (#49501347) Attached to: The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

Thinking further on your post...

Have you asked yourself, 'Why would he do this?' What's in it for him?

I have very few opinions on religion or the Creator, but one thing seems clear to me; creating the universe could not have been a trivial task.

And a thing you seem to take for granted; you say, 'he knows it happens'. Are you sure? I know the Presbyterians think so, but I'm asking you. I'm not so sure he's 'up there', looking down on us past his Caucasian beard. Maybe creation took a little more out of him than we thought.

Maybe God is dead. Well, nothing truly dies in this universe, so maybe just really, really spread out. But nevertheless, not in a position to come down here and help us out working miracles.

If that is the case, then it would be doubly important for us to be good.

Scenario:

You exist outside of space and time, in what form I cannot imagine, and decide to create the universe. From your perspective, outside of time, everything in your universe happened at once, start to finish, and also, everything is always constantly happening. You can't just 'be' everywhere at once, since you exist outside the 4 dimensional universe; you already are 'everywhere at once'.

From this perspective, you see the beginning to the finish, end to end, of the entire universe even as you set the parameters for your big bang. 'Miracles' are easily done now; water from rocks, fires, floods; all of it happens in real-time feedback as you're tuning your big bang. A quark here and bit of inflation there, and the events propagate down the timeline from the human observer point of view. And against all odds, a spring happens to escape these rocks, just when a bunch of humans are gathered around wondering about this prophet guy talking about love and stuff.

So that part seems trivial to me. The real question is, why. From my perspective, 'why' is easy; so love can exist (and also so I can exist). But why would He do it? (Her, They, It, ...)

There has to be a payoff in the end. That's the question I'm working on.

Comment: Re: And GOD said (Score 1) 107

by towermac (#49501027) Attached to: The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

Because people have free will. Or because this particular universe with its laws and constants is the only viable universe that could exist. Take your pick.

How could he stop it? Take away free will? Step in to physically intervene in that time and place? Should he strike down the perpetrator, or just shield the innocent child from the blows? 24/7 for billions? Take away all consequences?

You would be a pet in a terrarium. And what would be the point of that, for him or you?

It is you that can't have it both ways.

Comment: Re:What's the total mass of the light? (Score 1) 107

by towermac (#49500203) Attached to: The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

Dark matter is mass that has been pushed into a singularity by a supermassive black hole. Since gravity is a dimensional variance and not a force, then we would still expect to observe gravity from mass in any dimension. And given that a singularity has no volume, we would not expect to see any gravity emanating from it.

This other dimension obviously extends to a gigantic halo around the singularity, at least the ones at the centers of galaxies. Given the inverse square of the distance law concerning gravity, we already have a map of this other, '5th'?, dimension.

I'm waiting a long time now for an inspired string theorist to jump on this...

Comment: Re:Confused: 2 Big bangs ? (Score 1) 107

by towermac (#49500139) Attached to: The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

Great comment until you said 'morons'.

Goarilla is correct in that the article specifically puts the 'hot Big Bang' at around recombination, and says that cosmic inflation sets up the conditions for the big bang.

And yet, the writer is obviously no moron either. Or if he is, I missed it.

Can you not log in, AC?

Comment: Re:Confused: 2 Big bangs ? (Score 1) 107

by towermac (#49500105) Attached to: The Origin of the First Light In the Universe

All these comments and you're the only one to pick up that TFA gets the sequence of big bang events completely backwards. He says:

"Something needed to happen to set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang, and that “thing” is cosmic inflation ..."

As if the science books have always said that or something. If he's renaming events, he needs to keep in mind that 'big bang' is already taken by event number one.

Still a decent article.

Comment: Re:Larger landing area (Score 1) 340

Yeah.

I gotta think that there is some value in the barge, beyond the showoff value of landing his rocket in spite of the fact he hasn't gotten his permit yet. Obviously, consecutive landings will greatly speed up the application process.

And he wants to build a thing in Texas too. It occurs to me that he might want to launch his bigger rocket from Texas and land the first stage at Kennedy. The barge is good practice for that using the Falcon 9, and he can get his data just as well. See, he knew he was going to have to crash a few to get it right. Where better to crash the first few than out in the Atlantic. Far bigger pain in the ass to clean up the molten and burning rocket, whose smoke could be seen from half the state, at Kennedy.

So perhaps that in itself is enough reason to go with the barge. But Elon is the kind of guy that is 3 moves ahead, not 1 or 2. Consider that he will be able to sell a launch to anyone.

I mean anyone. All the client has to do is to pour a good hard concrete slab, and they can launch the rocket from right there, wherever they are. No need to get your Ministry of Whatever to approve a rocket landing; Elon takes care of all that himself with no muss or fuss. No need to consult the US or NASA or the EU of schedule time somewhere...

The nation of Tonga can now have a dynamic and robust space program. It will be that cheap.

Rent-A-Rocket is going to be fucking huge, and I think the barge will be a big part of it.

Comment: Re:why dont they spin it? and land it in a silo? (Score 1) 340

It doesn't have to be a big heavy concrete silo. Picture something like a big playland plastic thing, like a too deep skateboard well at the park. Maybe 15 degree angles; the rocket at rest can lean against it without undue mechanical stresses. It covers the whole barge, and it's tall, but light; so it is still a viable ship.

But a huge target, that can't be missed, and you won't tip over.

Downside; can't relaunch from the barge now. Have to just ferry it back to the Cape.

Seems like a pretty good idea though.

Comment: Re:Larger landing area (Score 1) 340

It's not all politics.

The first stage is a good distance downrange when it is done, as in; way out in the Atlantic when launching from Cape Canaveral.

So, to fly it back to Kennedy would take a lot more fuel than letting it come down where it is. Not to mention the 'just in case' scenarios involving Titusville, the nearby I-95, etc.

It will benefit Elon greatly if he can pull off landing it on his ocean barge. If he can do that, he can launch from anywhere in the world, with competitive fuel/payload ratios, and still reuse his rockets.

But yes, overall, it would be easier to land it on land.

Comment: Re:How would you promote job growth (Score 1) 238

You high minimum wage assumes the bottom of the labor market is static.

You gave a handful of people a raise; the ones that were apparently underpaid before; but took away the $10 and $12 and $14 jobs from all the rest.

Let's see how it works out for Seattle. They have advantages most other cities don't, but at least it's somewhat of a test case.

Comment: Re:It's a start, but won't solve all of NY's probl (Score 1) 238

You mention the anti-tax crowd in passing, as if it is a given, but I don't think so.

I'm here in FL, and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a New Yorker. And they all have exactly the same story: High taxes ran them off. You can't afford to live there. *If* you had one of those jobs (and GE is one you left off that has quit most of their NY operations), then you could get by. But you really weren't getting rich even working in those places.

Not just taxes. Fuel oil runs you hundreds a month and electricity is even higher. Taxes and fees to own a car. Endless list apparently.

And they don't like Florida better, except maybe the winters. They would be still there if they could, with or without Kodak.

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...