Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:faster than light = time travel (Score 1) 159

by towermac (#49792941) Attached to: Ways To Travel Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity


Hey, I love thought experiments and speculation as much as the next guy, but that is a fictional device without even an idea as to how it would work.

I'm also not sure what a contraction factor of 2 means, I assume you mean Lorentz contraction, but I don't know what 'speed' that would be. It really doesn't matter though, for the thought experiment of 2 FTL ships passing; anything over c will do. And I assure you I would never try to dis' special relativity.

Two ships pass each other, let's say each is going twice the speed of light relative to a nearby, relatively stationary 3rd observer. They are going to pass each other at 4c, although neither would be aware of the other of course.

No message can viably be sent between the two, at least not using EM radiation, or anything else I can think of.

But I suppose, if ship 1 knew where ship 2 was going to be ahead of time, they could broadcast their message to that empty space, knowing ship 2 would run into it. That would be a damned difficult message to both receive and decode, but let's say it is broadcast in such a way that a simple message could be decoded.

But you still didn't receive my message until after I sent it, and even after I passed you. You would not have seen me pass you, although you may have seen disrupted incident radiation as my 'light wake'. And if we stopped to talk, then you would get my message long after you saw me.

If you stick to real world science, with the exception of a machine that carries itself and occupants within a local bubble of spacetime, then you won't come up with any causality issues.

And time travel is certainly allowed; we are travelling through time right now. It can even be sped up or slowed down, but travelling backwards through time would be the same as travelling backwards through space. I can't even wrap my head around that.

Comment: Re: Power users (Score 1) 266

by towermac (#49792017) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier

Yep, I was fooling with Macs when the Quadra was a badass machine.

My company gives out Motorola Droids to nobodys with company phones. My manager wants to be able to facetime me, which is how I got an iPhone a couple of months ago. You have to be a manager and ask to get an iPhone, since they cost so much more.

Is that fact the fault of my username also?

Comment: Re: Power users (Score 1) 266

by towermac (#49791967) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier

Company phones. They did everything my old flip phone razrs and star-tacs did, plus were a lot easier to text with than a number pad. And the browser generally worked decently.

2 out of 3 worked well when new. Updates from Moto or me installing crap did them in software-wise. They all ended up dying of hardware failures (screen shows colored static), except the last one.

That one is still in the IT bin, nobody wants a 2 year old Motorola apparently. And yet iPhones that old fetch decent money do they not?

But call me a fanboy if that makes you feel better about your phone :)

Comment: Re:faster than light = time travel (Score 1) 159

by towermac (#49791421) Attached to: Ways To Travel Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity

"If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past."

Well, relativity is most certainly 'wrong', in the sense that there is more to the universe that it does not cover. Of course, that's not really wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. Newton was not attempting to model relativistic effects, and Einstein was not attempting to model string theory.

And luckily, we are not made out of light, so the speed of light has little to do with a machine designed to alter a local region's gravitational constant, that can travel at arbitrary speeds relative to the destination because it carries it's own engine with it. Relativity does not forbid a starship.

But none of that would ever allow you to travel back in time. That would be akin to traveling in a negative direction.

Comment: Re: Power users (Score -1) 266

by towermac (#49791045) Attached to: The Tricky Road Ahead For Android Gets Even Trickier

I'll expand 'no idea' to include 'don't care enough'.

I tech people's computers all day. I'm over the thrill of fiddling with computers for the fun of it. (yes I'm getting old) My home machine is pretty much a Chrome appliance nowadays.

I could have put the effort into my Androids to make them better I guess, but I didn't, and they all sucked. The best one I had, a Moto Droid something when it was new, had a 50/50 chance of actually pulling up a map and showing me where I was when I needed it. The keyboard was awful (even my first one with a slide out physical keyboard was bad.) I learned early on to not download and install shit on it. They crashed far less often if you just used the phone and text.

I now have an iPhone, and it's a night and day difference. Other people around me have Androids that they use and seem okay with. I was not one of them.

Comment: Re:faster than light never violates Relativity (Score 1) 159

by towermac (#49789913) Attached to: Ways To Travel Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity

Height, width, depth, time, ... and gravity. Gravity is not a force, it's a dimension. It might be more accurate to say it is an attribute of dimensions.

In any case, it travels nowhere; it was already there. So there is no speed of light, or speed of anything concerning gravity.

That doesn't violate relativity in any way. If they find a gravitational quanta, then I'm wrong. They won't.

Comment: Re:$70000 is poorest? (Score 2) 263

by towermac (#49787101) Attached to: California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents

Are you freaking serious? Like that's better?

It's worse. It's still a made up new tax on the economy (which always hits the poor hardest), but first rich people get to take their cut, as they buy, sell, profit off of other people's money. So the state takes the tax, and then sells that tax to rich people, who resell it back to us for a profit.

We pay twice. Why not just a straight up tax on carbon? Pay, and the state banks it. No rich people required. Cause it ain't about that, is it? It ain't about the environment or even tax revenue. It's about control.

Comment: Re:I think they mean.... (Score 1) 186

by towermac (#49784261) Attached to: Charter Strikes $56B Deal For Time Warner Cable

"rural electricity"

I had that, and it was from a co-op; which is publicly owned by the customers.

So, not the government per se, but little difference. The people in charge of it were elected, it was non-profit, etc.

By far the cheapest power I have ever had.

The second cheapest was Memphis Light Gas & Water. Owned by the city. When a line was down they were there in like 12 minutes. The mayor knew that you blamed him personally, and he made damn sure it was top quality service.

Since I've been in FL with these private power companies, I pay out the ass. Any outage is always hours. And all they bitch about is that they need to raise rates. Apparently I also have to pay for a nuke plant that was never actually built.

That's just real world stuff. I haven't even gotten into the morality of forcing profit out of a captive audience.

Comment: Re:Suppose a Christian search term was hijacked? (Score 1) 425

by towermac (#49779359) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

It would be weird, would it not? I would hope most news outlets would run that story.

Congress would mandate search results? Hm.

And if an act inspires terror in a populace, then it would be a terrorist's act, no?

In any case, how you see a correlation worthy of note in a tale about the inevitable corrupting influence of power; well it makes me worry about you. :)

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose