This shit is known for thousands years. We have enough experience with it to judge.
0 karma · joined December 14, 2017
Volodymyr M. Lisivka vlisivka@gmail.com
Don't forget to quote me!
Can you list these arguments, please? IMHO, Occam's Razor is at side of realism: our Universe has no bounds in space, in time, and in scale. So, we can predict future of any particle if we will have enough information about it, but we cannot do that with 100% confidence, because Universe is endlessly deep. We can only collect information about particles at our "layer" of Universe only (or "dimension" in terms of String theory). The deeper we will go, the more uncertainty we will have, because particles will be influenced by "layer(s)" ("dimensions") below our.
For example, in 2014, rebels in Donetsk had attempt to create "dirty bomb" using radioactive waste from abandoned chemical plant. Fortunately, they were spotted and stopped.
Chornobyl operated till 2000s because cheap atom blasted huge hole in budget of Ukraine. They stopped when Ukraine received financial help to close these reactors. Tax payers and international aid covered these expenses and will continue to cover them for next few centuries at least. Closure of single reactor costs significant part of budget of small country. Closure of bunch of reactors can eat whole budget or two.
If one stupid can devastate whole continent, then better to switch to something else, because it doesn't look like we will breed out stupid people in near future.
IMHO, it better to tax normalized_areanormalized_weightnormalized_congestion . For example, if vehicle is 30% spacer than average, has 50% more weight per space than average, and uses road at peak hour when road usage is 50% more than average, then it should pay 1.3 x 1.5 x 1.5 = ~3x tax. If owner want to reduce tax, then it should use smaller, lighter car, and use it at off-peak hours, e.g. 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.5 = 0.4.
Fact checking need a court like system, with judges. Contact me, if you interested. I have lot of real world experience with that.
Also, rail roads are not walkable, so they cannot be shared with pedestrians, so this limitation forces create two separate roads: one for pedestrians, bicycles, cars, etc., and second one for rail transport. Trams can be mixed with regular road traffic, but trams cannot use regular rail roads because of different construction of rail road.
Also, rail roads are prone to Single Point of Failure problems. To prevent SPF, multiple redundant routes must be built, with lot of expensive junctions between them.
Also, you must schedule your travel.
So, we need something which 1) can be shared with regular road traffic like trams, 2) can deliver loads of cargo efficiently like rail or metro, 3) can be connected to every house like regular road, 4) can be navigated by any car at any time of day or night, 5) be cheaper than regular road for road, cart, maintenance, recycling, 6) can provide power to carts, 7) can provide navigation and scheduling service to carts, 8) be with low delay (fast).
Regular road is 1,3,4,±8. Uber is 1,3,4,5,7,8. Aero-taxi is 1,3,4,±5,7,8. Trams is 1,2,6,7. Metro is 2,6,7. Rail is 2,5,6,7.
Edit: Tram-train is 1,2,5,6,7.
However, it's your money, so you can just throw them (donate) at refuges[1] or somebody who need a housing[2], if you want that, but it's doesn't work well for local economy.
[1]: https://www.kiva.org/lend/refugees-and-i-d-ps [2]: https://www.kiva.org/lend?sector=10
https://github.com/Amanieu/hashbrown
https://blog.waffles.space/2018/12/07/deep-dive-into-hashbro...
Nice match.
Minkowski space-time is math. Time is used as coordinate. In reality, we cannot walk 10 seconds to the left.
Math is important (major) instrument for physicist, because it's allows us to make predictions for things, which we cannot see with our senses, but here we are talking about nature of the vacuum.
In short, about 100 years ago, the dominant theory was Theory of Ether. Ether was imagined like completely transparent gas or fluid, which transfers light and EM waves like water transfers sound waves.
This theory was replaced by Theory of General Relativity, because ToGR makes much more precious predictions than ToE. The one of the key experiments was Michelson–Morley experiment, which tried to answer is Ether is moves with Earth, so we are moving with our Ether, or is it static, so we are moving trough it at high speed (because of rotation around Sun and around Milki Way center). However, experiment found no disturbances at all, which leads to assumption that there is no medium for EM waves at all.
With time, we have more and more evidence that vacuum is not empty space. (I will use word vacuum instead of Ether, because, like with atom or +/-, it is well-known therm).
1) QM in general. Especially Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. Small particles displays something like Brownian motion: their position is uncertain when they at rest, except that we cannot see that with eyes because, photons are too massive.
2) _Linear_ Sagnac interferometer demonstrates that light is captured with medium, which leads to assumption that physical vacuum is attached to objects like atmosphere is attached to planet. If so, then it's impossible to find distributions of physical vacuum in well isolated room, because vacuum will be still, like air in cabin of airplane. Only major events, like massive explosion, can shake air in the isolated cabin while plan travels through air.
3) Hubble constant is not a constant. It's measured with high precision, but it has different values for different frequencies. If these values are plotted, then they for exponential curve. It's means that light is just ages with distance traveled, i.e. it loses some energy to the medium.
4) LIGO found gravitational waves at 1E-18 precision, which means that Michelson-Morley experiment had much lower accuracy than necessary.
And so on.
So, IMHO, author should replace "ripples in water" with something scientific, e.g. "ripples of space-time", "ripples of fabric of pond", "excitements of pond field", because now his text makes reader feel like there is water in the pond.
End of trolling.
> In particular, the problem with aether is that it was a non-relativistically-invariant medium (that is, by moving, you could change your speed with respect to the medium).
Yep.
> Whatever light and gravity travel in is relativistically invariant,
LIGO demonstrated that c in vacuum ≠ const, thus they are not.
By the way, medium can change it speed too, it's not a static thing, so theory of relativity can be extended to include medium, which may solve some problems with QM and with experimental observations.
IMHO, author should change text to "like the ripples in fabric of pond created by tossing a pebble in a pond", to be in line with Einstein.
What? AFAIK, "like the ripples in water" describes opposite theory.