January 9, 2012 at 3:17 pm
GilaMonster (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
Then, thanks to one of Ms. Shaw’s recommended books, now I'm stuck in physics and cosmology. :blink: The book I'm reading now is The Fabric of the Cosmos, which for instance covers Entanglement (a highly bizarre phenomenon to say the least).You're welcome 😀
I'll add that "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to my to-buy list. btw, don't get the physics book on the 2011 post (on Quantum Gravity). It's a tough read.
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!
Err, so what are you if you know what the differences are?
A nerd squared 🙂
January 9, 2012 at 3:23 pm
GilaMonster (1/9/2012)
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!
Err, so what are you if you know what the differences are?
January 9, 2012 at 3:35 pm
GilaMonster (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
Then, thanks to one of Ms. Shaw’s recommended books, now I'm stuck in physics and cosmology. :blink: The book I'm reading now is The Fabric of the Cosmos, which for instance covers Entanglement (a highly bizarre phenomenon to say the least).You're welcome 😀
I'll add that "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to my to-buy list. btw, don't get the physics book on the 2011 post (on Quantum Gravity). It's a tough read.
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!
Err, so what are you if you know what the differences are?
Wow, if that book is a tough read for you, then I'm not going to try that one.
If you know what the differences are between General and Special Relativity, and I know the main differences, then maybe you're a nerd and proud of it, by God! 🙂 Really I just phrased it that way guessing that most people don't even know, or care, that there is a difference, much less what the differences are.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
January 9, 2012 at 3:41 pm
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
GilaMonster (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
Then, thanks to one of Ms. Shaw’s recommended books, now I'm stuck in physics and cosmology. :blink: The book I'm reading now is The Fabric of the Cosmos, which for instance covers Entanglement (a highly bizarre phenomenon to say the least).You're welcome 😀
I'll add that "The Fabric of the Cosmos" to my to-buy list. btw, don't get the physics book on the 2011 post (on Quantum Gravity). It's a tough read.
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!
Err, so what are you if you know what the differences are?
Wow, if that book is a tough read for you, then I'm not going to try that one.
If you know what the differences are between General and Special Relativity, and I know the main differences, then maybe you're a nerd and proud of it, by God! 🙂 Really I just phrased it that way guessing that most people don't even know, or care, that there is a difference, much less what the differences are.
And what does that make those of us who are following the debates about the faster than light neutrinos?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
January 9, 2012 at 3:56 pm
jcrawf02 (1/9/2012)
And what does that make those of us who are following the debates about the faster than light neutrinos?
I've been interested in that too... Is Einstein wrong? On the physics forum, I think the jury's still out on that one. (Not that I understand much of it anyway though - they start talking over my head quick there.)
But if quantum physicists are right about entanglement, they've already proved that something is traveling faster than the speed of light anyway - even if it's just information. So strange.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
January 9, 2012 at 4:05 pm
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
jcrawf02 (1/9/2012)
And what does that make those of us who are following the debates about the faster than light neutrinos?
I've been interested in that too... Is Einstein wrong? On the physics forum, I think the jury's still out on that one. (Not that I understand much of it anyway though - they start talking over my head quick there.)
But if quantum physicists are right about entanglement, they've already proved that something is traveling faster than the speed of light anyway - even if it's just information. So strange.
The whole issue of fast neutrinos boils down to the fact that although it has been long acknowledged that quantum physics and relativity are at odds and in some aspects mutually exclusive, this seems to be the first case where a fact contradicting relativity was, it is claimed, repeatedly measured under controlled conditions.
January 9, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Revenant (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
jcrawf02 (1/9/2012)
And what does that make those of us who are following the debates about the faster than light neutrinos?
I've been interested in that too... Is Einstein wrong? On the physics forum, I think the jury's still out on that one. (Not that I understand much of it anyway though - they start talking over my head quick there.)
But if quantum physicists are right about entanglement, they've already proved that something is traveling faster than the speed of light anyway - even if it's just information. So strange.
The whole issue of fast neutrinos boils down to the fact that although it has been long acknowledged that quantum physics and relativity are at odds and in some aspects mutually exclusive, this seems to be the first case where a fact contradicting relativity was, it is claimed, repeatedly measured under controlled conditions.
Is THE Thread now going to sport jibber jabber about jibber jabber?
January 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
Revenant (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
jcrawf02 (1/9/2012)
And what does that make those of us who are following the debates about the faster than light neutrinos?
I've been interested in that too... Is Einstein wrong? On the physics forum, I think the jury's still out on that one. (Not that I understand much of it anyway though - they start talking over my head quick there.)
But if quantum physicists are right about entanglement, they've already proved that something is traveling faster than the speed of light anyway - even if it's just information. So strange.
The whole issue of fast neutrinos boils down to the fact that although it has been long acknowledged that quantum physics and relativity are at odds and in some aspects mutually exclusive, this seems to be the first case where a fact contradicting relativity was, it is claimed, repeatedly measured under controlled conditions.
Is THE Thread now going to sport jibber jabber about jibber jabber?
As long as we avoid the Big Bang theory... 😉
January 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/9/2012)
Is THE Thread now going to sport jibber jabber about jibber jabber?
Bazinga!
Hey, at least it's not code! 😀
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking
January 9, 2012 at 5:57 pm
!Aaron Aardvark! (1/9/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (1/9/2012)
The helpful people at Microsoft have closed it as duplicate. Since it isn't a duplicate I've asked them to open it again and look at it.Asking in the comments rarely works. Log in, click "Edit this item" and change the Status from Closed to Active (though one should always explain why in the comments of course, as you have done, sort of).
I don't appear to be able to do that (I've no idea why).
There's a new MS comment saying they are addressing this issue under the old item; but there's no indication under the old item that they are doing so, so I've asked them again to reopen it or add such a comment to the old item.
Tom
January 9, 2012 at 6:14 pm
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!I, um, have to admit that I know there's a difference. 🙂
Hey, I'm not a nerd! e=ver have been. And I used to understand that stuff!
Actually, I don't much like Einstein's version of general relativity. The sudden jump from concepts based on continuity to a tensor formulation that is assumed just because it delivers an algebra that is somewhat simpler than a calculus constrained by continuity strikes me as an act of faith, not a physical theory. Someone (unfortunately I can't remember who, although I have a book back in the UK that would not only tell me who but also give me details of the differences between the physical predictions of the two versions of general relativity) developed what I think of as a "differential" form, which satisfies resonable principles of continuity, but as far as I can remember the predictions of the two versions about, for example, the orbit of Mercury, differ by at lot less than the probable error in our measurements (and the same goes for everything else that distinguishes the two forms - or at least did in the mid-90s, I haven't had time to look at the science in this area since then, we may have some evidence that I don't know about that lets us choose between them now).
My biggest worry about this topic is that if I found the book I mentioned above I might no longer be able to understand it. Databases are so much easier!!!
Tom
January 9, 2012 at 6:44 pm
L' Eomot Inversé (1/9/2012)
mtillman-921105 (1/9/2012)
By the way, if you know that there is a difference between Special and General Relativity, you might just be a nerd!I, um, have to admit that I know there's a difference. 🙂
Hey, I'm not a nerd! e=ver have been. And I used to understand that stuff!
Actually, I don't much like Einstein's version of general relativity. The sudden jump from concepts based on continuity to a tensor formulation that is assumed just because it delivers an algebra that is somewhat simpler than a calculus constrained by continuity strikes me as an act of faith, not a physical theory. Someone (unfortunately I can't remember who, although I have a book back in the UK that would not only tell me who but also give me details of the differences between the physical predictions of the two versions of general relativity) developed what I think of as a "differential" form, which satisfies resonable principles of continuity, but as far as I can remember the predictions of the two versions about, for example, the orbit of Mercury, differ by at lot less than the probable error in our measurements (and the same goes for everything else that distinguishes the two forms - or at least did in the mid-90s, I haven't had time to look at the science in this area since then, we may have some evidence that I don't know about that lets us choose between them now).
My biggest worry about this topic is that if I found the book I mentioned above I might no longer be able to understand it. Databases are so much easier!!!
... just keeping myself in check ... Yes, it was Einstein who first used the dirty trick called "renormalization," although it is attributed to von Neumann.
However, this is just a fringe topic on an SQL Server forum, not one of the hot topics on an "end of relativity" forums, so I will clam up.
January 9, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Revenant (1/9/2012)
Yes, it was Einstein who first used the dirty trick called "renormalization,"
Is that anything like repivoting an EAV back to 3rd normal form? 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
January 10, 2012 at 2:29 am
Jeff Moden (1/9/2012)
Revenant (1/9/2012)
Yes, it was Einstein who first used the dirty trick called "renormalization,"Is that anything like repivoting an EAV back to 3rd normal form? 😛
No, that's resuscitating the dead. 🙂
-- Gianluca Sartori
January 10, 2012 at 2:30 am
Did anyone else notice an unusual spam flood these days?
Also, spammers seem to have changed strategy now and they add replies to existing threads instead of starting new ones.
edit: fixed typo
-- Gianluca Sartori
Viewing 15 posts - 33,481 through 33,495 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply