hansen

8 ms·

31.
by hansen 9y ago
It's a bit a matter of definition or interpretation but I would count the LIGO observations as direct observations of black holes. But as others pointed out there's lots of evidence for their existence.
32.
by hansen 9y ago
I like the abstract pictures on quanta magazine, e.g. https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutron-star-collision-shakes... https://www.quantamagazine.org/squishy-or-solid-a-neutron-st...
33.
by hansen 9y ago
Ergodicity in statistical mechanics roughly means that you can replace an average over time by an average over states. In practice this means that within the time it takes to perform your measurement the system should move through a lot of
34.
by hansen 10y ago
Don't forget about the grandmas and pas who are still on IRC and usenet ;P
35.
by hansen 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve#General_...
36.
by hansen 10y ago
If you want to anonymously share large files there’s also bittorrent over i2p. Work pretty well. https://geti2p.net
37.
by hansen 10y ago
> (local) Lorentz invariance This is also very misleading terminology, as curvature is a local invariant of a (semi) Riemannian manifold. Lorentz invariance is violated locally, even though the “magnitude” of this violation goes to zero
38.
by hansen 10y ago
Note that when this article says “Lorentz symmetry” it really means “spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold”. This is bad physicists slang. We know that Lorentz symmetry is broken when gravity is non negligible. So these conservation laws do
39.
by hansen 10y ago
> GR does not imply causality nor does it enforce it. In fact GR works in a non-causal universe without a problem. One of the key assumptions of GR is that spacetime is globally hyperbolic. This implies causality. You can’t guarantee s
40.
by hansen 10y ago
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.523436 ED: This is the starting point of the Causal Set [1] program. Don’t ask me for details, I don’t know any. But the wikipedia article looks interesting. Se
41.
by hansen 10y ago
There are lots of non-relativistic models using waves. Nothing special about them. The most compelling argument for relativity is causality. You can reconstruct spacetime – up to conformal transformations – just from the causality relatio
42.
by hansen 10y ago
> what they thought What makes so sure about this? These claims are so nonsensical that it could be “what they wanted the reddit conspiracy hive-mind to believe”.
43.
by hansen 10y ago
> So instead of using the native font rendering on OS X which they had actually done, they suggest installing a secondary font Can't you define fontsets on OS X?
44.
by hansen 10y ago
Yeah, this thing is semi-big on reddit, and to me it looks like a lot of nuts actually believe this. But the question remains, was this thing initialized by some /pol/ übertrolls, or was it only conspiracy nuts from the beginning
45.
by hansen 10y ago
> This is Smolin, making his usual, and valid, criticisms of modern physics. Smolin's basic complaint is that there is no experimental evidence for string theory. Uhmm, he’s working on quantum gravity too. Just a different appr
46.
by hansen 11y ago
But that begs the question why web browsers don’t implement this. Is there a technical reason or did at some point some people decided that decent text rendering is irrelevant one should focus on other gimmicks?
47.
by hansen 11y ago
This is about how I feel. Can someone who’s actually competent explain why (La)TeX output looks so much better than what web browsers do? I’m not talking about childish colors, sticky headers, and all the other annoying “modern web featur
48.
by hansen 11y ago
I’m just skimming over the wikipedia article [1]. Could you please clarify about what definition of race we are talking here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28biology%29
49.
by hansen 11y ago
The term ’length’ in GR is pretty complicated and there is no such thing as a canonical spacial distance between two events. There is no canonical splitting of space-time into space and time, unless perhaps for very symmetric space-times.
50.
by hansen 11y ago
> the physical properties behind the symbols Maybe my interpretation is a bit mathematical and a physicist would disagree but I wouldn’t call the speed of light or the Planck constant a “physical property”. In case of the speed of light
51.
by hansen 11y ago
Maybe I haven’t understood him right, but he said: > […] physical properties, like c, h […] which is false, c and ℏ aren’t “physical properties”. The numerical values we attach to them are merely a convention. In SI units c isn’t even s
52.
by hansen 11y ago
c and ℏ don’t encode any physics, they just fix measuring units. Actually it’s common to choose units s.t. ℏ = c = 1.
53.
by hansen 11y ago
Are there any GTK bindings that feel "native"? These automatically generated bindings are almost as “ugly” and uncomfortable as using GObjects in C.
54.
by hansen 11y ago
I don't know if this is awesome or just sick.
55.
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework(m.phg.sagepub.com)
1 points by hansen 11y ago|0 comments
56.
by hansen 11y ago
I cannot stand these racist morons myself. And a lot of what I have seen in the last months clearly violates German law. But I think it’s very problematic to put some private company in charge to do this censoring. The “no censorship (w
57.
by hansen 11y ago
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
58.
by hansen 11y ago
It's on library genesis :)
59.
by hansen 11y ago
That gives you only the equation of motions for a test particle, i.e. the geodesic equation. The field equations are another thing. I think historically there was a lot of guess work. But using that the sources of the field are the energ
60.
by hansen 15y ago
Check "Accept cookies from from sites" and choose "Keep until I close FF". Then add exceptions w/ status "Allow" for sites you want to store cookies.

More ›