pdonis

48 ms·

931.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I'm interested perhaps in an illustrative scenario where the speed is highlighted That would be something like the standard twin paradox. You could set that up so that, for example, Cooper, Brand, and Doyle go out in their space
932.
by pdonis 2y ago
> what the accumulation of "microseconds per day" means Let's try this scenario: You are in your spaceship in free-fall orbit around the Earth at the altitude of the Moon. Your buddy remains on Earth, and every day, when
933.
by pdonis 2y ago
> So there is at least a component of the "microseconds per day" offset formula that contributes to a slowing down compared to what is being orbited I'm not sure what you mean by "compared to what is being orbited&q
934.
by pdonis 2y ago
> a twin falling into a black hole > the twin at the speed of light that remains younger Neither of these are actual scenarios in relativity. I'm not sure where you are getting them from but your information appears to be gar
935.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Spacecraft, acceleration to pick up speed (not to go higher) That would mean you would no longer be in a free-fall orbit, you would be moving faster than free-fall orbit speed, and your clock would run slower. Depending on how much y
936.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I'm struggling to think of a case where the free market came up with an environmentally-friendly solution. Ronald Coase would beg to differ.
937.
by pdonis 2y ago
> to allow long term profitable companies to weather short term undercutting by larger companies who can take the losses to kill a competitor This doesn't work in a free market. Look up David Friedman's discussion in, IIRC,
938.
by pdonis 2y ago
Since you ask, I actually prefer to breathe heavily and intone "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
939.
by pdonis 2y ago
> You are arguing for a less effective state though. Less effective at messing things up, yes. You left out an alternative: corporations don't get government favors so they actually have to satisfy customers to stay in business.
940.
by pdonis 2y ago
Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No delegation anywhere.
941.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the distance for light to arrive makes it impossible If you mean the 1 second light travel time is the same as the 1 second clock difference, you can increase the clock difference by just spending longer in orbit. For example, you co
942.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I was under the impression that the speed in orbit matters It does. > therefore accelerating matters. No, it doesn't. In a free-fall orbit, proper acceleration is zero; you are weightless. "Accelerate" would mean
943.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Once in orbit, I start accelerating until my clock ticked faster Note that this is wrong: you don't have to accelerate to make your clock tick faster. You just have to be in orbit at a high enough altitude for the speedup due to
944.
by pdonis 2y ago
The article title is somewhat of a misnomer: the issue is not finding a classical SR model of tachyons (it has been known for decades that that can be done), but finding a consistent quantum field theory of tachyons.
945.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Consider this scenario Let me re-describe your scenario properly: Your buddy sends you information about stock exchange rates when his clock reads 12 noon exactly. You are one light-second away from him, so his message is received by
946.
by pdonis 2y ago
> I'm assuming this affects clocks (and things) but not time, right? What's the difference? > otherwise we would be surrounded by time travellers by now I'm not sure what your reasoning is here. > where does thi
947.
by pdonis 2y ago
It's the other way around: while a day passes on Earth, a day plus 58.721 microseconds passes on the Moon. The Moon clock gradually gets ahead of the Earth clock. In an Earth-centered inertial frame, the Moon is moving faster than
948.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the presence of government and social structure is not the sole cause for conflict First, I didn't say "conflict"; my statement was much more specific. Second, companies are not people. Companies are tools that people
949.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Since when? Since as long as people haven't wanted polluted air and water or products with harmful substances in them. "Bad for business" means business in an actual free market, where customers have the final say. In
950.
by pdonis 2y ago
Your theory sounds nice but is not borne out by either basic free market economics or the facts. The reason companies can get away with not being "responsible" is that the market is not free. The government has its thumb on the
951.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The free market has never existed on a wide scale, so no company currently has to survive in a free market. But... > This is so ridiculous It is? Aren't you saying the same thing?
952.
by pdonis 2y ago
> it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency". No, it can't. Article I of the Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress. It does not allow Congress to deleg
953.
by pdonis 2y ago
> If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term.
954.
by pdonis 2y ago
Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulatin
955.
by pdonis 2y ago
> what you want is WORSE than the current state. No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageabl
956.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the system is actually quite resilient "Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it&
957.
by pdonis 2y ago
> how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to
958.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are
959.
by pdonis 2y ago
> to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border That's not what the source you give says. It says the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions
960.
by pdonis 2y ago
> not true Sorry, I meant they're not making a living at creating derivative works of copyrighted content. They can't, for the reasons you give. Nor can other people make a living creating derivative works of their commerci

More ›