Would be cool though, place a black hole in an electromagnetic container in a museum.
If Hawking is right, then that would be impossible. (If he is right, a micro-blackhole would disappear in an extremely small fraction of a second.)
Of course he could be wrong. (After all, Hawking radiation is more or less pure speculation based on science which doesn't yet exist, namely the unified theory of quantum mechanics and GR.)
ngq wrote:
well... if there were not parallel timelines, there would be paradoxes, for example if i would go back in time and kill my parents so that i'm never born.
Thus, based on current evidence, the only logical conclusion is that time travel is a physical impossibility. (I'd say it's similar to magnetic monopoles and negative mass in this sense.)
Ten hours left until Large Hadron Collider activation. Do you think the result will be of global importance?
yes, i think we're actually waiting for the countdown of doomsday bomb that will destroy the universe. but if we're lucky, it will only destroy our galaxy.
Warp wrote:
Thus, based on current evidence, the only logical conclusion is that time travel is a physical impossibility. (I'd say it's similar to magnetic monopoles and negative mass in this sense.)
i used to be against the idea of physical time travel because some theosophist said that it's impossible, but after reading john titor (a soldier from the future) talk about the CERN and micro blackholes, i'm not sure what to believe. when he was here year 2000 he said that they discovered micro singularities at CERN year 2004 (in his timeline) which made time travel possible. because he came here it "messed up our timeline" a little, so it took us a few more years.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
moozooh wrote:
Ten hours left until Large Hadron Collider activation. Do you think the result will be of global importance?
It wont tell us anything interesting, quickly.
a 6 body interaction will be so unclean that results will be hopelessly blurred; even once we get a years worth of data. The real money is waiting for the ILC, e+ e- reaction FTW.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
nfq wrote:
moozooh wrote:
Ten hours left until Large Hadron Collider activation. Do you think the result will be of global importance?
yes, i think we're actually waiting for the countdown of doomsday bomb that will destroy the universe. but if we're lucky, it will only destroy our galaxy.
Warp wrote:
Thus, based on current evidence, the only logical conclusion is that time travel is a physical impossibility. (I'd say it's similar to magnetic monopoles and negative mass in this sense.)
i used to be against the idea of physical time travel because some theosophist said that it's impossible, but after reading john titor (a soldier from the future) talk about the CERN and micro blackholes, i'm not sure what to believe. when he was here year 2000 he said that they discovered micro singularities at CERN year 2004 (in his timeline) which made time travel possible. because he came here it "messed up our timeline" a little, so it took us a few more years.
I assume you mean John Connor, because otherwise I will continue to believe you write your posts from the insane asylum. Unless you're the internet's biggest, most unique troll. I still have not ruled that out. But bat-shit crazy is currently topping the list.
In any case, say hi to the giants and future soldiers for me, along with Snuffleupagus, my invisible friend Colonel Splotz, and the ghost of William Penn.
1) Did you ever expect this site to become that popular?
2) If you weren't Bisqwit, what would you like to ask him?
1) Not really. Though I'm ignorant enough that I haven't had time being surprised at it.
2) That's a tough one. I.e. what would I like to ask Bisqwit if I were one of the random users of the website. I suppose it would be something along the line of "I see you not only maintain the TASvideos website, but several others: a Japanese dictionary suite and a forum for Finnish protesters of Scientology are among some I found. How does that work for you?"
My answer would be:
Most of it just doesn't need that much maintenance; once built, it works. That said, concentrating on one thing tends to diminish the other, because humans are bad multitaskers after all. As for "why": I just do whatever interests me. I created the dictionary site because I wanted one so I can use for reference. It's still my primary jp<->en dictionary site. And I created tasvideos because I first wanted to provide high-quality movies of TASes, and later wanted to correct popular misconceptions about TASes. I'm not planning much about the future; I just do. What happens then, happens. If something becomes too much a weight for me, I try to relieve that weight by either delegating, or decreasing its maintenance requirements by other means.
Bisqwit,
I have noticed about myself that when I was younger I couldn't care less about politics (the younger I was, the more I *hated* all kinds of politics, in fact), but the older I have got, the more I find myself reading political articles and especially writing them myself, even to the point that I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not worrying way too much about things I can't really affect. I wonder if this is some kind of natural development of personality which most people go through when they get older.
Have you experienced anything similar? Has your interest in politics (both national and international) increased as you have got older, almost without even noticing? If so, what do you think is the reason? Is it something completely natural, or is it something to worry about (meaning, "oh no, I'm getting old")?
I have noticed about myself that when I was younger I couldn't care less about politics (the younger I was, the more I *hated* all kinds of politics, in fact), but the older I have got, the more I find myself reading political articles and especially writing them myself, even to the point that I'm beginning to wonder if I'm not worrying way too much about things I can't really affect. I wonder if this is some kind of natural development of personality which most people go through when they get older.
Have you experienced anything similar? Has your interest in politics (both national and international) increased as you have got older, almost without even noticing? If so, what do you think is the reason? Is it something completely natural, or is it something to worry about (meaning, "oh no, I'm getting old")?
Most certainly I have experienced and noticed the same.
I don't know if the world really is turning into progressively sinister direction, or if it's just because I didn't see any relevance when I was younger. Likely it is natural. As you get older, you have a lot more to which you can compare today's world, and see what's changing. When you're young, everything is status quo unless something drastic happens.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
mmbossman wrote:
In any case, say hi to the giants and future soldiers for me, along with Snuffleupagus, my invisible friend Colonel Splotz, and the ghost of William Penn.
...
Snagglepuss?!!!!! At long last someone else sees him on a daily basis!
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Raiscan wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
In any case, say hi to the giants and future soldiers for me, along with Snuffleupagus, my invisible friend Colonel Splotz, and the ghost of William Penn.
...
Snagglepuss?!!!!! At long last someone else sees him on a daily basis!
I'm sorry my friend, you must be mistaken. I'm referring to this lovely animal (that seems to resemble a flaccid phallic symbol)
Seeing as we are neighbouring countries, and knowing of your article on internet censorship, I was wondering what your thoughts on the current FRA-discussion are, Bisqwit.
For those not in the know and too lazy to read the Wikipedia article, Sweden's government is currently (as in, right now of this post) debating on a new law for FRA to be allowed to monitor all electronic traffic (email, telephone calls etc) going "over Sweden's borders", effectively allowing them to bug most communication in Sweden.
Dear Bisqwit:
I was curious about your current thoughts on the goals and direction of this site.
You may have read some of my previous words on these topics, but I will summarize what I personally think will be beneficial to the community. I think that to some extent they are all echoes of what others have said many times before me, so I'm certainly not claiming any revelation.
-Increase organization
This would include a nice text index like FractalFusion has added recently (though hopefully automated), lists like Movies for First Time Viewers, Greatest Hits, Glitched Out...
-Host more movies
With more organization, there will be the means to have a wider variety of runs. For example, movies that aim for speed but are only entertaining to a few people (what is now referred to as the dreaded "bad game choice"); superplay/playaround style movies; other alternate goals. I do not want to confuse this idea with just lowering the standards of movies. It is about having runs that traditionally would be rejected, but still fall within the scope of the site and increase the number (if not the percentage) of movies that each user finds entertaining.
-Remove author's information from the actual publication -- retain it in the submission
To a certain extent people will always want to make movies for the glory, but more and more these days movies are a result of the work of many people (though often not directly). I like the idea of giving the sense that all our movies are created by the community as a whole for entertainment purposes, as opposed to SDA or TwinGalaxies which are all about competition. (I don't view this as the most important change, but I thought I would throw it out there.)
I would be very interested in hearing your take on these and anything else regarding the future of this great site. I'd be happy to clarify any of my comments, at length if need be.
Thank you for your continued support of this great site. It has been a great experience for me and I'm interested in being as helpful as I can.
Sincerely,
alden
Dear Bisqwit:
This is something that confuses me about time travel.
Say, someone, it doesn't matter who; travelled back in time and altered something that majorly changed the future.
How would you experience the change because of his actions?
Why did god make sinful actions pleasureful if he doesn't want you to do them?
What if an athiest, a few days away from death decided to be a Christian and seriously believed in God and went to church and begged forgiveness for his sins etc. Would he go to heaven or hell?
Do you believe there are flaws in believing in Christianity even though you yourself are Christian?
Since the universe is ever expanding, what if you were going faster then the expanding of the universe, where would you be if you passed the "boarder" of the universe?
-Host more movies
With more organization, there will be the means to have a wider variety of runs. For example, movies that aim for speed but are only entertaining to a few people (what is now referred to as the dreaded "bad game choice"); superplay/playaround style movies; other alternate goals. I do not want to confuse this idea with just lowering the standards of movies. It is about having runs that traditionally would be rejected, but still fall within the scope of the site and increase the number (if not the percentage) of movies that each user finds entertaining.
alden
Thats more more of a negative policy to try and squeeze more categories out of games and perhaps a show of the times how TASing has stagnated somewhat. A more positive soloution would be to either.
A: People test out games that they wouldn't normally try or haven't heard of before to see if there is some unknown gems.
B: Newer systems to TAS
C: Fix/update Mupen to make more N64 games TASable
This is something that confuses me about time travel.
Say, someone, it doesn't matter who; travelled back in time and altered something that majorly changed the future.
How would you experience the change because of his actions?
What's with all these questions about time traveling?
Why did god make sinful actions pleasureful if he doesn't want you to do them?
What if an athiest, a few days away from death decided to be a Christian and seriously believed in God and went to church and begged forgiveness for his sins etc. Would he go to heaven or hell?
Do you believe there are flaws in believing in Christianity even though you yourself are Christian?
Argh, not this subject again.
Since the universe is ever expanding, what if you were going faster then the expanding of the universe, where would you be if you passed the "boarder" of the universe?
＞alden
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll comment on them for a bit.
＞ This would include a nice text index like FractalFusion has added recently (though hopefully automated), lists like Movies for First Time Viewers, Greatest Hits, Glitched Out...
Movies for First Time Viewers was a great idea in my opinion too, but it was ultimately removed because there was too much argument on which movies should be recommended ("starred") and by which policies. More can be read at http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/160751#160751.
＞ It is about having runs that traditionally would be rejected, but still fall within the scope of the site and increase the number (if not the percentage) of movies that each user finds entertaining.
It's one of those things I wish to have some day as well. To extend it to a purpose of an archive, while still catering those who want to find the best entertainment.
I think it needs a redesign of the site, and redesign plans are not progressing here really fast.
＞ Remove author's information from the actual publication -- retain it in the submission
I don't wish to do that. I understand your point, but we cannot treat the movies as if the author relinquished all copyright over it to the site. I think the current way makes authors happier, and I don't think that making the authorship information less accessible would help the audience enjoy the content better.
Movies for First Time Viewers was a great idea in my opinion too, but it was ultimately removed because there was too much argument on which movies should be recommended ("starred") and by which policies.
Personally I still find this decision rather stupid. Rather than give new visitors at least *some* list of recommended movies for first-time view, now there's *nothing*. Only a big list of almost 500 random movies from which the new visitor has absolutely no idea what could be cool to watch. And this only because some people disagree on which movie should be included in the list or not.
IMO some list, no matter who decides what it contains, is much better than no list at all. If someone doesn't like it, he can go and... I'll leave it at that.
> Bisqwit
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am glad to hear that we share similar visions of what we can do here. Obviously there's not going to be a huge change overnight, but I look forward to tinkering with new ideas and sharing movies with everyone here. I don't really think that a major site redesign is needed, though it would probably help to some degree.
To me, the fatal flaw with having "starred" runs was just that, the stars. It was viewed as a hall of fame rather than just a starting point, though it did serve well as the latter. Perhaps we can bring the stars back but without the actual stars?
And as to the name suggestion, I'm not too disappointed by your view of it -- after all, I too enjoy seeing my name up in lights :)
AKA:
Thank you for your input. The solutions you speak of are actually already happening, as I'm sure you know: many people, ourselves included, test many games; there has recently been a lot of promising work on making rerecording emulators for more systems; and the new Mupen is being worked on as we speak. I hope that all these activities continue and bring us many great movies. And I do think that simply letting in a bunch of shoddy movies with new goals would not beneficial in the least. However I don't understand how it is "negative" to provide people with opportunities to enjoy a more diverse set of precisely played, unique movies. If you don't like them, then you don't have to watch them -- but at the same time, it would be best to organize things such that you don't have to wade through too many movies that you don't want to watch to get to the ones you do. I have faith that it can be done.
Thank you for your questions.
Arf, I already wrote 75% of the answer once, then I accidentally closed the tab before posting it.
I'll write it again.
> Say, someone, it doesn't matter who; travelled back in time and altered something that majorly changed the future. How would you experience the change because of his actions?
We have no way of knowing, as time travel has not been witnessed yet. There are multiple theories. It stands to reason that we would not experience any change, though. We would simply see that things are as they have always been. However, if we have a soul/spirit separate from the material world and its timeline, we could possibly become disoriented for a while without any scientific explanation.
> Why did god make sinful actions pleasureful if he doesn't want you to do them?
This reminds me of a concept called "local maximum" in mathematics. God has created many things in the world which cause pleasure, but they are to be used in moderation. True joy, the global maximum, comes from following God's will. I know this because just recently, I had a kind of revival experience, and the last week has been quite a ride for me.
Overdoing some particular method of pleasure gets you stuck in a local maximum, which is far from the true joy. Even though anywhere you look, may look like it's more bleh, the true joy is out there, in following God's will.
> What if an athiest, a few days away from death decided to be a Christian and seriously believed in God and went to church and begged forgiveness for his sins etc. Would he go to heaven or hell?
This question is so simple that it sounds like a trap; as though you a hidden agenda in asking it. But I'll go ahead and interpret it naïvely. Obviously, he would go to heaven.
> Do you believe there are flaws in believing in Christianity even though you yourself are Christian?
What you think as Christianity is a collection of traditions, beliefs and behavior exercised and followed by a number of people. It is similar to a language: each speaker has their own interpretation of it. What connects them is the Bible, but that's approximately the largest common denominator.
Yes, I think there are flaws in "believing in Christianity".
We have God's message, the Bible, but like any message that is 600 pages long and created by an intelligence and wisdom infinitely superior to ours, we rarely quite grasp the full meaning of it. But we can start from basics: get to the source, and have him guide through the rest of it. It requires commitment.
> Since the universe is ever expanding, what if you were going faster then the expanding of the universe, where would you be if you passed the "boarder" of the universe?
I presume you mean "border". However, the important question is, whether there is any border. In a similar manner as ancient people thought that there's a border on Earth, if you sail too far, you may fall off, it may be a flaw to think that there's an edge in the universe. There are a number of extradimensional shapes in which the universe could be contorted without having edges; the simplest being the hypersphere. I love physics solutions that unask the question. :)
We have God's message, the Bible, but like any message that is 600 pages long and created by an intelligence and wisdom infinitely superior to ours, we rarely quite grasp the full meaning of it.
Setting aside my disbelief, the Bible was written by people; in other words, it wasn't created by a superior intelligence because it had to be "dumbed down" to be able to be processed by humans who wrote and read it, with all the required adaptation of thinking categories, terms, and other kinds of knowledge people couldn't have possessed at that point of time, or ever. The existence of a man-made book as a medium for a god's message sounds like a fundamental flaw by itself.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The existence of a man-made book as a medium for a god's message sounds like a fundamental flaw by itself.
Since we are talking about time travel, religion and science in the same thread on the TASvideos forums, let's contemplate on the following hypothesis:
If you were an omniscient God, who has created the universe, including all the nature laws in it, and you have the capability of seeing all the extent of time from the beginning to the end at a glance, and you wanted to give the people living in the universe a message, but you wanted the people to write it, how would you do it, considering that the people are an unreliable medium? Remember, you are now thinking as a God, and you can tool-assisted manipulate the universe.
Could God possibly re-record the universe, luck-manipulating different things until the desired outcome is accomplished? In other words, guide the man's hand writing the book, without really affecting the man's ability to decide? He could produce a book that looks precisely like he wanted it to look, even though the man wrote every letter of it.
(And since he's omniscient, he doesn't need to re-rerecord; he gets everything right on the first try, so there really aren't any timelines (and lifes) erased from ever existing.)
If you were an omniscient God, who has created the universe, including all the nature laws in it, and you have the capability of seeing all the extent of time from the beginning to the end at a glance, and you wanted to give the people living in the universe a message, but you wanted the people to write it, how would you do it, considering that the people are an unreliable medium?
That question sounds very much like "if you were able to and wanted things to be as they are now, would you not leave them as they are now". Thus, I will not answer it. :)
I find it funny that a god would be enjoying looking at creatures as primitive as us, though. We can't even interact with physical things in non-physical ways (well, some supposedly can, but not anything close to reliability), or use our brains to >10% of its potential.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
moozooh wrote:
or use our brains to >10% of its potential.
If you mean that we only use 10% of our brains, then I feel I should remind you that this idea is an old wives tale.
If, however, you meant that most of the earth's population doesn't use their brain to more of its potential, I fully agree with you :)
