I tire of arguing and it's clear Warp has no desire to learn how to speak precisely about precise concepts, and everyone else just encourages him, for example marzojr with his talk of having "an unlimited amount of energy at your disposal," which is a meaningless concept and distinct from having "any amount of energy at your disposal."
I honestly can't understand your point.
Assume that someone asked the question: "What is the computational complexity of merge sort?" Then someone answered: "That question is meaningless because calculating computational complexities always assumes an unlimited amount of RAM, and there's no such thing as an unlimited amount of RAM", and outright refused to give an answer to the question. What would you think of that?
That's right. That answer is nitpicking and pointless. Even though calculating the computational complexity of an algorithm always assumes an unlimited amount of RAM, that doesn't make the calculation useless. Algorithm computational complexity is a very useful concept even in real-life situations (where there is always a physical limit to the amount of available RAM).
Assume that someone asked a question like: "Let's assume that you drop a small spherical object in vacuum [...]" and then someone answered "let me stop you right there; there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, nor is there such a thing as a perfect sphere, the question is meaningless, and I refuse to answer it." What would you think of that?
That's right. Hairsplitting and nitpicking. And completely pointless. You can calculate the falling time of an object assuming a perfect vacuum, and the result you get is not meaningless. In fact, it can have real-life practical uses even if we make assumptions which are not 100% correct (such as assuming Newtonian physics and perfect vacuum).
Now, assume that someone asked a question like: "Let's assume that QM effects are not in effect, what do the GR equations say of this situation?" and then someone answered: "That question is meaningless, I refuse to answer."
See the point?
Something like "Company: Capcom"? Handing out a category based on who makes the game is another way to divide them, and might encompass useful sets. Would be good to keep some ideas around just in case.
That gives me an idea: Rather than introduce new categories describing the technical details of the game (game company, year of publication, etc), a completely separate info block could be created for this kind of data, and then one could search based in this technical info. For example, one could make a search like "all runs for games made by Capcom for the NES or the SNES, published before 1990".
Didn't we just go through all the movies about 9 months ago to pare down the amount of categories, so that searches wouldn't return one or two entries? Or do you mean something different?
Are you referring to the partial renaming and re-evaluation of categories for all existing movies to make the categories more descriptive of the movies they are attached to (eg. "heavy luck abuse" is now given only to movies which truly have heavy luck abuse, rather than semi-automatically giving it to almost all movies)?
Some categories were indeed dropped because they were deemed as too game-specific (such as "teddy survives"), but I think the main purpose was not to reduce the amount of categories, but to make them more useful.
I'm not saying that we should reintroduce "teddy survives"-style categories which apply to only one game, but generic categories which apply to at least a dozen of games.
(Perhaps that could be a good rule of thumb: A new category should be introduced only if it can be applied to at least n different games, where n could be something like 10 or 20 or the like.)
First: In pure GR, the lifetime of a black hole is infinite.
Yeah, you are right. I was thinking about the Hawking radiation, but that (if it really exists) would require quantum-mechanical effects, and I did put as a premise that we assume no QM.
The particle's time would have to stop for it to happen, which won't happen for any massive particle.
I was just wondering that since time is relative, if GR allows "slowing down" the time of the falling particle in some way so that its fall into the singularity would be delayed as much as possible.
GR allows sometimes rather surprising things, so it wouldn't be unthinkable (from a layman's point of view) that this could perhaps be possible, according to the GR equations.
(One example of a rather surprising thing that GR allows, something which many people are not willing to believe, is that the distance between two points in space, eg. the distance between two particles, can grow faster than c. Of course this doesn't mean that FTL travel is possible, only that the distance between two points can grow faster than c. If this happens, it effectively creates a horizon such that it's impossible to observe the other point from the first point. This is what eg. the so-called cosmological horizon is all about. IIRC GR also predicts the phenomenon to happen near the surface of a rotating black hole due to so-called "frame-dragging".)
A couple of ideas (for possible site development):
1) Create an alternative smaller version of the current movie info box, containing the same relevant info but in a more concise way (ie. taking much less space), possibly also with a smaller screenshot. This way long lists of runs would take less space and would be nicer to browse.
2) More movie categories (of the descriptive kind, rather than the alternative goals kind). This way there would be more options to filter movies based on them (so that we don't get lists of 400+ movies, as the OP pointed out). Yeah, I know this would be a huge job (going through all the movies and adding the proper categories), but just an idea.
So it's okay for a girl to dress up as Link, but not for a guy to dress up as Samus?
I didn't make any claims about the ok'ishness of that. If a girl desses up like a boy, I suppose it could mean the girl is a tomboy. But what does it mean if a boy dresses up like a girl?
Starting from 10,000 it's hard to bilk a person for more than 100.
Maybe so, but get 100 people to do that, and you have collected a good 10000 dollars, which is a pretty decent amount of money for sending some emails.
You could then, of course, try to raise the "price" a bit, to eg. $50000, and see how many people take the bait then.
It's much easier to "invest" 100k trying to get 19m than it is to invest 100 to get 10k, psychologically. Now, those of use who do not have 100k might see it differently, but these scam e-mails are usually aimed at people who have more money than sense.
There has been at least one actual case where a worker of a company, I think it was a secretary or something along those lines, was sending the company's money to the scammers (thinking that she would return the money to the company once she got the millions). She got sued for fraud (basically, stealing the company's money).
So it can sometimes work on poorer people too.
I'm not sure I agree with that (but, as I said, I'm a complete layman in physics). The singularity is a prediction of the equations of GR. Whether a singularity happens in reality is a different story (if it doesn't, it simply means that the prediction is wrong, which it could very possibly be).
Relativity does not make predictions about the nature of matter, space, and time inside an event horizon. No scientific theory does. A theory is an idea or group of ideas that make testable predictions about the behavior of the universe under certain conditions. There is no such thing as a testable prediction concerning the interior of a black hole. Therefore no theories make predictions about the interior of a black hole.
I'm getting the feeling that you are deliberately confusing things instead of acknowleding your understanding of what I'm saying.
What you are effectively saying above is that the Schwarzschild solution of the GR equations for a non-rotating black hole is wrong, and pure science fiction (although I'm sure you'll come up with some explanation of why it isn't, regardless of what you wrote above).
Of course that's obviously not so. The GR equations do describe the geometry of the interior or the black hole, and it's the very reason why we are talking about singularities in the first place and why we say things like "all timespace geodesics point towards the center of the black hole, and applying any energy to a particle inside the event horizon would only accelerate it towards the center". In other words, the GR equations predict what happens inside the event horizon. It's only the singularity itself where the division by zero happens, not the space between the singularity and the event horizon.
You are somehow (maybe deliberately) confusing these GR equations with the concept of "testable prediction" and claiming that since we cannot make any tests about the interior of the black hole (how do you know this?), GR does not predict anything about the interior of the black hole.
This is because, assuming GR was 100% correct and QM effects don't apply ...
Stop right there. Your premise is false. False implies anything is true.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of your nitpicking. You are avoiding the question.
Besides, exactly how do you know that my premise is false? You yourself said that we cannot make any tests about the inside of the event horizon of a black hole. How exactly, thus, can you say that the hypothesis that QM effects don't apply there is a false premise? Can you prove it somehow?
Nevertheless, I was asking purely from the point of view of GR. You can describe what GR says about the situation (even if you "know" somehow that the description does not correspond to reality). Refusing to do so is as silly as refusing to calculate anything using Newtonian physics because you know that they are not completely correct. If someone asks a question about Newtonian physics, would you refuse to answer because you know that the answer would not correspond 100% with reality?
I mentioned this because I hoped you would understand I was saying, "Even if relativity could make predictions about the nature of space, time, and matter inside the event horizon of a black hole (it can't), it is not known to apply on the scales that result in mathematical singularities in its mathematical models."
I was not asking what happens in the singularity. I was asking if it was possible to delay the falling of a particle into the singularity. You are extending the "division by zero" problem of the singularity to cover the entirety of space inside the black hole.
Your rephrased question is as meaningless as the original. There is no such thing as an unlimited amount of energy. Your premise is false. False implies anything is true.
Ok, it's now rather clear that you are simply avoiding the question rather than answering honestly "I don't know".
Do you also refuse to answer any questions about Newtonian physics because you know that they don't correspond to reality? Or do you make an exception in this case if you happen to know the answer?
When I wrote "which is what is happening in a singularity" I was implying "according to GR". (In other words, pure GR predicts that inside a black hole it's impossible for a particle to keep out of the singularity and hence the only possibility is for all matter to compress into a zero-sized point. Of course GR doesn't take into account that according to QM it's impossible for a singularity to happen, which is what causes the dilemma.)
Relativity doesn't make any predictions about matter in situations that result in a mathematical singularity in its models. Remember that a "singularity" is a feature of a mathematical model. It is a mathematical idea, not a thing. Physicists understand that relativity is an incomplete description of the universe and that it can't be used to describe situations that it can't describe.
I'm not sure I agree with that (but, as I said, I'm a complete layman in physics). The singularity is a prediction of the equations of GR. Whether a singularity happens in reality is a different story (if it doesn't, it simply means that the prediction is wrong, which it could very possibly be).
This is because, assuming GR was 100% correct and QM effects don't apply, it would be impossible for a mass to maintain a non-zero size inside the event horizon of a black hole. As said, simply moving in time would make particles move towards the center of gravity, which is a zero-sized point in the middle of a (non-rotating, non-charged) black hole (in rotating black holes it might not be a point, but it's zero-sized nevertheless, as far as I understand). Hence the only possible outcome of this is that the entire mass is compressed into a zero-sized point. Anything else is impossible. Thus it is a prediction of the GR equations. (Just because GR can't describe this infinitely dense point itself doesn't mean it's not predicting its existence.)
You should also note that it has so far been impossible to test many features of relativity at small scales, so it is not known to apply at those small scales.
I know, but that doesn't change whether GR predicts something or not.
Warp wrote:
If I understand correctly, in the Schwarzschild solution this is because all geodesics inside the event horizon, including all time geodesics, point directly to the singularity, so simply advancing it time makes the particle move closer to the singularity. Basically you would have to stop time to make the particle not move towards the singularity. (Which raises the question: Assuming you could apply an infinite amount of energy to a particle, would it theoretically be possible to "stop time" for it, ie. make it stop moving in the time axis? Is this something allowed by the GR equations?)
The answer to that question is yes, but not for any deep physical reason. The reason it is yes is because a false premise implies anything and everything. That is, "false implies false" is true. "False implies true" is also true. So "if something false, then anything, anything at all is true" is true.
I don't think there's need to nitpick here. But if you want to, then I'll rephrase the question:
Assume you could apply an unlimited amount of energy to a particle inside the event horizon of a black hole. Could it be used to slow down the time of the particle so much that it would delay its inevitable fall into the singularity by more than the lifetime of the black hole itself? Would the GR equations support/allow this to happen (at least in theory)?
IOW, just because a finite amount of energy couldn't do the job, doesn't mean that an infinite amount of energy will. Even if you take the limit of infinite energy (and ignore the curving of spacetime that marzojr mentioned this would cause) a massive particle can't escape a black hole -- since a massive particle with "infinite energy" moves like a massless particle, and massless particles can't escape a black hole either.
Just to clear things up, my original statement was "you would need an infinite amount of energy to stop a particle from falling to the singularity (once it's inside the event horizon)", not "you would need an infinite amount of energy to escape the black hole" (which is a completely different thing).
However, as you say, and if I understand correctly, applying any kind of energy, finite or not, would only accelerate the fall into the singularity, no matter how you apply the energy. The only thing you can do is to delay the inevitable, and the maximum delay is achieved by applying no energy at all.
If I understand correctly, in the Schwarzschild solution this is because all geodesics inside the event horizon, including all time geodesics, point directly to the singularity, so simply advancing it time makes the particle move closer to the singularity. Basically you would have to stop time to make the particle not move towards the singularity. (Which raises the question: Assuming you could apply an infinite amount of energy to a particle, would it theoretically be possible to "stop time" for it, ie. make it stop moving in the time axis? Is this something allowed by the GR equations?)
First of all, no scientist, when being precise, would ever talk about "an infinite amount of energy" or some such. For example, you've probably heard laypeople say things like "if you had an infinite amount of energy you could accelerate a spaceship to the speed of light." That's not a meaningful statement because there is no such thing as an infinite amount of energy, and it certainly doesn't follow from relativity. What relativity tells us is that no finite amount of energy is sufficient to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light. That certainly doesn't imply there is such a thing as "infinite energy."
To a layman (like me) there is little difference between the concepts of "you would need an infinite amount of energy to" and "no finite amount of energy is enough to", as they sound like two ways of expressing the same thing. As you say, though, there's probably a difference, at least technically speaking. (It's probably similar to the difference between "an infinite amount of RAM" and "unbounded/unlimited memory" in computer science. They might sound like the same thing to a layman, but there's a technical difference.)
When physicists talk of singularities and such, it doesn't actually mean they believe there are precise physical manifestations corresponding to the ways mathematical models fail.
When I wrote "which is what is happening in a singularity" I was implying "according to GR". (In other words, pure GR predicts that inside a black hole it's impossible for a particle to keep out of the singularity and hence the only possibility is for all matter to compress into a zero-sized point. Of course GR doesn't take into account that according to QM it's impossible for a singularity to happen, which is what causes the dilemma.)
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that if a particle enters the event horizon of a black hole, it would require an infinite amount of energy to stop it from falling into the singularity at the center.
On the other hand, the Pauli exclusion principle states, basically, that you would need an infinite amount of energy to make two particles be at the same place at the same time (which is what is happening in a singularity).
How are these two opposite forces consolidated?
(And please, I would prefer answers based on science instead of answers based on personal incredulity.)
Until a 3rd movie exists, this is nothing more than mental masturbation.
I think we all already know that you hate my guts, and whenever I post anything even remotely related to site policy, you will respond to it with witty (and sometimes even outright insulting) comments. (I find it rather telling that when p4wn3r made his original post in this thread, it caused absolutely no reaction from you, but when I posted aknowledging one of his points, you immediately responded.)
Just chill out, will you?
I don't fully agree with all of p4wn3r's arguments, but I think it raises an interesting question:
If someone submitted yet a third run of this game, showing different bugs and coreography, would it be published alongside the other two? And if then someone submitted a fourth and a fifth run? Where do we draw the line? How many are too many?
Yeah, I was just kidding, haha... there's a bug in the game which allows you to get into that room without the cutscene triggering, so you can throw knives on him and trigger it later :P
That's one of the coolest bugs I have seen in a while. Much more interesting than your original claim. You should have gone with it right from the start.
Don't worry, 15 min WAV is FAR smaller than lossless video. Usually video is the limiting factor, not audio =p
OTOH raw sound can actually take more space than acceptable-quality compressed H.264 video (as incredible as that might sound; however, it's not that unbelievable: Think how much acceptable-quality video you can fit into a CD, ie. 650 MB. Compare to how much raw sound there is in a music CD.)
Compressing sound is quite beneficial spacewise.
Somehow it looks to me like a regular cutscene, but which has been modded to add all those arrows and knives. Unless the rest of the game is also that over-the-top and unrealistic (I don't know anything about the game in question).
I assume this is you playing live (rather than it being made with a sequencer)? I'm in no way an expert in music, but to my layman ears it sounds extremely well played. The tempo seems to stay stable really well (something which I personally have big problems with when playing anything with any instrument) and the overall flow of the music is really smooth. Pro stuff.
I have a friend who studies at a conservatory here in Finland (he might actually have completed it already). He is very fond of the 3rd movement of the Moonlight Sonata because it's one of the most difficult pieces of (well-known) piano music ever written and requires a lot of practice and skill to get right. I'm wondering if you have tried to play it.
Suppose you have a ramp at an angle alpha from horizontal, and a cube of mass m and density d on the ramp. You can assume that this is all in vacuum. When let go, the cube slides a distance l in t seconds.
Now, assume that instead of a cube it's a sphere with the same mass and made of the same material (iow. it's of the same density). When let go, will it take a shorter or a longer time to move the same distance, or the same time? Why? (And if you are up to it, how much faster/slower?)
