2
sgtnoodle 2 points ago +2 / -0

I just assume it's a balance. The nature of the physical universe seems to boil down to matter and anti-matter, electrons and protons, etc. Good and evil is an exceptionally complex emergent behavior from layers and layers of progressively simpler systems. Our world happens to be made up of matter, and it's a bias that allows for our existence. Whether or not you consider that clever, it's a bias of fundamental necessity; by definition, if you put matter and anti-matter together you get a release of energy and then nothing. It's a local bias, though, and presumably there's some antimatter somewhere to cancel our existence out.

Good only has meaning in relation to evil. If evil didn't exist, then good wouldn't exist either. Free will only has meaning in the presence of choice. If there wasn't a choice, then we wouldn't have free will. It seems like in order for human spirit to exist and have spiritual importance, there has to be evil. We can create local biases of good and enjoy it, but to eliminate evil completely is to eliminate the meaning of life.

2
sgtnoodle 2 points ago +2 / -0

The west coast of the US? The basic physics of such a plan don't work out. Someone capable of pulling off a nuclear attack like that would know that.

2
sgtnoodle 2 points ago +2 / -0

You probably dug yourself into a hole with your SO by losing your temper and yelling. Going through the motions of taking a test but sabotaging it just seems like digging yourself deeper. Perhaps try apologizing for the outburst to your SO and then her sister, and then either decide to take the test properly, or politely refuse and clearly set the terms of being a guest of your household? That could either be you "being left alone", or them choosing to either respect and tolerate your choices or not be welcome, but it's up to you and your SO.

4
sgtnoodle 4 points ago +4 / -0

Part of Starlink's value proposition is the promise of lower latency internet communication. Information travels roughly half as fast through metal, atmosphere, and fiber optic cable as it does through a vacuum. By relaying data through the satellite network, data can be sent tens of milliseconds faster from one side of the Earth to the other than existing technology. That's worth a lot of money to a lot of businesses.

The current starlink satellites lack communications lasers, and so they can't relay data between satellites. The latency is therefore no better than current technology. SpaceX needs to launch a new version of satellites with communications lasers in order to reach the full advertised potential. The new satellites are bigger than the current ones, though, and their current Falcon 9 rocket can't economically launch them in volume. So, they're doubling down on using the fully reusable Starship platform to launch them. The fear of bankruptcy is due to the fact that Starship doesn't actually work reliably yet. They need to get Starship working in the next year. Otherwise, they'll risk running out of money.

3
sgtnoodle 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well sure, nature could all be a simulation. In which case, all I'm describing is the rules of the simulation. Either way, science is the study of nature (of the simulation).

Looping back to the original topic, if it's all a simulation and the moon is part of that simulation, then why is it controversial to say that (simulated) humans went to the (simulated) moon? Why is it controversial to accept mainstream physics as accurate?

Assuming human consciousness exists within the simulation, then it doesn't matter because it is our reality. If consciousness exists outside of the simulation, then that's by definition metaphysical.

1
sgtnoodle 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not trying to make a point that the air carries objects along with it, even though that's generally true. I'm saying that the air, objects that happen to be in the air, and the ground the air is above are all rotating at effectively the same speed and direction, and gravity keeps everything curving back toward the ground, and so there's no constant energy required to keep from falling off the earth.

The air is rotating with the Earth too, and there's no reason for it not to on average because it's the lowest energy state.

Speed is always relative to another reference frame. If you're riding in an airplane and eating a peanut, you could say the peanut is going 400mph and it would be true relative to the ground, but it's not going 400mph relative to your mouth. Relative to the surrounding air, maybe it's going 380mph if there's a 20mph tailwind. Relative to the sun, the peanut is probably going a bajillion mph. The only energy/power required is for the plane to overcome the aerodynamic drag from moving relative to the air, and the constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upward to counteract gravity.

Said another way, there's no energy required to maintain a constant rate of rotation for matter that's held together by natural forces in a closed system, only momentum. The Earth overall is largely a closed system, as it is moving though a vacuum. Over cosmic time scales, though, the Earth does lose momentum because it's not a perfectly closed system. Days are becoming slightly longer from year to year. Some of that is due to tidal forces with the moon, for example.

2
sgtnoodle 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you move the fishbowl in a circular motion with a period of 24 hours, then the fish won't even be able to perceive the motion, even if the radius of the circle is thousands of miles. If you whip it around in a tight loop, then the water will become turbulent and the fish will get knocked around.

If there's a current, the fish will move with it. Depending on its swimming ability, it will be able to swim against some amount of current. What analogy are you trying to make? Is it a controversial idea that a fish can swim?

2
sgtnoodle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Air is comprised of matter in a gaseous state. There is air in space in that there's particles of matter all over the place, but at a low enough density that it's basically a vacuum. That's not my theory, that's a non-controversial description of nature based on hundreds of years of empirically tested science.

If you don't believe in matter, then I'm curious what you believe air is comprised of.

1
sgtnoodle 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you have a fish in a fishbowl and you move the bowl, does the fish immediately slam into the side of the bowl? No, the water generally moves with the rest of the bowl. Air is a fluid like water, it's just a lot more compressible. The air is rotating the same speed as the ground more or less.

The whole reason something can fly through the air is because the air is resisting its natural tendency to fall due to gravity.

An object in motion stays in motion. If the ground is rotating in space, an object on the ground will be rotating similarly. Even if the object moves away from the ground a bit, it's still largely rotating similarly. Without anything pushing on an object, it moves in a straight line. Without gravity, objects would naturally fling off into space. Gravity curves space, though, so that the straight line naturally leads back to colliding with the ground (unless you're going fast enough to be in orbit.)

It doesn't take power to keep moving or rotating. It only takes power to accelerate or decelerate.

You can measure the rotation of the Earth using a gyroscope or a pendulum. Pretty much every science museum has a demonstration of Foucault's pendulum.

1
sgtnoodle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Infinity isn't really a number so much as a concept. Conceptually, it doesn't really make any natural sense to subtract from it. You can therefore arbitrarily define the result to be whatever is most convenient for your purpose. You could say it's 0, or NaN, or a hippopotamus.

1
sgtnoodle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gravity isn't a push or a pull. It's a distortion that makes matter moving without any forces acting upon it to appear to be accelerating from the point of view of another frame of reference. Standing on the ground, you aren't accelerating from the ground's frame of reference, yet the ground is applying force equal to your weight, and so you must be accelerating. In orbit around Earth, nothing is applying any force on you and so you're not accelerating, and yet from the point of view of the ground, your velocity is constantly changing (also known as acceleration).

Maybe you could explain all that with Ethereal pressure or whatever and have the equations all work out for common scenarios. How does that work in extreme scenarios like black holes, though? If gravity is a pressure imbalance due to dense matter shielding you from particles on one side, does that mean that the particle pressure is so high everywhere in the universe to be able to support a black hole's event horizon?

What about time dilation? How's that explained by this theory? Time dilation isn't purely hypothetical and made up; it's a practical concern in the modern age that engineers have to account for in things like GPS satellites.

3
sgtnoodle 3 points ago +3 / -0

Any given frequency band needs to have a clear owner so that it can be used effectively. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of uncoordinated users transmitting over each other, and it would suck for everyone. Why is there three mega corporations rather than lots of smaller companies? Probably a combination of the large capital expense of building out infrastructure, and politics? Also, it's tricky to geographically partition radio spectrum without wasting it, i.e. give two different companies permission to use the same frequency in neighboring areas.

Radio waves are a magical gift to humanity, and there's a clear benefit to society managing the spectrum reasonably. I'm not claiming that that's currently the case or not, just that GSM is an old technology that is relatively wasteful of the radio spectrum it uses, and the same radio spectrum can be used much more effectively with more modern technology.

0
sgtnoodle 0 points ago +2 / -2

2g GSM is very primitive technology compared to LTE. I imagine that a big benefit of phasing it out is to be able to reallocate the radio spectrum to LTE. It should be a net improvement for everyone, the only downside being the lack of support with old devices. Seriously, LTE can handle many orders of magnitude more data and individual devices than GSM for the same amount of spectrum. It's analogous to when analog cell phones were deprecated.