It's software this time!

[NetBLOKS]

Regarding the Cosmo:
I too use it everyday as my mobile device.
It is the best thing for mobile working in phone format I can think of.
But after nearly a year (when was it released again?) it shows its dark sides:
- the updates break more than they fix. My device reboots sporadical, just as the Gemini did before, the outside screen works only in your pocket or pressed agains your ear, the keyboard has a 2 second delay after opening before working etc.
- the hinge is already wobbling again
- my camera is full of dust.. from the inside!
- the button "8" is pressed, while opening the device, even though the keyboard is off
Still, I appreciate my Cosmo, as it is still a lot better than a pone without a keyboard.
But I am SO looking forward to my Pyra.
Working with the Gemini and Cosmo for the last two years, I can accept flaws, that may occur on devices made by small team.
These devices are still way better than their big cousins counterparts by breaking with standards, set by an industry who design their products for lifestyle, not for working and gaming.

 

[Phlyra]

I kind of look at the Pyra as a, "Swiss Army Knife of Computers". Yes, there are bigger tools/computers that do any one of the tasks it can do, "better". But, I cannot think of anything else that can do an okay job of as many tasks and still fit in a (albeit fat) pocket.

This is one of the things I love most about the Pyra, in addition to it being community designed - an aspect you pretty much can’t find anywhere else.

 

[matzesu]

Shure: On the Swiss Army Knife ^^.. I think if i had used my SAK to open up my Pandora at the Day the incidend happened, my Shoulderbutton would work perfektly now, as its just crashed because this Toolbox i have fell from the Table whit the Opened Pandora ^^
My Victorinox Cybertool im now using as a EDC would be perfektly for this task..

 

[Grench]

This is quite strange, because, if i look back now, i found the Pandora Waiting Time much longer than now the Pyra Waiting Time, maybe because i was unemployed back then ?? Or because im now having a Pandora..
But im quite patience now that im a proud Pandora Owner and know how long this takes..

I call this, "time compression". As I have gotten older, years slide by faster than seasons seemed to when I was younger.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

I call this, "time compression". As I have gotten older, years slide by faster than seasons seemed to when I was younger.

That's still a better theory than what Einstein came up with.

It's called Grench relativity. As Grench gets older time compresses and space slows down. One's speed and space depend on how old Grench is relative to one's time and position.

 

[ible]

don't diss Einstein. unless it's for his views on quantum mechanics, where he was clearly in the wrong (but proposed an interesting thought experiment that would later be proven experimentally siding with quantum mechanics).

fun fact, we actually use relativity to ensure GPS is as accurate as it is.

 

[Phlyra]

I call this, "time compression".

It’s like we’re all in a giant computer game and there are regular defrags

 

[Bosbeetle]

don't diss Einstein. unless it's for his views on quantum mechanics, where he was clearly in the wrong (but proposed an interesting thought experiment that would later be proven experimentally siding with quantum mechanics).

fun fact, we actually use relativity to ensure GPS is as accurate as it is.

Well he was quite essential for the start of quantum mechanica with his description of the foto electric effect. For which he got the nobelprize.

The epr article was is also a big thing in qm if Im correct.

 

[ible]

yeah it's a bit ironic. Einstein opened the doors to QM, but never accepted it. my shallow understanding of EPR is that Einstein said, "if QM is true, then X happens, and that's nonsensical." but then an experiment shows X happens...

X is some nonlocality business.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

yeah it's a bit ironic. Einstein opened the doors to QM, but never accepted it. my shallow understanding of EPR is that Einstein said, "if QM is true, then X happens, and that's nonsensical." but then an experiment shows X happens...

But that is useless for knowing whether QM is true.

 

[levi]

Something being nonsense doesn't prevent it from being the actual fact. Experiments have proven spooky action at a distance (Einstein's name for entanglement). That doesn't actually prove QM at it's core, but QM is the only explanation we have thus far which explains those effects. In fact, QM is almost certainly an inexact approximation of what's really happening, if history is anything to go by. Newton laws of motion were improved by Einstiein's special relativity, and those in turn were clarified by QM.

 

[ible]

But that is useless for knowing whether QM is true.

yeah, do you genuinely want to hear about the other experiments that give evidence for QM? in any case, please peddle conspiracy physics theories on a different board .

no scientific theory is "true" in the sense of a mathematical formula being provable given some system of axioms. but there is a crap load of evidence for QM. including all of chemistry.

 

[Bosbeetle]

Newton laws of motion were improved by Einstiein's special relativity, and those in turn were clarified by QM.

What do you mean by 'those' in this sentence? Newton laws still hold in most stituation, however they don't in cases where speeds are close to the speed of light. QM did not really clarify newton laws if Im correct.

QM and QFT can predict a lot of stuff but there is still the measurement problem, that is the wave QFT predicts can predict measurements (statistically it is correct) but this wave somehow collapes. The problem is we cannot probe systems, to measure quantum scale effect, without influencing them.

The other problem is that Einsteins description of gravity doesnt hold at quantum scales like newtons did not at light speeds.

We cannot measure gravity at these small scales also because it's such a week force, and thus the newer theories are mostly trying to be mathmatical consistent (and consistent with the body of known experimental measurements as well as the old theories) and mathmatically elegant.

Theoretical physics is getting a bit disconnected from experimental physics, however it might be connected again in the future. (However any new theory has to be able to predict at least everything we know up to now). I any case QFT and einsteins general relativity are the best ways to interpret the physical world around us at the current time.

Disclaimer: My expertise is molecular biology so for beter anwser talk to an actual physicist

 

[ible]

there are generally a few categories of things...

low speed, low energy, macroscopic - Newton's laws are terrific approximations. even up to fairly large masses (Newton's laws are pretty good for planetary motion -- not perfect, need general relativity to get the precession of Mercury).
high speed, not so heavy masses, macroscopic -- special relativity. doesn't incorporate gravity (that's general relativity). gives interesting predictions, and also helps with some microscopic things -- e.g., some subatomic particles shouldn't last very long, but when they're moving faster they live longer.
low speed, microscopic -- non-relativistic quantum mechanics. predicts things like chemical spectra. basic Schroedinger equation type stuff. i did my doctorate on this sort of thing.
high speed, microscopic -- relativistic quantum mechanics. one of the beautiful theoretical predictions of merging special relativity and quantum mechanics was that of antimatter.
high speed, heavy masses, macroscopic -- general relativity, makes beautiful predictions that are verified time and time again.

what's missing is how we merge general relativity and QM, but everything else plays well together. Newton's laws are limiting cases of both special and general relativity, and even quantum mechanics to an extent.

 

[levi]

What do you mean by 'those' in this sentence? Newton laws still hold in most stituation, however they don't in cases where speeds are close to the speed of light. QM did not really clarify newton laws if Im correct.

Yeah, I struggled over that verb because as you say, QM as currently understood concerns things on a different scale to either Newton's laws or general relativity. And I doubt anyone presented with the concepts behind QM for the first time would call them 'clear'. Yeah probably the wrong word. I think I meant more exact, or more applicable in all situations, but in the heat of writing out a short post, I plumped for 'clarify' probably in error.

 

[Grench]

If we're going to talk physics, I am of the opinion that what is currently being passed as the theory of Dark Matter is a 'load of faith/belief' with very little fact.

I do think that there is potential for a whole lot of non-stellar dark mass in the universe - thus that normal matter is 'dark' in that we simply cannot see it. In calculating the mass of the universe we count stars and black holes, which we have a pretty good idea of how much mass they have, then assume that there isn't much else. Then we find out that there is more mass out there - because we can see it's effects. Somehow we jumped from there to something crazy exotic and undetectable as an answer.

I am of the opinion that the density of hydrogen - or possibly just neutrons - in interstellar space is considerably higher than it is in the space nearer to any star. Much like the gravity of the moons of Saturn suck up matter in their path, stars would suck up neutrons and or hydrogen in their path - as would galaxies. But - there is an incredible amount of space (pun) in space. From a volume perspective, galaxies are few and far between. Even at densities that cannot be perceived by today's technology, there could easily be more 'dark (non-stellar) neutrons and/or hydrogen mass' in intergalactic space than there is in 'light matter' i.e. stars.

Why is the mass in the universe accelerating outward? All mass eventually decays into neutrinos - which have mass and velocity - and are expelled in random directions at the point of decay at the speed of light. In a simplified model, think of a tennis ball. If one of the hairs on the ball decays into a neutrino, it can be expelled outward or inward. If expelled outward, it will push the skin of the ball back to center a bit. If it is expelled inward, however, it will push the skin of the ball at that point a bit outward. Traveling though the ball to the other side, there is a remote chance of it interacting on the skin on the opposing side - imparting it's momentum and pushing the opposing side away just a bit. The gist of this is that there is always an -outward- net effect from neutrino decay on a universal level as an inner firing neutrino will both push it's origins outward and have a chance of pushing something else outward on it's way out.

If neutrino decay momentum effect is N, then Nout < (Nin + Ncollision) even if Ncollision is rare.

But gravity would pull everything inward, right? Well, combining those two ideas above - that there is a whole lot more neutron and/or hydrogen in the universe than we have so far accounted for, -and- that all mass eventually decays, and that the distance between galaxies is quite far, that tiny little push of neutrino decay is overcoming the tiny effects of gravity at those distances. The net vector is in favor of accelerating expansion.

So, yeah, I think there is a lot of dark mass (non-stellar) in the universe. But, this notion of magical unicorns and "Dark Matter" that physicists are currently chasing, that seems a bit far fetched and more of a faith based than science based theory.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

no scientific theory is "true" in the sense of a mathematical formula being provable given some system of axioms. but there is a crap load of evidence for QM. including all of chemistry.

That may be, but your logic is not part of that evidence because
- If X then Y
- Y
- Therefore X
is invalid.

 

[theredbaron]

On the one hand, back on subject, lets here more about the pyras software stack.

On the other, F that, there's nothing new atm, lets here some cool quantum theory talk.

Grench, if dark matter is just hidden normal matter, as it where, is it your belief that expanding space is the only thing "forcing" galaxies apart then?

Sent from my H3123 using Tapatalk

 

[Grench]

On the one hand, back on subject, lets here more about the pyras software stack.

On the other, F that, there's nothing new atm, lets here some cool quantum theory talk.

Grench, if dark matter is just hidden normal matter, as it where, is it your belief that expanding space is the only thing "forcing" galaxies apart then?

Sent from my H3123 using Tapatalk

Hmm. Clearly you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. I believe that the effects of neutrino decay and the simple resulting momentum is a much more probable culprit for "forcing" galaxies apart.

 

[theredbaron]

Hmm. Clearly you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. I believe that the effects of neutrino decay and the simple resulting momentum is a much more probable culprit for "forcing" galaxies apart.

Sorry, had a tooth pulled and am on some strong pain meds atm, must have glazed over that.

Unless I am misunderstanding, wouldn't neutrino decay cause a decreasing forcing apart speed? As apposed to the ramping up speed we seemingly have. Though, I don't know much about neutrinos, I can't see how, without a white hole, that we could have a ramping up of decay.

Sent from my H3123 using Tapatalk