Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

FCC Chief: 300MHz More Spectrum By 2015

cain amofni does US gov't have the right to auction bandwidth? (60 comments)

why does the government have the right to 'auction' (sell) bandwidth? do they own it? if so, from whom did they get it? could guns have anything to do with it? I wonder who gets the money and what they will do with it.

about 2 years ago
top

New Study Shows Universe Still Expanding On Schedule

cain amofni Re:Not to be pedantic (173 comments)

I hear what you're saying but my point is that the Hubble constant is relative, not absolute. Relative to the observer in a non-absolute location. The expansion is an exponential scalar motion without any center. Even the edge of the observable universe is relative to the observer. So it's fine to talk about the universe expanding, but expanding relative to what? By definition, the size (radius) of the universe is that of only the observable universe - relative to us. Someone way over at the edge (according to us) is likely to see a different observable universe that extends 13 billion light years in all directions from their center of observation, beyond which the expansion rate is > c (again relative to us only), so quite a bit of that is invisible to us and always will be. So the limit of observability is 13 billion light years. Is it a coincidence that the calculated age of the universe (from only observables) is also 13 billion years? Of course not. Neither is the fact that the dimension of the Hubble constant is a frequency that resolves to 1/13 billion years. What is the probability of all those emerging without a common first principle? And what is the likelihood that we would happen to be at the center of the observable universe? About zero, to say nothing of the "total" universe. There is no reason at all to assume that we know the size or age of the "universe" and to throw that into the discussion of the Hubble constant (as many are on this thread) is meaningless.

about 2 years ago
top

Hiring Smokers – Banned In South Florida City

cain amofni nicotine quickens the neurons (3 comments)

I'm smarter than all those non-users even though I only puff on an e-cig. This is all part of an evil plot to dumb down America. Florida is leading the way... USA is fucked... I'm outta here!

about 2 years ago
top

New Study Shows Universe Still Expanding On Schedule

cain amofni Re:Not to be pedantic (173 comments)

yes. the prevailing conjecture seems to be at odds with a little einsteinian problem: no absolute rest, no absolute velocity. so what is expanding at that rate with respect to what? if they said the 'edge of the observable universe' then it would have meaning, but since there is a limit of observable range due to the fact that beyond a certain distance from the observer (us), a galaxy or quasar would be receding at a cumulative rate greater than the speed of light, and hence, exits the observable universe relative to our vantage point. thus, unless we are at the center of the universe - highly unlikely - then the observable universe is a subset of the total universe. so we really have no way of knowing the actual size of the universe, or whether it's infinite, in which case, saying it's expanding at a certain rate has no meaning at all.

about 2 years ago

Submissions

top

Bitcoin is voluntarist, not socialist

cain amofni cain amofni writes  |  about 2 years ago

cain amofni writes ""Bitcoin is a strict peer to peer protocol, and not a centralized system under the control of arbitrary rules or fallacious economic ideas like Keynesianism. In its essence, Bitcoin acts like a law of nature (powered by cryptography) and it does not ‘care’ about your philosophy or ideology. By dint of this alone, Bitcoin cannot be called ‘socialist’ or have a political philosophy attributed to it, any more than an inanimate object, or a fundamental force of nature can. It is designed to do one thing, it does that thing, and that thing is not inherently political""
Link to Original Source

Journals

cain amofni has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?