Your video, Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UOIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA819&dq=Junkers+stratosphere&hl=en&ei=4KgNTb33B8S4ngeYq9WjDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&

☚☚(from a 1930's Popular Mechanics article, a gauss gun)
Chances are good, that if there was a practical application for the military as a personal combat weapon, it would already be here. Wait for tinier more powerful batteries maybe? But by that time, a walking DarpaBot with a minigun and grenade launcher will have replaced puny human infantry fleshbots..

Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop. has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Full auto Gauss machine gun firing slugs into a laptop. has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

When I saw it was this guy in the video, I thought "Uh oh, this guy's gonna shoot himself in the leg or something"

Also, a rail gun is different to a coil/gauss gun

So that's what the hell a Gauss cannon in Halo is.

>> ^notarobot:

What kind of insane gun are they using to fire that little pellet?


Surely it'd be some sort of rail or gauss gun?

>> ^Morganth:

Degauss won't always fix it - I permanently screwed up a CRT monitor playing with magnets in high school.


The degauss in most modern CRTs isnt perfect. You can degauss the monitors regardless of their 'gaussed' state if you know what you are doing.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

No, he is nearly making the subtle, but logical distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. Have had this conversation here a lot on the sift. The experience of blue is a very different one than the wavelength of 475 nm (which corresponds to blue for most people). "Light" is a subjective experience not related to real properties of photons. Photons appear bright because through the course of a billion years of evolution, interrupting photons as light, and their corresponding wavelengths as colors has better aided that animal that interrupting them as something else. But that says nothing about photons themselves, only the way in which minds are translating reality.
It is the distinction between Empiricism and Intellectualism. One believing that it takes senses to understand truth, the other, that only the power of pure reason can lead knowledge. I, for one, am mostly under the school of intellectualism as it pertains to epistemology. I trust the power of reason and logic to find truth, not eyeballs and olfactories.

No, the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon would more properly apply to colours than to light itself, which was proven by Newton to be a particle (or at least particule-like, and then later a dual particle-wave thingy of course). His conclusions were accepted by Kant, who redefined the distinction between phenomenon and noumenon to not contradict Newton's findings. Goethe disagreed with Kant and Newton, but he was a fool. He thought light and colour were the same thing thus he failed. Schopenhauer rectified Goethe's theory to apply only to the perception of colour but Goethe wouldn't have it thus he failed again and it was up to psychologists to prove Schopenhauer was actually right in a limited sense.

Your distinction of empiricism and intellectualism is also very naive. As far as we know, the only way you can prove the factuality of your knowledge is through experience. That's why modern science works and idle speculation (like most Ancient Greeks did) does not. Being an empiricist doesn't mean you "trust your eyeballs", quite the contrary in fact. That's why David Hume talks a lot of the required skepticism needed to know nature from one's senses. If we could see things as they are (as noumenon), then we would not need our senses nor our reason to interpret what they sense (the phenomenon). That's in fact the basic premise of Kant's whole Critic of Pure Reason. His solution, in a word, was to view reason as recreating it's own idea, in the original Greek sense of "form", of the original noumenon (the thing-in-itself) by interpreting the filtered sense data of phenomenon that passed through the categories of understanding (like substance, causality, etc.). Some call his solution a form psychologism and I think they are right, but Kant certainly didn't think so. In fact, I think it's not psychologistic enough, though one must be wary of going as far as to try founding everything on psychology, a circular dead end if there was one.

Ultimately, it comes to the question of what kind of knowledge you want: absolute knowledge or human knowledge? I purport absolute knowledge is unknowable (irreducible) to human knowledge in the same way the noumenon is irreducible to the phenomenon, not only by its own definition but by the very way knowledge works (at least for us, meaning in a subject-object duality where the subject cannot simply copy the object it wants to know but must make an inherently reduced image of it, i.e. an idea). I think this problem to be related to the P=NP conundrum. Only if P=NP can we ever hope to achieve absolute knowledge and then that is not even guaranteed (we would need to evolve somehow to transcend the P and NP divide which factually exists in our present human knowledge). As Scott Aaronson of the MIT puts it, "If P=NP, then the world would be a profoundly different place than we usually assume it to be. There would be no special value in “creative leaps,” no fundamental gap between solving a problem and recognizing the solution once it’s found. Everyone who could appreciate a symphony would be Mozart; everyone who could follow a step-by-step argument would be Gauss; everyone who could recognize a good investment strategy would be Warren Buffett. It’s possible to put the point in Darwinian terms: if this is the sort of universe we inhabited, why wouldn’t we already have evolved to take advantage of it?" (from his blog).

FF 1000x to see balloon Gauss cannon.

Well, space-time coordinate of one of those space-time manifold charts (covering the space-time manifold) is one object that you certainly can "travel" back and forth(remember Godel formal PDE's solution for Einstein equation ). However , what realy counts and play the role of the Newtonian time in general Einstein relativity is the unique proper-time of a given event !(this can not be back!). Note that still remains a problem to "adjust" colectivelly the proper time of several geodesics associated to the motion of several particles moving in the back ground of a given relativistic gravitational field (The twin paradox has not been fully understood !).Let me explain better : In the Einstein framework , one gives a certain energy-momentum configuration (the "Sun") (mathematically a tensor of rank two in relation to the Local dipheomorffism space-time manifold group) in the (tensorial bundle) of space-time manifold :a object from the beginning possesing solely a differentiable topological structure and after that (and if compatible with the manifold topology-Chern /Gauss theorem constraint, Riemann completeness ,etc..), one determines the topologically compatible local metric structure of the smooth space-time by means of the famous Einstein Equations.If everything is smooth from a geometrical point of view , one starts the prediction of the "falling" bodies trajectories in this gravitational field throught the solution of the Boundary-Value Sturm liouville like problem associated to the geodesics non linear equations (you should know the beginning and the final point of the falling body trajectory into the space-time ,not the initial point and its "initial velocity" as in Newton Equation).Now one can make further steps on the Einstein program by exchanging the mater-energy Einstein's source by boundary ad-hoc conditions simulating point sources -delta sources-(not dipheomorffism covariant) ,like the Schwartz-Schild solution for Einsteinian particle motions around the Sun), and thus leading to a rich mathematical universe ( astronomical and astrophysical/cosmological observable ?)

>> ^peggedbea:
also, nietzsche=extremely overrated. hegel=extremely underrated

Haha! While I can agree that Nietzsche is indeed overrated since his post-WWII revival, Hegel has been overrated since 1807. Not to mention the fact that every time Hegel spoke about science he was dead wrong. At least Nietzsche kept his mouth shut.

For example Gauss said that "Noah got drunk only one time, to become then, according to the Scriptures, a judicious man, while the insanities of Hegel in the Doctoral Dissertation, where he criticizes Newton and questions the utility of a search for new planets are still wisdom if one compares them with his later remarks."

And to answer HadouKen24, Nietzsche was very much influenced by Dotoevsky, naming him his only reference in psychology. Schopenhauer almost deified Goethe, especially his literary works. And Kierkegaard was pretty much unknown until the first German translations of his work in the 1910s.

check also:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2386195002286717246&q=Gauss