Of course the universe has apparent structure, in any other universe we would not be here to observe, the existence of our universe in its current state is both extremely unlikely as theoretical possibilities are endless and absolutely inevitable - it obviously does exist as we can observe it.

So if we can observe the universe and assign rules to what we observe and math symbols to those rules, constants will pop up somewhere between those math symbols.

Do the numbers actually mean anything? They are relationships between concepts that we can observe. So to ask if PI could be a different number is weird. You would have to be in a universe where the relationship between a circle and a line is a different number, and that number would then be PI by definition and you would be stuck in exactly the same spot as here.

All you mention are a far cry from sustained hypersonic powered atmospheric flight, which is what we're talking about here.

You mentioned a ramjet, but scramjet engines are hardly an incremental improvement, they're an entirely different class of jet engine. Ramjet engines only do around mach 2.5- 5, scramjets 4-8+ theoretically. What's needed for a viable weapon imo is the next iteration of dual mode ramjets that can do both with one engine, that's a long way off. Public scramjet engine tests have only been successful in a few short 5 second+- burns so far, launched with conventional solid rockets.

Just goes to show that greatness knows no cultural boundaries.

I understand that it's theoretically possible to not like Bohemian Rhapsody, but I can't understand why you would want to live your life in such a joyless fashion. That song is just so much fun.

Still, it'd be interesting to get a similar aged white dude to listen to a hip hop classic ("Nuthin' but a g thang" maybe?) and see if there's a comparable reaction.

Enlightenment, or, "DUDE! IT'S DOING IT TO YOU AS WELL!!!"

I felt sad when I found out non-euclidean geometry was only theoretical too.

100% guaranteed it's not the only one of it's kind. Porsche stuff is almost a direct bolt in replacement for VW parts, I raced a VW powered buggy and it used Porsche parts.
It may have a few modifications that are unique, but the overall idea is far from new. I've seen V-8s swapped into VWs.
It needs front and side spoilers to reach his claimed speeds with any control. I think that's a theoretical top speed.

That distinctive Porsche sound too....(cue dryer full of empty paint cans.)

I've always found it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as a new "fuel", especially when they're referring to hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Using electrolysis means that the theoretical limits are that you can get as much energy -out- of burning hydrogen as you put into splitting the water. The traditional meaning of fuel is the exact opposite, that you can get more energy out of combustion than you have to put into creating the fuel.

TLDR - Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a fuel. It competes against batteries, not against carbon fuels.

Very cool.

I sure would have thought that it would be a platform with hundreds of partially inset mouse/trackballs, rather than treadmills on axes 90 degrees apart. I mean ... sure, any 2D vector can be split into a sum of two orthogonal components. But with redundant inset trackballs you could get stuff like spot pivots that are much finer scale than the scale of the 2-3 inch wide secondary axis treads...

On the other hand, these guys actually have a working prototype, so they clearly thought things through and decided that the orthogonal treadmill solution was better. Rubber meats road trumps off-the-cuff theoretical any day!

I was taught that E=(+-)MC2. (This implies antimatter)

I'm disappointed he wasn't totally clear that all he was doing was adding kinetic energy to the base equation. Of course that adds energy to the system, but the base equation is about mass/energy (how much total energy a certain resting mass contains) not all energy. Heat the mass, you need another equation. Make it radioactive, another.

Also, maybe it's been proven wrong by now, but I recall experiments showing photons do have at least a pseudo mass, proven by their ability to move objects (like the spinning black and white squares inside a vacuum toy and theoretical solar sails).

"First you claimed .2 second split is 300 rpm, now you say it's 90rpm. I'm so over this. Have fun at the range. "

Ahh I see the confusion. I should have been clearer.

I'm reporting two different rates - max theoretical, and actual with aiming and magazine changes.

So using splits alone on an unlimited mag, 0.2 split is 300 rpm.

Using that same 0.2 split with fixed aiming time of 1 second per target and two mag changes (30 round mags) you'll get approximately 90 rounds per minute actual.

Etc. as per my other examples.

It's good to hear you've been shooting that long. If you've been doing it that long you must still enjoy it - which is great.

Yes, by using both pacers and wind blockers, the Nike attempt wouldn't have counted as a world record. At one point it was considered that a sub-4 minute mile was scientifically impossible. The science here would be more reassuring if they talked about that fancy equation, and how it matches various real world runners very well. For example, runner A has a VO2 max of 60, and an efficiency of 95% of theoretical peak. It should be impossible for him to get below the equation's theoretical best time of 2:07, but the best in the world with those stats should get close. Science is all about building a model you think is representative of real life, then test it. I don't see any testing of the model here to prove its validity.

He makes a very persuasive argument.

But then, I think about how there are lots of counterexamples to the "legislation that gets out will be good legislation" bit. Patriot Act. DMCA. Citizens United. Homeland Security and Aviation and Transportation Security Acts.

I dunno. If there is a weakness in the system, perhaps it is that while the separation of powers theoretically makes it hard to get garbage in, it sure as hell also makes it nigh-on-impossible to get it out when any sneaks through.

Wait @harlequinn take a step back from the borders of advanced theoretical physics back to practical stuff like geometry and astronomy and measuring time and heating stuff and using other sources of power than slave labour.

Religion did not get us far in many areas.

If science had to start all over again maybe quarks and strings would look different, but steam engines would be the same. Heart transplants would be very similar. Other parts of medicine might not.

No. To everything said.....no.
You need to learn way more about physics, theoretical physics, and quantum mechanics before asking and self answering questions that require a high level of understanding to answer.
You also need to realise, "I don't know" doesn't equal "God".

EDIT: Consider the circumstance you think He was in before creation, time, space, and energy (as we know it)....now just get rid of Him and you're there.

How about I quote Steven Erickson's succinct summary of humankind:
Children are dying.

I never advocated killing children, I advocated quite the opposite, killing the people who are killing children.

Again, it's context. Should the allied bombing campaign in WW2 have been abandoned because of the huge toll of children they were killing?

I get it, and even said upfront I know you refuse to acknowledge the act of war context, just at least acknowledge that's the context within which my statements were made.

All I really can ask is acknowledge that children are still dying even if we steadfastly sit safely on this side of the ocean ignoring the rest of the world's problems. Acknowledging the possibility that killing the killers could at least theoretically have the potential to reduce the body count would be even better, but I'm not crossing my fingers that you accept that as a possibility.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.