The measurement device is an observer. The key thing to note is that it takes a piece of information about something very small and propagates that information to a relatively large system, large enough to be human readable. There's no need to infer that there's anything special about being human or feline here.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. For example suppose somebody tried to collect evidence of the afterlife by collecting testimonies of people with near death experiences. Would the burden of proof then be on me to show their testimonies were not evidence of the afterlife? If I couldn't prove (as opposed simply providing alternative plausible narratives) that they were not really experiencing a supernatural event, would I be forced to accept this as evidence of the supernatural? Would my hands be tied as a critic because I am not recognised as an expert in life after death?
There are transferable skills in using evidence and as you move from one discipline to another you see different standards in just how much evidence and how much rigor is required. This is true within sciences and I would guess it is true in different eras of history, due to evidence becoming more scarce in the more distant past. It's not the fault of the historians that they have less to work with than practitioners of hard sciences, but silly to pretend it doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of their subject.
It's pretty amazing that historians have managed to take the burden of proof off themselves and put it onto their critics. Imagine if scientists behaved that way, or prosecutors.
So in all actuality, it's just a matter of faith that the people who say the math is right are in fact right.
They're having faith in a system. The system takes in people, turns them into scientists and engineers, etc. The end product is technology that would amaze people of previous generations whether they understood the science or not. This would be analogous to witnessing miracles. As a result they trust this system and since the scientists are part of a system that works, they have faith in the scientists. For example, people like their sat-navs and can see that they work. They don't usually know Einstein's field equations or how they're relevant, but they're happy to accept the product exists because scientists and engineers were trusted to do their thing behind the scenes.
In the case of AGW, there is no fancy new toy to play with. In fact they're being told they'll have to make sacrifices. At this point they fear the system is no longer working for them, so they want to peer under the hood and rummage around a little. Their hope is that they'll find some way to put it back on its previous course, where it kept on churning out new products without the lectures on what they should and shouldn't consume, etc.
Rocks tend to be a bit of a one trick pony. Their strategy is always to just sit and wait. It works pretty well for them though. They survive a long time. They're numerous, and not just on earth. Some of them even travel between star systems, something mankind has only dreamt of so far.
Pretty much anyone with european ancestors is descended from medieval nobility. So yeah, most aren't as rich as the rockefellers who are also (with high probability) descended from medieval nobility.
If you inherit a lump sum you can use it to buy IP and if you inherit IP you can sell it for a lump sum. So perhaps from the point of view of the inheritor, what really matters is the market value of his inheritance. Really there are two issues here. The first is to what extent inherited wealth is fair. The second is how should the creator be rewarded for his work. One issue spills onto the other because of rules like 'lifetime+50'.
To be clear: The record Farout now holds is for the most-distant solar system body ever observed. That doesn't mean no other objects gets farther away from the sun than 120 AU. In fact, we know some that do. The dwarf planet Sedna gets more than 900 AU away on its highly elliptical orbit, for example, and there are probably trillions of comets in the Oort Cloud, which lies between about 5,000 AU and 100,000 AU from the sun.
Emitting light in green wavelengths is not a sufficient condition for an object to appear green. Yellow and white objects also emit light in green wavelengths for example but do not appear green since they also emit other wavelengths. Then there are cases like the sun viewed from earth's surface where its colour is not just dependent on the wavelengths of light it emits but how the light is scattered by the atmosphere. There are also cases like blue feathers, which have no blue pigment, but still appear blue if you look at them from the right angle. There are of course other subtleties like redshift/blueshift.
So telling us the comet's gas emits light in green wavelengths is informative and so is telling us that the comet would appear green to us but one statement does not imply the other.
P.S. I thought the most obvious comment to make would be about a second coming of jesus or something given it's about a comet at christmas but haven't seen that so far. Strange.
Their ancestors 70 million years ago also had wings and feathers. Birds have probably been around since the Jurassic Period, long before T-rex and velociraptor for example. They still had teeth back then so would have looked a bit weird though.
It says an "interval of 60 ± 48 ka", which is consistent with both my comment and the part of the article you quoted so I'm not sure what your problem is.
We can ask ourselves what a civilisation would see of our remains in 250 million years time. There would be nothing left of our constructions. There might be lots of fossilised remains of chickens though and they might start to question how a silly little fat bird got to be so successful during the chicken epoch. Maybe we should look and see if there are excessive remains of a species that probably wouldn't be so successful unless a dominant species was breeding it.
I appreciate my previous responses may have come across as pedantic but from my point of view I'm trying to sharpen your understanding as much as possible in a short amount of time. I'm doing it for free and I'm the only person trying to help.
It sounds like the case you're most interested in is what happens when lots of photons with lots of energy happen to meet in one spot. Suppose we had a large empty region of space and we surrounded it with lasers. These lasers are all very far away and directed at one point in space. We fire the lasers such that the photons meet at the same time from many different directions. If we successfully get enough photons with enough energy in a small enough volume, then they curve spacetime to the extent that a black hole is formed. If we made one large enough that it did not quickly evaporate, and managed fire in as many photons as you're describing it would be bigger than any black hole so far discovered.
That's the theory anyway. We can't really do this experiment of course or anything close to it. It is quite extreme and heavily contrived. For further reading look up "kugelblitz". If you want a possibly real scenario where photons dominated then look up "photon epoch". Is this the sort of thing you were looking for?
Newton's law of universal gravitation was superseded by general relativity about 100 years ago. One reason why is because it does not model the behaviour of light in a gravitational field correctly. Einstein's cross is an example of gravitational lensing, so these massless particles are following the curvature of spacetime around a massive object. We explain it with general relativity, not Newton's theory of gravity. The case of Mercury's orbit you mention is further evidence for general relativity over Newton's theory.
Massless particles like photons don't really have a rest frame. You can let them bounce around inside a box however, and that box can have a rest frame. Generally we have E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Inside the box the overall momentum can be zero and you get E=mc^2. When not confined, then we have m=0 and E=pc.
The observable universe does not confine photons, so that would not count. Photons (and whole galaxies even), escape the observable universe.
Slashdot Mirror
The measurement device is an observer. The key thing to note is that it takes a piece of information about something very small and propagates that information to a relatively large system, large enough to be human readable. There's no need to infer that there's anything special about being human or feline here.
Yay, a pedantic thread!
Actually, it is the posters who are pedantic, not the thread.
A specific part of the oceans.
I'm not sure how to interpret this. For example suppose somebody tried to collect evidence of the afterlife by collecting testimonies of people with near death experiences. Would the burden of proof then be on me to show their testimonies were not evidence of the afterlife? If I couldn't prove (as opposed simply providing alternative plausible narratives) that they were not really experiencing a supernatural event, would I be forced to accept this as evidence of the supernatural? Would my hands be tied as a critic because I am not recognised as an expert in life after death?
There are transferable skills in using evidence and as you move from one discipline to another you see different standards in just how much evidence and how much rigor is required. This is true within sciences and I would guess it is true in different eras of history, due to evidence becoming more scarce in the more distant past. It's not the fault of the historians that they have less to work with than practitioners of hard sciences, but silly to pretend it doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of their subject.
It's pretty amazing that historians have managed to take the burden of proof off themselves and put it onto their critics. Imagine if scientists behaved that way, or prosecutors.
It's clear from his post he favours compromises so presumably he'd want the insertion of just half the drone into his backside.
So in all actuality, it's just a matter of faith that the people who say the math is right are in fact right.
They're having faith in a system. The system takes in people, turns them into scientists and engineers, etc. The end product is technology that would amaze people of previous generations whether they understood the science or not. This would be analogous to witnessing miracles. As a result they trust this system and since the scientists are part of a system that works, they have faith in the scientists. For example, people like their sat-navs and can see that they work. They don't usually know Einstein's field equations or how they're relevant, but they're happy to accept the product exists because scientists and engineers were trusted to do their thing behind the scenes.
In the case of AGW, there is no fancy new toy to play with. In fact they're being told they'll have to make sacrifices. At this point they fear the system is no longer working for them, so they want to peer under the hood and rummage around a little. Their hope is that they'll find some way to put it back on its previous course, where it kept on churning out new products without the lectures on what they should and shouldn't consume, etc.
Rocks tend to be a bit of a one trick pony. Their strategy is always to just sit and wait. It works pretty well for them though. They survive a long time. They're numerous, and not just on earth. Some of them even travel between star systems, something mankind has only dreamt of so far.
They'll probably just probe Uranus and leave.
Pretty much anyone with european ancestors is descended from medieval nobility. So yeah, most aren't as rich as the rockefellers who are also (with high probability) descended from medieval nobility.
If you inherit a lump sum you can use it to buy IP and if you inherit IP you can sell it for a lump sum. So perhaps from the point of view of the inheritor, what really matters is the market value of his inheritance. Really there are two issues here. The first is to what extent inherited wealth is fair. The second is how should the creator be rewarded for his work. One issue spills onto the other because of rules like 'lifetime+50'.
Try to find me one other profession where you can milk the exploits of someone you probably never even met because he died long before you were born.
Monarch/Emperor?
To be clear: The record Farout now holds is for the most-distant solar system body ever observed. That doesn't mean no other objects gets farther away from the sun than 120 AU. In fact, we know some that do. The dwarf planet Sedna gets more than 900 AU away on its highly elliptical orbit, for example, and there are probably trillions of comets in the Oort Cloud, which lies between about 5,000 AU and 100,000 AU from the sun.
Speak for yourself, Judaism has accepted the possibility of alien life for millenia.
And did the rabbis conclude it is ok for us to eat the aliens or not?
Emitting light in green wavelengths is not a sufficient condition for an object to appear green. Yellow and white objects also emit light in green wavelengths for example but do not appear green since they also emit other wavelengths. Then there are cases like the sun viewed from earth's surface where its colour is not just dependent on the wavelengths of light it emits but how the light is scattered by the atmosphere. There are also cases like blue feathers, which have no blue pigment, but still appear blue if you look at them from the right angle. There are of course other subtleties like redshift/blueshift.
So telling us the comet's gas emits light in green wavelengths is informative and so is telling us that the comet would appear green to us but one statement does not imply the other.
P.S. I thought the most obvious comment to make would be about a second coming of jesus or something given it's about a comet at christmas but haven't seen that so far. Strange.
“From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition,” it said
Their ancestors 70 million years ago also had wings and feathers. Birds have probably been around since the Jurassic Period, long before T-rex and velociraptor for example. They still had teeth back then so would have looked a bit weird though.
Did you know the temperature of the whole universe used to be over a billion degrees and nobody died at all back then?
Did you know the arctic has actually cooled considerably since July?
Is this going far enough that I need to point out it's meant as parody? I seriously hope it is.
It says an "interval of 60 ± 48 ka", which is consistent with both my comment and the part of the article you quoted so I'm not sure what your problem is.
This article says around 60,000 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
How is it a cliffhanger? Thanos achieved his goal. The End.
We can ask ourselves what a civilisation would see of our remains in 250 million years time. There would be nothing left of our constructions. There might be lots of fossilised remains of chickens though and they might start to question how a silly little fat bird got to be so successful during the chicken epoch. Maybe we should look and see if there are excessive remains of a species that probably wouldn't be so successful unless a dominant species was breeding it.
I appreciate my previous responses may have come across as pedantic but from my point of view I'm trying to sharpen your understanding as much as possible in a short amount of time. I'm doing it for free and I'm the only person trying to help.
It sounds like the case you're most interested in is what happens when lots of photons with lots of energy happen to meet in one spot. Suppose we had a large empty region of space and we surrounded it with lasers. These lasers are all very far away and directed at one point in space. We fire the lasers such that the photons meet at the same time from many different directions. If we successfully get enough photons with enough energy in a small enough volume, then they curve spacetime to the extent that a black hole is formed. If we made one large enough that it did not quickly evaporate, and managed fire in as many photons as you're describing it would be bigger than any black hole so far discovered.
That's the theory anyway. We can't really do this experiment of course or anything close to it. It is quite extreme and heavily contrived. For further reading look up "kugelblitz". If you want a possibly real scenario where photons dominated then look up "photon epoch". Is this the sort of thing you were looking for?
Newton's law of universal gravitation was superseded by general relativity about 100 years ago. One reason why is because it does not model the behaviour of light in a gravitational field correctly. Einstein's cross is an example of gravitational lensing, so these massless particles are following the curvature of spacetime around a massive object. We explain it with general relativity, not Newton's theory of gravity. The case of Mercury's orbit you mention is further evidence for general relativity over Newton's theory.
Massless particles like photons don't really have a rest frame. You can let them bounce around inside a box however, and that box can have a rest frame. Generally we have E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. Inside the box the overall momentum can be zero and you get E=mc^2. When not confined, then we have m=0 and E=pc.
The observable universe does not confine photons, so that would not count. Photons (and whole galaxies even), escape the observable universe.
Oh that's right. I must have been thinking of Terminator Genisys. John Connor didn't have a wife in that one.