I agree that we've let that lapse. The President is supposed to appoint an Administrator for the Economic Regulatory Administration, but Reagan didn't and no one else has since. It is too bad too. The State Department is handing cross border pipelines, which is not really their area. It is supposed to be the Economic Regulatory Administration that does that. http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
From the paper: "Note that as
2m anti-particles are stimulated behind the horizon in region II, particle number is conserved.
We should also point out that because the incident particle carries energy and momentum, the
black hole does not have to donate mass in order to allow the emission of stimulated pairs, as
it does for virtual pairs."
While stimulated emission of photons plays a big role in this, it is not really the physics of lasers.
I agree this is the wrong unit since fuel costs are the main thing (plus environmental and public health costs) but someone may have tried to make things inter-comparable by integrating over twenty years of solar panel use, found the equivalent fossil fuel cost and divided back down. Looks like they may have forgotten to make electricity from the fossil fuels (neglected efficiency) since grid parity comes in at around $1/Watt for solar.
They like the South because they can get a constant speed and heading that fits well and is also consistent with Boeing autopilot behavior. This good fit in the South means that in the North, a path would need variable speed and/or turns to get a fit. But, you might expect that kind of behavior (though not necessarily what would work to get a fit) if there is some plan to avoid radar being carried out in the North.
Well, if a plane were stationary and emitting constantly, you'd agree that the signal would blueshift as the satellite moves South if the plane were in the South but redshift if the plane were in the North? That is what breaks the symmetry, except there have to be some assumptions about how the plane moves. Assume the plane is flying South in the South, then when the satellite moves South, that cuts the redshift of the departing plane, while if the plane is in the North going North the redshift of the plane's motion away from the satellite is increased. If you know (somehow) that the ground speed would be the same in either case, then you know which hemisphere. But, if you slow the plane down in the North, but not in the South, then the North will look like the South again. You could also turn the plane in the North without reducing speed, but reducing the projected velocity component along the line of sight to the satellite and get a similar effect. Now, when the satellite moves North, the redshift for the South going plane increases and for the North going plane it decreases. Now, to make the North look like the South, you need to speed up the North going plane. So, that would look squirrelly if the South is looking like it fits nicely with a constant speed and heading over a number of samples. So, in the North, the plane would have to be speeding up and slowing down or turning in a manner that makes it look like it knows how the satellite is moving. So, you prefer the South in that case, unless there are other reasons for the plane to be speeding up and slowing down and turning, like trying to avoid radar or to climb the Himalayas. Then you need to see if the terrain makes sense for that kind of behavior. Are we on the same page?
Not that may died because they had paid money to be conveyed safely from one place to another. Seems like there are some special circumstances here that your position ignores.
Turns out the relative motions are key, or rather the satellite motions are key. http://news.slashdot.org/comme... Here is simple example. You are living in Flatland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... and some square has turned on a teakettle and filled the whole plane with steam. You can't see anything and you want to turn it off and make some tea to clear both your head and your vision. One way to find out which way to slide to get to the teakettle would be to move around in a circle. On one part of the circle, the whistle would have a high annoying pitch, on another, a low pleasing hum, and on a couple other parts in between, the usual alerting sound. Which way do you go? Tangent to the part of the circle that was annoying you. After a cup of tea and contemplation of the design aspects of kettles and their whistles, you realize that this method could be applied in any number of dimensions so long as your velocity had changing components along each. Another cup of tea latter, it becomes clear that if you can assume something about the trajectory and velocity of a flying teakettle (say that they are constant), you could model its flight and figure out where to intercept it at teatime.
Back in Flatland, (assuming the teakettle is stationary) by calculating the intercept of the most annoying tangent and the most pleasing tangent you will also know how far to slide. I'd leave the rest as an exercise, but in Flatland, exercise does not make you any thinner... but that intercept in 3D is worth considering.
The company is saying that the precision of their work is limited by the precision of their knowledge of the satellite position and velocity. The satellite does not have GPS aboard. It seems to me that planes which are transmitting their GPS positions, headings and speed could be used to refine that knowledge by inverting the process they have used.
But, it won't have a lot of seaweed or barnacles so it should be easy to recognize. If it is found at all, it can support the analysis of the satellite data which may still get more precise.
They are saying that they get a good fit with a straight path and constant speed, and you can sort of do that in the South without moving towards the satellite. The last seven pings are moving away. But, a path with a turn in it to the North might fit as well if the speed is adjusted, as it might be to deal with altitude in those high mountains. One likes to fix parameters to reduce degrees of freedom to get a satisfyingly tight reduced chi^2. But, there is agency here. Someone made at least three turns. So, there should be little cost to making more turns if it is part of some clever radar evading plan, even if a reduced chi^2 scheme would make that expensive in a formal sense. So, models that respond to the radar holes that both India and China have conceded may be present need to be considered against the data as well for consistency. And, Indonesia's strong claims of radar capability together with the inescapable over water approach to their installations still need to be considered as problems for the Southern route. Perhaps they have done a thorough job of this already. But, so far, we've only heard about the analysis of the Southern route with respect to the satellite data.
An alternative to crashing on land is landing on land. Unfortunately, this would most likely be something arranged by the Taliban linked East Turkestan Islamic Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... which kills Chinese people for fun.
I think you are right, it is degenerate. The thing they have been saying is they get a match with other southbound flights. So, I think basically they are seeing a pattern consistent with constant speed and heading with the speed consistent with what Boeing expects for autopilot performance. So, there is more being put into this.
This analysis seems to depend of a "last turn" and constant speed for reconstruction. That could turn out to be a bit circular since a Northern track would likely have some turns in it to avoid radar and some speed changes dealing with altitude changes. But, the speed estimate along the line of sight between the plane and the satellite might mimic the straight line assumption in the South if Bhutan were a way point before turning towards the China/Kyrgyzstan border area. You'd get the same small-followed-by-growing Doppler shift pattern. It would be good to know it they modeled paths of that sort in their analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
The Technocracy Movement was over in the 1930s really but it has some ongoing echos such as Peak Oil theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
I agree that we've let that lapse. The President is supposed to appoint an Administrator for the Economic Regulatory Administration, but Reagan didn't and no one else has since. It is too bad too. The State Department is handing cross border pipelines, which is not really their area. It is supposed to be the Economic Regulatory Administration that does that. http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
The data are available here: http://www.airtrafficmanagemen...
My point was that data reduction to the limit zero data used to be easy to do.
From the paper: "Note that as 2m anti-particles are stimulated behind the horizon in region II, particle number is conserved. We should also point out that because the incident particle carries energy and momentum, the black hole does not have to donate mass in order to allow the emission of stimulated pairs, as it does for virtual pairs." While stimulated emission of photons plays a big role in this, it is not really the physics of lasers.
I agree this is the wrong unit since fuel costs are the main thing (plus environmental and public health costs) but someone may have tried to make things inter-comparable by integrating over twenty years of solar panel use, found the equivalent fossil fuel cost and divided back down. Looks like they may have forgotten to make electricity from the fossil fuels (neglected efficiency) since grid parity comes in at around $1/Watt for solar.
used to be the preferred method of data reduction.
They like the South because they can get a constant speed and heading that fits well and is also consistent with Boeing autopilot behavior. This good fit in the South means that in the North, a path would need variable speed and/or turns to get a fit. But, you might expect that kind of behavior (though not necessarily what would work to get a fit) if there is some plan to avoid radar being carried out in the North.
Well, if a plane were stationary and emitting constantly, you'd agree that the signal would blueshift as the satellite moves South if the plane were in the South but redshift if the plane were in the North? That is what breaks the symmetry, except there have to be some assumptions about how the plane moves. Assume the plane is flying South in the South, then when the satellite moves South, that cuts the redshift of the departing plane, while if the plane is in the North going North the redshift of the plane's motion away from the satellite is increased. If you know (somehow) that the ground speed would be the same in either case, then you know which hemisphere. But, if you slow the plane down in the North, but not in the South, then the North will look like the South again. You could also turn the plane in the North without reducing speed, but reducing the projected velocity component along the line of sight to the satellite and get a similar effect. Now, when the satellite moves North, the redshift for the South going plane increases and for the North going plane it decreases. Now, to make the North look like the South, you need to speed up the North going plane. So, that would look squirrelly if the South is looking like it fits nicely with a constant speed and heading over a number of samples. So, in the North, the plane would have to be speeding up and slowing down or turning in a manner that makes it look like it knows how the satellite is moving. So, you prefer the South in that case, unless there are other reasons for the plane to be speeding up and slowing down and turning, like trying to avoid radar or to climb the Himalayas. Then you need to see if the terrain makes sense for that kind of behavior. Are we on the same page?
Yes, the satellite motion turns out to be key.
Not that may died because they had paid money to be conveyed safely from one place to another. Seems like there are some special circumstances here that your position ignores.
Turns out the relative motions are key, or rather the satellite motions are key. http://news.slashdot.org/comme... Here is simple example. You are living in Flatland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... and some square has turned on a teakettle and filled the whole plane with steam. You can't see anything and you want to turn it off and make some tea to clear both your head and your vision. One way to find out which way to slide to get to the teakettle would be to move around in a circle. On one part of the circle, the whistle would have a high annoying pitch, on another, a low pleasing hum, and on a couple other parts in between, the usual alerting sound. Which way do you go? Tangent to the part of the circle that was annoying you. After a cup of tea and contemplation of the design aspects of kettles and their whistles, you realize that this method could be applied in any number of dimensions so long as your velocity had changing components along each. Another cup of tea latter, it becomes clear that if you can assume something about the trajectory and velocity of a flying teakettle (say that they are constant), you could model its flight and figure out where to intercept it at teatime. Back in Flatland, (assuming the teakettle is stationary) by calculating the intercept of the most annoying tangent and the most pleasing tangent you will also know how far to slide. I'd leave the rest as an exercise, but in Flatland, exercise does not make you any thinner... but that intercept in 3D is worth considering.
The company is saying that the precision of their work is limited by the precision of their knowledge of the satellite position and velocity. The satellite does not have GPS aboard. It seems to me that planes which are transmitting their GPS positions, headings and speed could be used to refine that knowledge by inverting the process they have used.
So, you are performing a parallax in velocity on a model flight trajectory. Yes, that does give you a direction. Nice insight.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/engl...
He is the senior vice president of external affairs, so yes, public relations.
But, it won't have a lot of seaweed or barnacles so it should be easy to recognize. If it is found at all, it can support the analysis of the satellite data which may still get more precise.
They are saying that they get a good fit with a straight path and constant speed, and you can sort of do that in the South without moving towards the satellite. The last seven pings are moving away. But, a path with a turn in it to the North might fit as well if the speed is adjusted, as it might be to deal with altitude in those high mountains. One likes to fix parameters to reduce degrees of freedom to get a satisfyingly tight reduced chi^2. But, there is agency here. Someone made at least three turns. So, there should be little cost to making more turns if it is part of some clever radar evading plan, even if a reduced chi^2 scheme would make that expensive in a formal sense. So, models that respond to the radar holes that both India and China have conceded may be present need to be considered against the data as well for consistency. And, Indonesia's strong claims of radar capability together with the inescapable over water approach to their installations still need to be considered as problems for the Southern route. Perhaps they have done a thorough job of this already. But, so far, we've only heard about the analysis of the Southern route with respect to the satellite data.
An alternative to crashing on land is landing on land. Unfortunately, this would most likely be something arranged by the Taliban linked East Turkestan Islamic Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... which kills Chinese people for fun.
I think you are right, it is degenerate. The thing they have been saying is they get a match with other southbound flights. So, I think basically they are seeing a pattern consistent with constant speed and heading with the speed consistent with what Boeing expects for autopilot performance. So, there is more being put into this.
Actually the delays got progressively longer. http://science.slashdot.org/st... So, this equator effect did not happen.
Right, but it is degenerate. Both estimates are projected speeds towards or away from the satellite.
This analysis seems to depend of a "last turn" and constant speed for reconstruction. That could turn out to be a bit circular since a Northern track would likely have some turns in it to avoid radar and some speed changes dealing with altitude changes. But, the speed estimate along the line of sight between the plane and the satellite might mimic the straight line assumption in the South if Bhutan were a way point before turning towards the China/Kyrgyzstan border area. You'd get the same small-followed-by-growing Doppler shift pattern. It would be good to know it they modeled paths of that sort in their analysis.
Based on the analysis of the satellite data.
China has some doubts about the possibility that its radar could be evaded. http://www.scmp.com/news/china...