In general, by genetically modifying something we make it less fit in a survival sense. Look at all the plants and animals we've domesticated for our use by hybridization. They hardly run rampant destroying their wild cousins. In fact they'd be dead without our help, because we've reduced their fitness by making them overproduce some aspect we are interested in.
This algae is no different. The modification actually makes each cell absorb less light so it absorbs only what it can use allowing the sunlight to be spread over more cells. So this algae is less competitive than its wild "light-hogging" cousins.
I also have to point to my favorite counterexample of the idea that science has to be oversimplified to be worth reading,
Carl Zimmer. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/
let's run with the satellite idea a bit. The antipode of the crater is just off the southern coast of China/eastern coast of Vietnam. If anybody can find some info about the general direction the object was heading when it crashed we could see what areas this might have traveled over if it was indeed a satellite.
Don't mod parent down. mod up, and explain why the idea is total rubbish.
I read a few of the arguments from the page, just to know what you are talking about.
Neither Einstein's relativity nor quantum mechanics are physics so we cannot use them as a foundation for our new model (although we should find that the mathematics that works in the real world still applies).We have to discard "modern" physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle - to discard our training and prejudices and to approach the problem with a beginner's mind.
whew! I'm so glad we can at least keep mathematics - or some part of it - because reinventing physics without it would be problematic
We must "go down" one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant structures of electric charges of opposite sign that sum to the charge on that particle....The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle.It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field.... The same model applies to the proton and the neutron.
So all the particle physics results indicating the existence of quarks are fictional? Well if we had known they didn't exist we wouldn't have spent so much time and money pinning down their properties.
When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been interpreted as an increase in mass. However, charges have no mass.
I (and particle physicists) much prefer E^2 = (pc)^2 +m^2*c^4 where m is the rest-mass; an unchanging invariant property. only the momentum p has relativistic terms in it.
The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself.
The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles - a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.
We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. It may seem fast to us, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit and requiring force to be transmitted by particles would render the universe completely incoherent.
Then this would be a really good algorithm. You have a colleague in each town put up a set of beamsplitters which correspond to the roads connecting his city to the others, and (approximately) tada!
Slashdot Mirror
That pic is missing a big bold-fonted "PWNED" caption
Additionally, even a randomly generated security approach will be pointless if people get lazy and make up the randomized schedule a week in advance.
In general, by genetically modifying something we make it less fit in a survival sense. Look at all the plants and animals we've domesticated for our use by hybridization. They hardly run rampant destroying their wild cousins. In fact they'd be dead without our help, because we've reduced their fitness by making them overproduce some aspect we are interested in. This algae is no different. The modification actually makes each cell absorb less light so it absorbs only what it can use allowing the sunlight to be spread over more cells. So this algae is less competitive than its wild "light-hogging" cousins.
I also have to point to my favorite counterexample of the idea that science has to be oversimplified to be worth reading, Carl Zimmer. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/
let's run with the satellite idea a bit. The antipode of the crater is just off the southern coast of China/eastern coast of Vietnam. If anybody can find some info about the general direction the object was heading when it crashed we could see what areas this might have traveled over if it was indeed a satellite.
I read a few of the arguments from the page, just to know what you are talking about.
Neither Einstein's relativity nor quantum mechanics are physics so we cannot use them as a foundation for our new model (although we should find that the mathematics that works in the real world still applies).We have to discard "modern" physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle - to discard our training and prejudices and to approach the problem with a beginner's mind.
whew! I'm so glad we can at least keep mathematics - or some part of it - because reinventing physics without it would be problematic
We must "go down" one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant structures of electric charges of opposite sign that sum to the charge on that particle....The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle.It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field.... The same model applies to the proton and the neutron.
So all the particle physics results indicating the existence of quarks are fictional? Well if we had known they didn't exist we wouldn't have spent so much time and money pinning down their properties.
When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been interpreted as an increase in mass. However, charges have no mass.
I (and particle physicists) much prefer E^2 = (pc)^2 +m^2*c^4 where m is the rest-mass; an unchanging invariant property. only the momentum p has relativistic terms in it.
The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself.
The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles - a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.
We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. It may seem fast to us, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit and requiring force to be transmitted by particles would render the universe completely incoherent.
Holy friggin' hell. check out http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-10/images/p48fig1.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_Gold_Beam-Beam_Collision_Events_at_RHIC_at_100_100_GeV_c_per_beam_recorded_by_STAR.jpg image created at RHIC. Think about what standard physics implies about the result versus "Electric physics"
Electric Physics
1. individual gold atoms are accelerated perhaps to >c
2. energy is added into some electric fields within the atom
3. the electric fields do not interact with any neutrinos until the atoms near each other
4. the electric fields interact with thousands of undetected neutrinos at the exact point where the atoms collide (kind of
Then this would be a really good algorithm. You have a colleague in each town put up a set of beamsplitters which correspond to the roads connecting his city to the others, and (approximately) tada!