Actually, when the expected value of the ticket exceeds the purchase price you inevitably win out in the long run. So if for $1 you get a 1 in 170M chance of winning 340M dollars, you should expect $2 for each $1 you 'invest'. The drawback on this investment in this case is the intrest rate. If you bought a ticket a week you could expect the average time to payout to be worse than your offspring evolvong into intergalactic dominating super beings who would just lend you the cash anyhow.
Plus thats in year 170,002,007 dollars.
IIRC some Australian firm bought a high percentage of the available combinations, increased the expected time to payuout, and won big for thier investors.
Seriously the media and artists never talk to those sciency types. There is no such thing as 'Black Hole' as on this offender of child hood learning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole.
Straight space as observed by human eyes and interpreted by human brains is defined by movement along a light ray path. It is obvious because if you are looking directly at an object as it appears that is where the photons come from.
Light bends severely near the event horizion making it an invisibility cloak even better than this one: http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm because instead of mimicking the light it actually bends space to redirect the light itself. Sweet...
There is a point at which any object directly behind the black hole makes a ring due to space being bent like a lens so that the rays converge and fall on a single point. However lensing by a black hole, even up close, will resemble this http://www-ra.phys.utas.edu.au/~jlovell/simlens/lens_large.gif
If you could see past all the super heated hydrogen (as in the artistic rendering) black holes have zero angular width because light (and anything else) only passes through the essentially spherical event horizion at near 90 degrees. This condition is satisfied by a point in our visible space. It is not possible to view one directly at all. This instead has the effect of bending space such that the background behind the black hole is distorted.
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity," in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), defined as a "ring singularity."
INAP but it stands to reason that light rays simply do not terminate without a far end in our space time. There may be a dim spot near the center of the lens - but no black. Looks like this is a little more accurate simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlackHole_Lensing_2.gif
Here is a more accurate animation showing how the famous 'ring with a black center' looks in motion. http://www-ra.phys.utas.edu.au/~jlovell/simlens/lens_large.gif The hole would just appear black because the light rays that would come from the center are higly bent and therefore are dim in the same way that light viewed through a microscope is dim.
How much more must we endure before the artists talk to the scientists?
If you could see past all the super heated hydrogen (as in the artistic rendering) black holes have zero angular width because light (and anything else) only passes through the essentially spherical event horizion at near 90 degrees. This condition is satisfied by a point in space. It is not possible to view one directly This instead has the effect of bending space such that the background behind the black hole is distorted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity/
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity," in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), defined as a "ring singularity."
INAP but it stands to reason that light rays simply do not terminate without a far end in our space time. There may be a dim spot near the center of the lens - but no black. Looks like this is a more accurate simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlackHole_Lensing_2.gif
survival of the tastiest lol. Don't forget about survival of the cutest. The whole 'screw the tuna save the dolphin' thing. How can anything most think of as ugly even be worth keeping around? I don't get it. It's thier fault they are not cute to us! I mean, when was the last time poodles were threatened with extinction?
I wonder what would happen if we genetically engineered a super cute AND tasty animal. lol.
Plus people forget that even in a closed system it is the TOTAL entropy that must increase. It is very possible given enough energy and the right conditions to form order in localized areas at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. The second law does not state that order is impossible. lol.
Actually the parent incorrectly thought the KE (kenetic energy to those skilled in the art) would be different for two densities when in fact they are the same.
If you were to go on to read my post you would notice this:
Therefore if you have the same distance and the same force, you wind up with exactly the same kinetic energy at impact thought the speeds and impact times differ.
Thus the impact velocity is different only because KE is identical in all cases and the different mass forces different accelerations and thus constrains the impact velocity.
The units of energy are Ft-lbs for the reason work is defined as force x distance.
What I don't see right away is how the energy balance works here. Lets say both pieces are the same shape (and keep the same orientation through the fall) so the drag FORCE is the same. Now lets say the distance to the target (perhaps the wing edge) is also the same.
Energy not only equals.5 x m x v^2 it also equals FORCE x distance.
Therefore if you have the same distance and the same force, you wind up with exactly the same kinetic energy at impact thought the speeds and impact times differ.
My $0.002 (given that I have not actually checed this issue out thouroughly) is that it may be more of a matter of when and where the foam breaks off from vs. the likely places for ice to form.
"The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart."
So what is needed is a structure that can be converted from a left handed substance to a right handed substance using less energy than you can extract from the plates movement.
You could store energy from the plates moving together, then change the material properties of the material inbetween (making it left handed), then the plates would repel and you could extract energy again. If it were possible to do this then it would be possible to extract energy from vaccuum? I can't think of why but that just seems like too much of a free lunch to be feasible. But Samantha Carter always makes it look soo easy so it should be possible, at least on cable.
Disclaimer: INAP (but I do have a few engineering degrees)
Actually, tidal energy does not come from the seperation of the earth and moon in the potential gravity well of the two. Tidal energy comes from the reduction of the difference in rotational kinetic energy between the two. The length of the day used to be much shorter and with every tidal flow it is lengthened. This damping is why we only see one side of the moon and why eventually the moon will be flung much farther out in orbit lengthing the day on earth.
So if you bastards steal the rotation of the earth and I have to work 37 hour days somehow I will make you pay!
Slashdot Mirror
Plus thats in year 170,002,007 dollars.
IIRC some Australian firm bought a high percentage of the available combinations, increased the expected time to payuout, and won big for thier investors.
Straight space as observed by human eyes and interpreted by human brains is defined by movement along a light ray path. It is obvious because if you are looking directly at an object as it appears that is where the photons come from.
Light bends severely near the event horizion making it an invisibility cloak even better than this one: http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm because instead of mimicking the light it actually bends space to redirect the light itself. Sweet...
There is a point at which any object directly behind the black hole makes a ring due to space being bent like a lens so that the rays converge and fall on a single point. However lensing by a black hole, even up close, will resemble this http://www-ra.phys.utas.edu.au/~jlovell/simlens/lens_large.gif
http://positrons.physics.lsa.umich.edu/nanopos/Publications/Reprints/Annual%20Rev%20Materials%20Research%20PAS%202006.pdf Used mostly for characterizing porus materials. Fun read if you find materials or nuclear science interesting, however perhaps too boring to put forth as informations in TFA.
Apparently outdoing some undisclosed reactor in Munich is about all they say.
Apparently in 1985 you couldn't walk into a store and buy plutonium but perhaps in 2015 you can buy antimatter.
Still waiting for the episode on Catholicism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965
Ever since Disney's movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole (damn that cover) everyone runs around thinking about how wide dem' black holes are.
If you could see past all the super heated hydrogen (as in the artistic rendering) black holes have zero angular width because light (and anything else) only passes through the essentially spherical event horizion at near 90 degrees. This condition is satisfied by a point in our visible space. It is not possible to view one directly at all. This instead has the effect of bending space such that the background behind the black hole is distorted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity," in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), defined as a "ring singularity."
Yet on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#_note-0 here comes the giant black ball of timely death.
INAP but it stands to reason that light rays simply do not terminate without a far end in our space time. There may be a dim spot near the center of the lens - but no black. Looks like this is a little more accurate simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlackHole_Lensing_2.gif
Here is a more accurate animation showing how the famous 'ring with a black center' looks in motion. http://www-ra.phys.utas.edu.au/~jlovell/simlens/lens_large.gif The hole would just appear black because the light rays that would come from the center are higly bent and therefore are dim in the same way that light viewed through a microscope is dim.
How much more must we endure before the artists talk to the scientists?
Ever since Disney's movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole/ (damn that cover) everyone runs around thinking about how wide dem' black holes are.
If you could see past all the super heated hydrogen (as in the artistic rendering) black holes have zero angular width because light (and anything else) only passes through the essentially spherical event horizion at near 90 degrees. This condition is satisfied by a point in space. It is not possible to view one directly This instead has the effect of bending space such that the background behind the black hole is distorted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity/
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity," in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), defined as a "ring singularity."Yet on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#_note-0/ here comes the giant black ball of timely death.
INAP but it stands to reason that light rays simply do not terminate without a far end in our space time. There may be a dim spot near the center of the lens - but no black. Looks like this is a more accurate simulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlackHole_Lensing_2.gif
Here is an accurate animation showing how the famous 'ring with a black center' looks in motion. http://www-ra.phys.utas.edu.au/~jlovell/simlens/lens_large.gif/
How much more must we endure before the artists talk to the scientists?
Man it sure is bright out today...
Fry: "Did you build the smelloscope?"
Professor: "No, I remembered that I built one last year."
Fry: "Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus." *laughs*
Leela: "I don't get it."
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
Fry: "Hehe, no, no, I think I'll just smell around a bit over here."
Fry: "Did you build the smelloscope?"
Professor: "No, I remembered that I built one last year."
Fry: "Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus." *laughs*
Leela: "I don't get it."
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
Fry: "Hehe, no, no, I think I'll just smell around a bit over here."
I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
Not only does she look good - her heart is slim and sexy!
I wonder what would happen if we genetically engineered a super cute AND tasty animal. lol.
Plus people forget that even in a closed system it is the TOTAL entropy that must increase. It is very possible given enough energy and the right conditions to form order in localized areas at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. The second law does not state that order is impossible. lol.
If you were to go on to read my post you would notice this:
Therefore if you have the same distance and the same force, you wind up with exactly the same kinetic energy at impact thought the speeds and impact times differ.Thus the impact velocity is different only because KE is identical in all cases and the different mass forces different accelerations and thus constrains the impact velocity.
The units of energy are Ft-lbs for the reason work is defined as force x distance.
Energy not only equals .5 x m x v^2 it also equals FORCE x distance.
Therefore if you have the same distance and the same force, you wind up with exactly the same kinetic energy at impact thought the speeds and impact times differ.
My $0.002 (given that I have not actually checed this issue out thouroughly) is that it may be more of a matter of when and where the foam breaks off from vs. the likely places for ice to form.
"The problem is that once the plates have moved together which is work, you don't get any more work out of the system unless you move the plates back apart." So what is needed is a structure that can be converted from a left handed substance to a right handed substance using less energy than you can extract from the plates movement. You could store energy from the plates moving together, then change the material properties of the material inbetween (making it left handed), then the plates would repel and you could extract energy again. If it were possible to do this then it would be possible to extract energy from vaccuum? I can't think of why but that just seems like too much of a free lunch to be feasible. But Samantha Carter always makes it look soo easy so it should be possible, at least on cable.
Disclaimer: INAP (but I do have a few engineering degrees) Actually, tidal energy does not come from the seperation of the earth and moon in the potential gravity well of the two. Tidal energy comes from the reduction of the difference in rotational kinetic energy between the two. The length of the day used to be much shorter and with every tidal flow it is lengthened. This damping is why we only see one side of the moon and why eventually the moon will be flung much farther out in orbit lengthing the day on earth. So if you bastards steal the rotation of the earth and I have to work 37 hour days somehow I will make you pay!