junkscience.com isn't what you think it is about. It's not about debunking bad science rather than fowarding a political agenda. A tell-tale sign to which political agenda is all the Fox news articles appearing in the right column. Take a look at the Skeptical Dictionary entry for more info.
Equation-wise, I know where the constant comes from. It's basically just a natural integration constant in the Freidmann equations that everyone USUALLY sets to zero to make everything work out nice.
The only reason Einstein said it was his biggest blunder because he used it to make the expanding univerise that his solutions gave him into a static universe. Then Hubble came along and verified the universe was indeed expanding by showing a linear relationship between the redshift of galaxies (recession velocity) and distance.
But that still doesn't answer what LAMBDA is physically. Some people have explained it using some sort of combination of vacuum energy and the Kasimir (sp?) effect. Then things get _really_ tricky.
Seeing as I'm in astrophysics and finishing my master's thesis in a closely related field (dark matter), I thought I should reply.
The preprint is about fitting new observational cosmic microwave backround radiation data from BOOMERANG (basically a telescope mounted in an airplane) to the existing cosmological models.
These models are derived from some basic assumptions about the universe (homogeneous and looks the same from all directions) and Einstein's euqations. The models predict a non-static universe that can be flat, open or closed. i.e. the large-scale curvature of _space itself_.
Since the amount of space curvature is directly related to the mass in the universe _and_ thus the amount of "gravatation", the type of universe is dictated by the amount of matter present in the universe. a flat universe means that there exixts a mass density high enough to slow the expansion of the universe until it stops at infinite time. This critical mass density is normalized to one and called OMEGA.
an open universe has "negative" curvature, and will continue to expand forever. The universe does not have enough mass/gravity to slow the expansion to a stop. A closed universe has positive curvature and will slow to a stop, and collapse in some finite time. Maybe to a big crunch. As to where the universe expands to, and if there will be endless big bangs/crunches, people can only guess. Physics tends to break down in those areas.
The data in question (CMBR flucuations) has a direct relation to the amount of matter, and the "lumpiness" of the matter at a very early time in the universe's history. The free parameters in the accepted cosmological models are then varied (think fitting a striaght line to data points) until the data has a "maximum liklihood" of having these parameters.
One of these parameters, OMEGA, is confined to be between 0.85 and 1.25. So, there is a high chance that the universe is flat.
Unfortunately, other obervational evidence (galaxy dynamics) says that the amount of mass in the universe mesured so far has OMEGA = 0.35. OOPS! What about the other 0.65 for OMEGA = 1?
But, not to fear, this is where the cosmological constant comes in. It boils down to an added cosmological "force" that causes extra curvature (mass->gravity->curvature->state of universe) and thus can make the universe flat by boosting OMEGA to 1. Where it comes from, I don't know and don't want to hazard a guess. But the equations contain it!
As a little bit of extra correctness, the fitted models state the part of OMEGA due to mass is about 0.5, which is close to what the galaxy dynamical evidence states. Yay!
OK. back to writing my thesis.
dolby 5.1 -> Pro Logic mixdown
on
DVD for Linux
·
· Score: 1
This spec seems odd. Most receivers/amplifiers use the 5.1 channel input/output. With Pro Logic, you loose most of the surround information.
The first of the two things that the people were complaining about was the article itself, which was a link to the cartoons. I addressed that in the last paragraph of my origional comment. The second complaint was about the link itself. If you read through the comments, you'll find that they are also complaining about the cartoons themselves. I address both points.
There was also a comment that stated that the scenario of an airplane accident can actually happen. I interpreted that comment to be condemning the cartoons because of that point, which caused _me_ deem it PC.
It's up to you about what you find funny and not funny, and that's your own opinion. Other people also have their opinions, and might find the toons enjoyable. i don't want to be compared to Lary Flynt here, but if you don't like it, don't click on it.
Although a specific incident itself (accidents, a loved one dying etc.) is not something to joke about, I do not think that there is anything wrong with finding humor in general of flying (to pick a topic), and the details accompanying them. But, would anyone complain about people joking about airline food? One could pipe up and say "My mother died eating airline food, so don't insult her."
This was about the "instructional booklet found in the seat pocket in front of you", not about the TWA flight 800, or the Swissair crash in Nova Scotia. Jokes about _them_ are in bad taste.
Besides, if we had to check with our Handbook of Political Correctness (I think it's being revised and reprinted once daily), we'd be running around merely stating facts: "This bowl is blue" "I ate breakfast this morning".
Also, big deal if Rob goes "off topic" every once and a while. I think he can do this every few hundred posts, since _he_ provides this site to _us_. If you want to deal with computers only, read an O'Reilly book.
Seriously though, Sanyo makes electronics as well, so I guess there's a perl script or something that stamps the Y2K logo on every product photo the company makes.
I like the Y2K compliant bread warmer even more...
Slashdot Mirror
WOw, I thought I got in on the game late! Probably early 98. I think most of the owners of numbers below 10000 have already grown old and died.
junkscience.com isn't what you think it is about. It's not about debunking bad science rather than fowarding a political agenda. A tell-tale sign to which political agenda is all the Fox news articles appearing in the right column. Take a look at the Skeptical Dictionary entry for more info.
> First, and that $80 is Canadian, which is about $50 US.
Well, that is still $80, and I don't know too many Canadians who get paid in American dollars, or salaries exchange-rate matched to American salaries.
Correct. Look at my 2nd reply.
You are correct and I am wrong! I just went back over my general relativity notes I I see my error right now.
Thank you for pointing that out. I just hope everyone else will read it as well!
Equation-wise, I know where the constant comes from. It's basically just a natural integration constant in the Freidmann equations that everyone USUALLY sets to zero to make everything work out nice.
The only reason Einstein said it was his biggest blunder because he used it to make the expanding univerise that his solutions gave him into a static universe. Then Hubble came along and verified the universe was indeed expanding by showing a linear relationship between the redshift of galaxies (recession velocity) and distance.
But that still doesn't answer what LAMBDA is physically. Some people have explained it using some sort of combination of vacuum energy and the Kasimir (sp?) effect. Then things get _really_ tricky.
Oops. Had I actually read the paper, it would be evident to me that the telescope was balloon-borne and NOT on an airplane =p
Seeing as I'm in astrophysics and finishing my master's thesis in a closely related field (dark matter), I thought I should reply.
The preprint is about fitting new observational cosmic microwave backround radiation data from BOOMERANG (basically a telescope mounted in an airplane) to the existing cosmological models.
These models are derived from some basic assumptions about the universe (homogeneous and looks the same from all directions) and Einstein's euqations. The models predict a non-static universe that can be flat, open or closed. i.e. the large-scale curvature of _space itself_.
Since the amount of space curvature is directly related to the mass in the universe _and_ thus the amount of "gravatation", the type of universe is dictated by the amount of matter present in the universe. a flat universe means that there exixts a mass density high enough to slow the expansion of the universe until it stops at infinite time. This critical mass density is normalized to one and called OMEGA.
an open universe has "negative" curvature, and will continue to expand forever. The universe does not have enough mass/gravity to slow the expansion to a stop. A closed universe has positive curvature and will slow to a stop, and collapse in some finite time. Maybe to a big crunch. As to where the universe expands to, and if there will be endless big bangs/crunches, people can only guess. Physics tends to break down in those areas.
The data in question (CMBR flucuations) has a direct relation to the amount of matter, and the "lumpiness" of the matter at a very early time in the universe's history. The free parameters in the accepted cosmological models are then varied (think fitting a striaght line to data points) until the data has a "maximum liklihood" of having these parameters.
One of these parameters, OMEGA, is confined to be between 0.85 and 1.25. So, there is a high chance that the universe is flat.
Unfortunately, other obervational evidence (galaxy dynamics) says that the amount of mass in the universe mesured so far has OMEGA = 0.35. OOPS! What about the other 0.65 for OMEGA = 1?
But, not to fear, this is where the cosmological constant comes in. It boils down to an added cosmological "force" that causes extra curvature (mass->gravity->curvature->state of universe) and thus can make the universe flat by boosting OMEGA to 1. Where it comes from, I don't know and don't want to hazard a guess. But the equations contain it!
As a little bit of extra correctness, the fitted models state the part of OMEGA due to mass is about 0.5, which is close to what the galaxy dynamical evidence states. Yay!
OK. back to writing my thesis.
This spec seems odd. Most receivers/amplifiers use the 5.1 channel input/output. With Pro Logic, you loose most of the surround information.
Will it support the 5.1 channel output?
---
I stand corrected!
I think you summmed up my point quite well.
The first of the two things that the people were complaining about was the article itself, which was a link to the cartoons. I addressed that in the last paragraph of my origional comment. The second complaint was about the link itself. If you read through the comments, you'll find that they are also complaining about the cartoons themselves. I address both points.
There was also a comment that stated that the scenario of an airplane accident can actually happen. I interpreted that comment to be condemning the cartoons because of that point, which caused _me_ deem it PC.
It's up to you about what you find funny and not
funny, and that's your own opinion. Other people also have their opinions, and might find the toons
enjoyable. i don't want to be compared to Lary Flynt here, but if you don't like it, don't click on it.
Although a specific incident itself (accidents, a loved one dying etc.) is not something to joke about, I do not think that there is anything wrong with finding humor in general of flying (to pick a topic), and the details accompanying them. But, would anyone complain about people joking about airline food? One could pipe up and say "My mother died eating airline food, so don't insult her."
This was about the "instructional booklet found in the seat pocket in front of you", not about the TWA flight 800, or the Swissair crash in Nova Scotia. Jokes about _them_ are in bad taste.
Besides, if we had to check with our Handbook of Political Correctness (I think it's being revised and reprinted once daily), we'd be running around merely stating facts:
"This bowl is blue"
"I ate breakfast this morning".
Also, big deal if Rob goes "off topic" every once and a while. I think he can do this every few hundred posts, since _he_ provides this site to _us_. If you want to deal with computers only, read an O'Reilly book.
Holy crap! I needed some oxygen after that one.
Seriously though, Sanyo makes electronics as well,
so I guess there's a perl script or something
that stamps the Y2K logo on every product photo
the company makes.
I like the Y2K compliant bread warmer even more...