That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?
Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back?
I love the way you constructed that sentence. I think you're stretching the limits of the English language a bit, but it does appear to be grammatically correct:-)
Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.
But if protons are the same size and the apparent shrinkage is due to our meter sticks expanding, why would they be expanding? Is it the forces between particles that are changing? Energy levels? Why would particles be further apart now than before?
Anyway, I don't think the universe, or protons, have changed size by 4% in a few decades so this discussion is a bit pointless. They just used two different methods of measuring the size, and one or both of those methods are wrong. Which could yield interesting new physics, but nothing radical like protons shrinking 4% in the blink of a cosmological eye.
Criticising new theories which are inconsistent with old theories is important. Criticising reality which is inconsistent with old theories is madness
It's not reality until they've actually seen these atoms go up. So this gravitational repulsion really is just theory, and if it turns out to be correct, then something will have to change in GR. Something rather drastic, I would say...
I was wondering where atoms would go if they would be repelled by gravity:
if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity
Here on earth, in most experiments we only have to consider the gravity of the earth because all other gravity will cause the same accelleration for earth as for our objects, apart from very minimal tidal effects, so we won't notice the difference. Sure, we're being centripetally accellerated towards the center of the galaxy, but so are the earth and the sun so we don't care. But what if you turn all gravitational attraction into repulsion? Those atoms would not only fly away from the surface of the earth, but also away from the sun, away from the center of the galaxy, away from other parts of our local cluster, etcetera. Which direction exactly would they end up accellerating in, relative to us? Could we even answer that question without an absolute reference frame in an infinite universe with gravitational attractions from just about everywhere?
And how exactly would you reconcile this with General Relativity? Gravity would no longer be equivalent to accelleration, but have the opposite effect. Mind you, it's not the atoms being pushed away by other atoms (like a helium balloon in a car which does indeed go forward during accellerations and backward when braking), but being pushed away by gravity itself! They will still act normally when their container is accellerated, unlike the helium balloon. Say bye bye to the very basics of GR.
What I don't understand, though, is that a big spider hanging in a web is probably likely to scare off not only predators, but prey as well. What self-respecting insect is going to fly straight past a big spider? Surely evolution must have "taught" them by now that where a big spider is floating in mid-air, there's probably a web around it?
And what about predators interested in eating big spiders?
On the other hand, this construction may actually be quite effective in keeping big, clumsy animals like, say, humans, from destroying the web accidentally. Maybe that outweighs the visibility to prey.
That's just due to selection... by the photographer. There's another picture further down in the article where the decoy only seems to have five legs. But of course the one that looks most like a spider, with eight legs, was selected for the top of the article.
How likely would the probes be to crash into one of the historic sites? The surface area of the moon is, whatm almost four times that of the entire US? Oh, my, the probe fell exactly on the Quick-e-mart in SomeVille, Arizona!
There's fresh milk, (almost) untreated, which only lasts for a few days, and then there's milk treated with UHT and/or other processes which lasts for many months. In the Netherlands, most supermarkets have lots of the former kind and only a liitle bit of the latter, since Dutch people apparently prefer the fresh kind for its better taste. In Belgium, just south of the Netherlands, it's the other way around. Aisles full of UHT milk and only a few packs of fresh milk. People are used to the different taste and/or don't care. Dutch people in Belgium often complain about the taste of our milk, until you give them the fresh kind and they go "yes, that's what it's supposed to taste like".
Same thing for European versus American bread: We Europeans (well, at least Dutch, Belgians, Germans, French,...) hate American bread: it lasts for weeks but tastes terrible. In the US, you have to really search for a good baker's shop to find anything resembling what we call "normal" bread.
OK, if you define evolution as "things are changing", then there's lots of evolution. But if you define it as "things are changing for the better" then no, we're definitely going the wrong way.
I don't care which definition is correct, as long as we understand what's really happening.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking too. How do you prove his identity using the DNA of a descendant 20 generations later? If each child gets half the DNA of each parent, that works out to one millionth in the end. And since this DNA is inherited with whole chromosomes at a time, chances are pretty low of even a single chromosome being inherited. On the other hand, there's a million other ancestors who could match just as well as Richard the third. So how exactly did they "prove" they were dealing with the real Richard the Third?
Anything wrong with that? I would love it if strangers spent large amounts of money to look cool in front of me!
The article goes on to say it's 50 meters wide. If it was an American football field, they would have used fathoms and/or chains.
On the actual asteroid.
Isn't this the asteroid that they found they were off by an order of magnitude on the size of a month or so back?
I love the way you constructed that sentence. I think you're stretching the limits of the English language a bit, but it does appear to be grammatically correct :-)
Then again, it's not my native language so maybe that sentence sounds perfectly normal to native speakers.
But if protons are the same size and the apparent shrinkage is due to our meter sticks expanding, why would they be expanding? Is it the forces between particles that are changing? Energy levels? Why would particles be further apart now than before?
Anyway, I don't think the universe, or protons, have changed size by 4% in a few decades so this discussion is a bit pointless. They just used two different methods of measuring the size, and one or both of those methods are wrong. Which could yield interesting new physics, but nothing radical like protons shrinking 4% in the blink of a cosmological eye.
But what are our meter sticks made of? Why would they grow with the universe if they are made of particles that stay the same size?
Exactly, and if I recall correctly (from at least a decade ago, if not more), it does not apply to humans.
It's just a wrinkled piece of paper that flew up in front of the satellite camera.
Or at least let it say "hello" in a friendly female voice when the target comes in sight.
David Stuart, that's a strange name for a Mayan.
Yes, they much prefer to use lawyers to achieve the same effect.
Criticising new theories which are inconsistent with old theories is important. Criticising reality which is inconsistent with old theories is madness
It's not reality until they've actually seen these atoms go up. So this gravitational repulsion really is just theory, and if it turns out to be correct, then something will have to change in GR. Something rather drastic, I would say...
I was wondering where atoms would go if they would be repelled by gravity:
if part of the cloud is at a negative absolute temperature, some atoms will move upwards, apparently defying gravity
Here on earth, in most experiments we only have to consider the gravity of the earth because all other gravity will cause the same accelleration for earth as for our objects, apart from very minimal tidal effects, so we won't notice the difference. Sure, we're being centripetally accellerated towards the center of the galaxy, but so are the earth and the sun so we don't care. But what if you turn all gravitational attraction into repulsion? Those atoms would not only fly away from the surface of the earth, but also away from the sun, away from the center of the galaxy, away from other parts of our local cluster, etcetera. Which direction exactly would they end up accellerating in, relative to us? Could we even answer that question without an absolute reference frame in an infinite universe with gravitational attractions from just about everywhere?
And how exactly would you reconcile this with General Relativity? Gravity would no longer be equivalent to accelleration, but have the opposite effect. Mind you, it's not the atoms being pushed away by other atoms (like a helium balloon in a car which does indeed go forward during accellerations and backward when braking), but being pushed away by gravity itself! They will still act normally when their container is accellerated, unlike the helium balloon. Say bye bye to the very basics of GR.
What I don't understand, though, is that a big spider hanging in a web is probably likely to scare off not only predators, but prey as well. What self-respecting insect is going to fly straight past a big spider? Surely evolution must have "taught" them by now that where a big spider is floating in mid-air, there's probably a web around it?
And what about predators interested in eating big spiders?
On the other hand, this construction may actually be quite effective in keeping big, clumsy animals like, say, humans, from destroying the web accidentally. Maybe that outweighs the visibility to prey.
That's just due to selection... by the photographer. There's another picture further down in the article where the decoy only seems to have five legs. But of course the one that looks most like a spider, with eight legs, was selected for the top of the article.
How likely would the probes be to crash into one of the historic sites? The surface area of the moon is, whatm almost four times that of the entire US? Oh, my, the probe fell exactly on the Quick-e-mart in SomeVille, Arizona!
So instead of selling an app for $10, you can give the app away but require a $10 one time subscription to use it?
Yeah, introduce a bounty so that people can start breeding them for profit...
Actually, come to think of it, this may just be one of Apple's mapping drones that strayed off course. Wouldn't be the first time that happened...
They probably just downloaded it using bittorrent. How do you think they got infected with StuxNet?
There's fresh milk, (almost) untreated, which only lasts for a few days, and then there's milk treated with UHT and/or other processes which lasts for many months. In the Netherlands, most supermarkets have lots of the former kind and only a liitle bit of the latter, since Dutch people apparently prefer the fresh kind for its better taste. In Belgium, just south of the Netherlands, it's the other way around. Aisles full of UHT milk and only a few packs of fresh milk. People are used to the different taste and/or don't care. Dutch people in Belgium often complain about the taste of our milk, until you give them the fresh kind and they go "yes, that's what it's supposed to taste like".
Same thing for European versus American bread: We Europeans (well, at least Dutch, Belgians, Germans, French,...) hate American bread: it lasts for weeks but tastes terrible. In the US, you have to really search for a good baker's shop to find anything resembling what we call "normal" bread.
OK, if you define evolution as "things are changing", then there's lots of evolution. But if you define it as "things are changing for the better" then no, we're definitely going the wrong way.
I don't care which definition is correct, as long as we understand what's really happening.
In fact, I think I'm going to do exactly that, even though I don't even have Windows.
IPv6 ought to be enough for anybody.