That was caused by air resistance. A drop falling in pressure such as the atmosphere gets destorted, that is why raindrops have that famous teardrop shape. In the lower pressures, the effect is much less.
But since you don't know what the RNG would have done in the absence of that presumed influence, you can't really confirm it was influenced at all. Maybe the RNG would have done precisely the same thing, even if those people hadn't been present and thinking about influencing the outcome.
For a moment, I thought the title said 'blogger of the year', and my heart stopped momentarily as I thought, 'if they say Roland Piquepaille, I'm gonna be pissed.'
Now I have money, so I buy them. In the long-term, I didn't deprive anyone of money.
This reply will border on pedantic, but by delaying your payment, you actually did deprive them of something. I say this for two reasons:
(a) Because of inflation, today's dollar is worth less than yesterday's dollar.
(b) You robbed them of the opportunity of using those dollars in the past. There is a time value to money, they could have invested it for a profit during the interim of 'yesterday' and today.
So, in order to truly 'count the cost' and pay them what is owed, you would have increase your late payment to account for both of the above (using historical figures for inflation for (a), and assume a reasonable ROI for (b).)
Say durring that time they recorded time based off the moon (which is around 1 month for us) so 900/12 is 75 years old which is an old age in our standards and really old but possible for 10,000 years ago.
FYI, there are 13 lunar cycles in one solar year, not 12. Proof: 28*13 = 364, just shy of one year. I suspect the Romans were afraid of the unlucky number 13, as a probably reason for the Gregorian calendar's 12 months. (This is all assuming that the moon's orbit wasn't significantly faster in biblical times, of course.)
Anyone remember Dungeons of Daggorath? It's not as old as this game, but it looked very much like it. The most fun I ever had on a TRS-80 Color Computer!
I never said compassion has no place in society. And as I also pledged to Lendrick, I pledge to you: should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my wealth to help the less fortunate//help themselves// through education.
What I object to most are those that someone else here described as "layabouts and bottom-feeders". I also think that most people who become dependent on welfare find it to be a comfortable local-minima, and then make no effort to remove themselves from the nipple of the public dole. Helping someone help themselves? Yes! Giving someone a free handout without stipulation? Never.
Finally, I do NOT believe that the sentiments I've described above are an intrinsic responsibility, borne from being human. They are merely a consequence of my own personal set of values, which others may or may not share.
I see one of your other respondents agrees with me on that point.
First, I wish to laud you for your intelligent retort. I half expected a flame without substance.
But, nowhere in my post did I say that compassion for the less fortunate has no place. I just don't think government should take on the role of Robin Hood.
In fact, I commit to you today that, should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my fortune to improve the education of the proletariat sheople.:) <== very big grin
I think a pure, hard-assed econo-evolutionist (which I am not!) would counter that survival of the fittest would indeed happen, if you let the unfortunate die off. Because then, all you'd have left are the Fortunate Sons, and you'd have a higher mean affluency.
Yes, I am amazed at how people like Anna Nicole Smith become accidental billionaires, while smarter people toil away at life. But with billions of people to sample from, there are bound to be occasional statistical outliers.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
Whose fault is it that they have a family to feed, but lack the skills to generate sufficient income?
It seems to me, that you have no business procreating if you can't support your progeny. But once you do procreate, it is your responsibility to care for them, regardless of how much personal effort that requires.
Freedom is always accompanied by Responsibility. You can't have one without the other.
Observe. Interpret. Adapt. That's what's required to thrive in a fitscape. Fitscapes evolve, and so must you. Just because certain survival strategies worked for you in the past, there's no guarantee that they'll continue to work in the future.
In the 80's, the cable company (specifically, the commercials on public TV with the 1-800-CABLE-ME number) said, "You won't have to watch commercials, because you pay for the channels." Then they snuck commercials in, I can only guess at the reason why.
Oh yes, I remember those days (sans the phone number, I was pretty young.) There truly were few if any commercials. It rocked.
They have advertising to pay for the channel, but then why does the consumer pay? Or vice versa, why is there advertisement when the consumer is forced to pay, and the rates increase almost every year? Either cable TV is VERY inefficient, or someone has been making far too much money for far too long off of a product and is now trying their damnedest to hold on to a dying business model, via this "a la carte is expensive" crap.
There are both payments and advertisements because consumers put up with it. No one made much of a stink when the commercials first started showing up, so... the obvious happened. But I object to the notion that 'they make too much money'. They make what the market will bear. If most people thought it was highway robbery, they'd drop down to basic cable or broadcast, and start reading books or surfing the internet. If I was single, I wouldn't even have a TV.
And this, "Greed is the lube of the economy," shit is the precise reason this country is going to hell. Anything for a dollar. Disgusting.
Well, it's at least the laxative of the economy then.:)=
You have to realize that's all greed. It has absolutely nothing to do with feasibility. I remember the 1980's, with 1-800-CABLE-ME, where these guys were claiming "commercial free television." That turned out to be a load of bunk. Let 'em figure out how to make it work or let 'em burn.
Either you didn't read the post you were replying to, you didn't understand it, or you replied to the wrong post.
The post you replied to said nothing about 'feasibility'. What it said was that-- due to economics-- you would end up paying no less for a la carte programming than you presently do for the packages. As it exists today with the packages, high-demand channels like ESPN subsidize the cost of lower-demand channels. Take away the packages, and suddenly ESPN becomes cheap, and the cost of PBS, CSPAN, and H>V will skyrocket....Then they die, because they lose too much viewership, and can't sell ads.
I fail to understand how your '1-800-CABLE-ME' comments support your position.
Of course it's greed. Greed is the lube of the economy. Cable and satellite companies aren't providing their signal for philanthropic reasons.
To be precise there were 48 Nobel laureates who singed that document mentioned in the article.
Is a singed document slightly less burnt that a flamed document?
Regardless, they must have really hated the precepts contained to give it such a snubbing. The Union of Concerned Scientists must be miffed at the chastizing they received from all these Nobel laureates.
Thanks for the link. But, the "Newton's Embarrasing Secret" video did NOT explain my question. Rather, it explained how Einstein reconciled the speed of light with Newton's model (or-- better stated--gave us a new model that factors in the speed limit 'c'). But it did NOT answer my specific question, which was (paraphrased, perhaps better than before): is the concept of frame dragging essentially the same thing as the velocity component of the effect of gravity. (Where, the 'velocity' I'm referring to here is not the velocity of light, but rather the respective and relative velocities of the two gravitational bodies under discussion.) In order to frame my question, I had to bring up the concepts discussed in the movie you linked to, but it was not the heart of the question.
But again, thanks for the link. I'll definitely be watching all of these videos.:) Perhaps one of them will cover this.
1) The discrepancy between where the sun actually is now in relation to the Earth, and the direction that gravity is currently ariving from is tiny, given that only 8 minutes have passed (small fraction of the orbital period).
This makes no sense. If the sun has non-zero velocity and is not under acceleration (ie, it is travelling in a straight line at a constant speed), then at one point in the Earth's revolutionary period it is moving away from the earth, and 180 degrees later it is moving towards the earth. These two cases do not cancel each other out. Consider my original thought experiment, where I decree'd the earth's orbit to be perfectly circular: if there was no velocity component to gravity, the effect would be (I think) that the earth orbit would elongate into an ever-widening ellipse, until eventually the earth either (a) crashes into the sun, or (b) is ejected off into space (as it's orbit converts from an ellipse to a hyperbola.
2) The gravity doesn't suddenly "arrive", but is continuous, so over the course of a whole year, the discrepancy simply cancels itself out.
I never claimed that gravity's effect wasn't continuously felt. Obviously it is. And, nothing in my example assume that it wasn't.
Frame dragging involves the rotation of the a massive body, not it's revolution in an orbit. A spinning mass is predicted to drag spacetime along with it, tangentially to the surface of the body.
Think of a top spinning in water, the water immediately adjacent to the top is going to dragged along with the motion of the top.
I understand that just fine. My point/question/claim is that it sounds like frame dragging could just be an antiquated name for the velocity component of the "stress-energy tensor" that user "Pi 0's don't shower" explained in his reply to me
I was merely using the revolution example to illustrate the similarities, for the purpose of framing my question.
I'm not really certain that user "Pi 0's don't shower" answered my question, but he did state that "All forms of energy, including energy due to angular momentum and relative motions, are included in this," which does at least seem to affirm my question.
There's a question I wanted to ask the last time this probe was discussed on slashdot, but alas I discovered the discussion too late to be assured a viable discussion.
Is the presence of frame dragging a forgone conclusion, given that (a) gravity waves do not travel instantaneously, and (b) the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth, even though the earth itself is in motion?
My college physics were limited to 2 semesters, but I do recall discussions of a velocity component to gravity. To use more severe example than the earth and moon:
Pretend, for simplicity's sake, that the earth's orbit is circular, and is exactly 8 light-minutes in radius. By the time gravity waves reach the earth from the sun, 8 minutes have transpired, and the sun is certainly no longer in the same spatial position that it was 8 minutes prior. This means that earth is no longer orbitting what it "thought" it was orbitting (if you'll excuse the tongue-in-cheek anthropomorphization.) The only two ways I've ever heard of accounting for this are: (a) gravity waves are not limited by C, and in fact gravity's effect is felt instantaneously (b) there is a velocity component to the effect of gravity, that takes into account the speed and direction of travel of the object(s) involved.
I think (a) is pretty much out of favor, right? If so, that leaves (b). Thus, velocity matters... regardless of whether that happens to be linear or angular velocity.
Since rotation is angular velocity... does this not imply that frame dragging exists?
I'm definitely interested in replies from Physics whizzes on this one... it's bugged me for a while now.
"Not to be used for the other use." (On a package of nuts) "May contain nuts." (Butcher knife)"Keep out of children." "For indoor or outdoor use only."
Slashdot Mirror
Except that raindrops are not teardrop shaped. Thanks for playing.
Now see here, young man... 'Misunderestimate' is a perfectly cromulent word.
But since you don't know what the RNG would have done in the absence of that presumed influence, you can't really confirm it was influenced at all. Maybe the RNG would have done precisely the same thing, even if those people hadn't been present and thinking about influencing the outcome.
So, where's that controlled environment again?
That's pretty cool. Is this a U.S. bank? If so, do you care to disclose their name?
But *your* parent post is talking about GLOBE, not a map. Hence, no distortion due to mercator projection.
For a moment, I thought the title said 'blogger of the year', and my heart stopped momentarily as I thought, 'if they say Roland Piquepaille, I'm gonna be pissed.'
This reply will border on pedantic, but by delaying your payment, you actually did deprive them of something. I say this for two reasons:
(a) Because of inflation, today's dollar is worth less than yesterday's dollar.
(b) You robbed them of the opportunity of using those dollars in the past. There is a time value to money, they could have invested it for a profit during the interim of 'yesterday' and today.
So, in order to truly 'count the cost' and pay them what is owed, you would have increase your late payment to account for both of the above (using historical figures for inflation for (a), and assume a reasonable ROI for (b).)
Just trying to call it like it is.
Oh, jeez... here we go again...
CmdrTaco will always win this UID pissing match.
FYI, there are 13 lunar cycles in one solar year, not 12. Proof: 28*13 = 364, just shy of one year. I suspect the Romans were afraid of the unlucky number 13, as a probably reason for the Gregorian calendar's 12 months.
(This is all assuming that the moon's orbit wasn't significantly faster in biblical times, of course.)
Anyone remember Dungeons of Daggorath? It's not as old as this game, but it looked very much like it. The most fun I ever had on a TRS-80 Color Computer!
I never said compassion has no place in society. And as I also pledged to Lendrick, I pledge to you: should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my wealth to help the less fortunate //help themselves// through education.
What I object to most are those that someone else here described as "layabouts and bottom-feeders". I also think that most people who become dependent on welfare find it to be a comfortable local-minima, and then make no effort to remove themselves from the nipple of the public dole. Helping someone help themselves? Yes! Giving someone a free handout without stipulation? Never.
Finally, I do NOT believe that the sentiments I've described above are an intrinsic responsibility, borne from being human. They are merely a consequence of my own personal set of values, which others may or may not share.
I see one of your other respondents agrees with me on that point.
First, I wish to laud you for your intelligent retort. I half expected a flame without substance.
:) <== very big grin
But, nowhere in my post did I say that compassion for the less fortunate has no place. I just don't think government should take on the role of Robin Hood.
In fact, I commit to you today that, should I ever become a billionaire, I will use my fortune to improve the education of the proletariat sheople.
I think a pure, hard-assed econo-evolutionist (which I am not!) would counter that survival of the fittest would indeed happen, if you let the unfortunate die off. Because then, all you'd have left are the Fortunate Sons, and you'd have a higher mean affluency.
Yes, I am amazed at how people like Anna Nicole Smith become accidental billionaires, while smarter people toil away at life. But with billions of people to sample from, there are bound to be occasional statistical outliers.
Whose fault is it that they have a family to feed, but lack the skills to generate sufficient income?
It seems to me, that you have no business procreating if you can't support your progeny. But once you do procreate, it is your responsibility to care for them, regardless of how much personal effort that requires.
Freedom is always accompanied by Responsibility. You can't have one without the other.
Observe. Interpret. Adapt. That's what's required to thrive in a fitscape. Fitscapes evolve, and so must you. Just because certain survival strategies worked for you in the past, there's no guarantee that they'll continue to work in the future.
Stupids mods... this should be funny, not informative. "Chicken" ... "Sanders" ... "Fred" ... it's obviously a joke.
A real 'clucker' of a joke, in fact.
Not posting anonymous, so that I can receive the karmic flogging I deserve for making this meta-comment.
If you're right about that, then he'd end up with a whole lot of hapax legomenons in his private corpus.
I fail to understand how your '1-800-CABLE-ME' comments support your position.
Of course it's greed. Greed is the lube of the economy. Cable and satellite companies aren't providing their signal for philanthropic reasons.
Is a singed document slightly less burnt that a flamed document?
Regardless, they must have really hated the precepts contained to give it such a snubbing. The Union of Concerned Scientists must be miffed at the chastizing they received from all these Nobel laureates.
But again, thanks for the link. I'll definitely be watching all of these videos. :) Perhaps one of them will cover this.
This makes no sense. If the sun has non-zero velocity and is not under acceleration (ie, it is travelling in a straight line at a constant speed), then at one point in the Earth's revolutionary period it is moving away from the earth, and 180 degrees later it is moving towards the earth. These two cases do not cancel each other out. Consider my original thought experiment, where I decree'd the earth's orbit to be perfectly circular: if there was no velocity component to gravity, the effect would be (I think) that the earth orbit would elongate into an ever-widening ellipse, until eventually the earth either (a) crashes into the sun, or (b) is ejected off into space (as it's orbit converts from an ellipse to a hyperbola.
I never claimed that gravity's effect wasn't continuously felt. Obviously it is. And, nothing in my example assume that it wasn't.
There's a question I wanted to ask the last time this probe was discussed on slashdot, but alas I discovered the discussion too late to be assured a viable discussion.
Is the presence of frame dragging a forgone conclusion, given that (a) gravity waves do not travel instantaneously, and (b) the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth, even though the earth itself is in motion?
My college physics were limited to 2 semesters, but I do recall discussions of a velocity component to gravity. To use more severe example than the earth and moon:
Pretend, for simplicity's sake, that the earth's orbit is circular, and is exactly 8 light-minutes in radius. By the time gravity waves reach the earth from the sun, 8 minutes have transpired, and the sun is certainly no longer in the same spatial position that it was 8 minutes prior. This means that earth is no longer orbitting what it "thought" it was orbitting (if you'll excuse the tongue-in-cheek anthropomorphization.) The only two ways I've ever heard of accounting for this are:
(a) gravity waves are not limited by C, and in fact gravity's effect is felt instantaneously
(b) there is a velocity component to the effect of gravity, that takes into account the speed and direction of travel of the object(s) involved.
I think (a) is pretty much out of favor, right? If so, that leaves (b). Thus, velocity matters... regardless of whether that happens to be linear or angular velocity.
Since rotation is angular velocity... does this not imply that frame dragging exists?
I'm definitely interested in replies from Physics whizzes on this one... it's bugged me for a while now.
Thanks! But alas, your reply to this thread comes much too late for any probable karma gain.
"Not to be used for the other use."
(On a package of nuts) "May contain nuts."
(Butcher knife)"Keep out of children."
"For indoor or outdoor use only."