I think if Newton thought photons had 0 mass he'd have found it impossible to apply GMm/r^2 to them without getting the answer f=0 and deducing that photons did not curve in a gravity field.
Remember also that Newton knew calculus, having invented much of it, which means he could have thought about it in terms of limits. F = ma = GMm/r^2. Take the limit of both sides as m goes to zero, and you get a = GM/r^2. No problem there. The burden is actually to come up with a reason why light wouldn't behave the same way as anything else.
And it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. Except you don't get that sudden stop without falling. And you don't get current without voltage. It's a cute little saying but it doesn't actually say much.
The only reason I can think of is that plants on this planet adapted to the primary frequency of our one star, while those plants would have to adapt to having a bimodal light source.
That's the hypothesis exactly. If the plant experiences one spectrum for part of the year, and some other spectrum for the other part, there are really two ways it could adapt to that. It could develop two independent photosynthesis pathways which are optimized for the two types of spectra -- in which case, one wonders how efficient those will be during the transitional period where it is seeing a mixture of spectra instead of one or the other -- or, it could develop a more general-purpose photosynthesis pathway that covers all the possibilities effectively. In that case, the plant would probably appear dingy to our human eyes.
If you have over-abundance of light, why would you need extra absorption?
Competition. If you have two species which coexist, and one of them develops the ability to make use of more of the spectrum, that species will reproduce faster, produce more biomass, whatever. The species which doesn't will be overrun.
I sometimes wonder if the bigger companies secretly wish they could reduce the number of patents that both they and their competitors hold. Having a bunch of patents makes you a formidable enemy to anyone who doesn't have any, but when two big patent holders go up against each other it's more like nuclear cold war. Do both sides really want this, or do at least some people in the upper echelons secretly wish that everything could simmer down a bit?
Two things. First: Newton knew that all objects (at least, all objects we've tested) accelerate toward the earth with a certain acceleration regardless of mass, depending only on their distance from the earth. If the law of gravitation is universal, then why wouldn't light also experience the same acceleration? Assuming that massless particles are an exception goes against Occam's Razor. Only if we observe that light does not deflect would we conclude our theory was wrong. Newton was unable to perform this experiment.
Second: Why would Newton automatically assume that light did not have mass? It seems perfectly obvious today, but is it obvious because everyone knows it or because it's obvious? I don't think it's obvious.
It's a citation. Nobody said it has to be easy to get. If you think the article submitter is actually a shill for Nature trying to drum up funds by getting a bunch of Slashdotters to pay $18 for a copy of the article, well, you're a new kind of crazy I haven't seen before.
If you bother to read the article, you see that they are trying to see whether good old Newtonian gravity is a good approximation at extremely small length and mass scales (scales where the additional accuracy provided by general relativity is unnecessary). They're trying to see if when you make the experiment this sensitive, do you see some kind of quantum effect. The answer so far seems to be no. Yes, the neutrons behave in a quantum mechanical way. The question is, do they behave as you'd predict if Newton's/Einstein's gravity is true, or do they do something unexpected? This has nothing to do with Newton vs. Einstein.
You're the one that's out of line here. Even if you do know what you're doing in setting this up and getting it to work, you're intruding on IT's job. Would you be OK with it if out of the blue IT decided to setup their own X-Ray machine or MRI? Even if they told you that they "took all the necessary precautions"?
Can we try to avoid unrealistic comparisons for the sake of argument? That would never happen.
This is akin to preventing a software developer from ever making software for another company, rather than preventing one from working on Yahoo! Messenger if his previous job was working on Windows Live Messenger. The problem with the latter is that he could "steal" a Microsoft "secret" and use it in Yahoo! Messenger
It has nothing to do with stealing secrets. The protection of trade secrets is done with non-disclosure agreements, not non-compete agreements. A non-compete is just a bunch of bullshit that says "We know you're a smart guy, and we don't want you to go be smart for someone else." In some jurisdictions they are flat-out unenforceable. But an NDA is definitely enforceable and quite a serious thing.
There is one very specific case where a non-compete actually makes sense, and this is when a company is sold. The owner will probably sign a non-compete with the buyer, otherwise he could immediately turn around and offer jobs to all of his old employees and gut the company he just sold to just an empty shell.
Suppose it was NOT the case that all human languages reach back to a common ancestor language. Then one or both of two things must be true:
1. Disparate groups of humans developed language independently of each other
2. Language was developed in one place, then language was lost, and somehow developed again in two or more places.
I mean, come on, how likely are either of those theories? It makes about as much sense as humans evolving more than once independently of each other.
You know, I wonder about this sometimes. Despite the epic saga which is Microsoft, Bill Gates actually seems like the kind of guy who wants to make the world a bit better (for instance, see Project Tuva). If I was a man with a hundred billion dollars, I'd have no qualms spending half of that to make several very real and important problems in the world simply "go away."
Political backpressure shouldn't be a problem no matter what you do, since with that much cash you could easily buy the government along with whatever else you want to buy.
And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature.
The feature you disable is the "child has access to smartphone which is capable of making purchases" feature. You see, what you do is you walk over to the child, and you take the phone out of the child's hands...
The article implies that the 100Million times stronger magnetic field is where the power is tapped from; thus it would have to weaken the field. What happens to the light?
It ceases to exist. There is no law of "conservation of light." It's okay for light to disappear.
That would be the answer, except that some people become psychologically addicted to playing these games and in a very real sense can't just "walk away." You can stand around saying they're stupid for getting themselves into that situation in the first place, but they are in that situation regardless, and now are being preyed upon. Maybe for you it's okay to prey upon people if they made a stupid decision and are now addicted to gambling, but to me that seems uncivilized. Let them throw their money away if they wish, but how about we try to make sure that the rules they think they are playing by are actually the rules they are playing by.
Isn't a static electric charge an example of E without M?
What is a static charge? I can choose a reference frame where the charge is in motion, and thus produces a magnetic field. If you look carefully at the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, you see things like "the force on the charge is proportional to the velocity of the charge," and "the induced magnetic field is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux."
Both of these statements immediately imply the question in whose reference frame are we to measure the velocity of the charge or the rate of change of magnetic flux? In one frame to another the velocity is different, as is the rate of change of flux. But no matter what reference frame you pick, the particle does the same thing. This means that the electrical force and magnetic force are actually the same force, but they appear to be different when you choose some particular reference frame in which to measure them. You could have chosen a frame in which both fields took on different values, yet the net effect on the particle is the same.
It is relativity which causes the apparent splitting of the one unified force (electromagnetism) into two different forces (electricity and magnetism). You cannot have one without the other, or rather, you can have as much or as little of one as you want, depending what frame you measure in.
The poor sit around thinking "Why is that guy fucking me over like that?"
The rich sit around thinking, "Why don't you do what I'm doing and be rich as well?"
As long as you treat the rich as an enemy, somebody not to be emulated, their strategies will accumulate more and more wealth and yours will not. Do what they're doing, and it starts to balance out. You're the one keeping yourself down.
I'm a little confused how you can just sit there not paying attention and that doesn't have any negative consequences. To me, that indicates that the wrong people are on the call. If everybody on the call doesn't have something to contribute to each part of the discussion, then what you've done is taken what is actually two or more teams and glued them together to make a "team" that's not really a team. Now you are mutually wasting everybody's time.
Using email instead of speaking with your voice is also a cop-out, because it allows you to intimidate people by the sheer volume of what you write. Face to face, a person can call your bullshit a lot sooner by interrupting you to either redirect you, ask a question, or what not. Email may feel efficient because it allows you to avoid the irritating problem of dealing with people, but if dealing with people is irritating then you aren't going to be able to construct a team since a team is about dealing with people.
Your post comes across as saying "I don't need to participate. This is a waste of my time. I'm too important, too cool for this." That may not be entirely your fault, because some idiot has constructed the team improperly, but on a functioning team there's no such thing as "That doesn't concern me." Maybe you don't have any specific input but you should be LISTENING.
Maybe I've just been blessed to work on better teams than you have, but your post comes off sounding egotistical to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if Newton thought photons had 0 mass he'd have found it impossible to apply GMm/r^2 to them without getting the answer f=0 and deducing that photons did not curve in a gravity field.
Remember also that Newton knew calculus, having invented much of it, which means he could have thought about it in terms of limits. F = ma = GMm/r^2. Take the limit of both sides as m goes to zero, and you get a = GM/r^2. No problem there. The burden is actually to come up with a reason why light wouldn't behave the same way as anything else.
it's the amps
And it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. Except you don't get that sudden stop without falling. And you don't get current without voltage. It's a cute little saying but it doesn't actually say much.
It would only be surprising how poor chlorophyll is at absorbing green light if it weren't green...
It's surprising because the peak of the sun's spectrum is in the green. So the plants ignore the strongest part of the spectrum. That is surprising.
The only reason I can think of is that plants on this planet adapted to the primary frequency of our one star, while those plants would have to adapt to having a bimodal light source.
That's the hypothesis exactly. If the plant experiences one spectrum for part of the year, and some other spectrum for the other part, there are really two ways it could adapt to that. It could develop two independent photosynthesis pathways which are optimized for the two types of spectra -- in which case, one wonders how efficient those will be during the transitional period where it is seeing a mixture of spectra instead of one or the other -- or, it could develop a more general-purpose photosynthesis pathway that covers all the possibilities effectively. In that case, the plant would probably appear dingy to our human eyes.
If you have over-abundance of light, why would you need extra absorption?
Competition. If you have two species which coexist, and one of them develops the ability to make use of more of the spectrum, that species will reproduce faster, produce more biomass, whatever. The species which doesn't will be overrun.
I sometimes wonder if the bigger companies secretly wish they could reduce the number of patents that both they and their competitors hold. Having a bunch of patents makes you a formidable enemy to anyone who doesn't have any, but when two big patent holders go up against each other it's more like nuclear cold war. Do both sides really want this, or do at least some people in the upper echelons secretly wish that everything could simmer down a bit?
Next time try adding a joke as a hint towards your intentions.
I was trying to poke fun at Excel's well known limitation on the maximum number of rows. Sometimes a joke's not funny if you need to spell it out.
First the question is what deflection does Newton's law of gravity predict for the deflection of light, not did Newton know that light was massless.
No. The question was "How did Newton give light mass? Or did he somehow grok that space itself is warped by mass?" See parent of my post.
Two things. First: Newton knew that all objects (at least, all objects we've tested) accelerate toward the earth with a certain acceleration regardless of mass, depending only on their distance from the earth. If the law of gravitation is universal, then why wouldn't light also experience the same acceleration? Assuming that massless particles are an exception goes against Occam's Razor. Only if we observe that light does not deflect would we conclude our theory was wrong. Newton was unable to perform this experiment.
Second: Why would Newton automatically assume that light did not have mass? It seems perfectly obvious today, but is it obvious because everyone knows it or because it's obvious? I don't think it's obvious.
It's a citation. Nobody said it has to be easy to get. If you think the article submitter is actually a shill for Nature trying to drum up funds by getting a bunch of Slashdotters to pay $18 for a copy of the article, well, you're a new kind of crazy I haven't seen before.
If you bother to read the article, you see that they are trying to see whether good old Newtonian gravity is a good approximation at extremely small length and mass scales (scales where the additional accuracy provided by general relativity is unnecessary). They're trying to see if when you make the experiment this sensitive, do you see some kind of quantum effect. The answer so far seems to be no. Yes, the neutrons behave in a quantum mechanical way. The question is, do they behave as you'd predict if Newton's/Einstein's gravity is true, or do they do something unexpected? This has nothing to do with Newton vs. Einstein.
Where's the +1,Smugly Superior mod option when you need it...
I was trying to be funny, not an asshole. Apparently I failed. I apologize.
If your data set is so small that a spreadsheet can open it, then your data set is a toy data set.
You're the one that's out of line here. Even if you do know what you're doing in setting this up and getting it to work, you're intruding on IT's job. Would you be OK with it if out of the blue IT decided to setup their own X-Ray machine or MRI? Even if they told you that they "took all the necessary precautions"?
Can we try to avoid unrealistic comparisons for the sake of argument? That would never happen.
This is akin to preventing a software developer from ever making software for another company, rather than preventing one from working on Yahoo! Messenger if his previous job was working on Windows Live Messenger. The problem with the latter is that he could "steal" a Microsoft "secret" and use it in Yahoo! Messenger
It has nothing to do with stealing secrets. The protection of trade secrets is done with non-disclosure agreements, not non-compete agreements. A non-compete is just a bunch of bullshit that says "We know you're a smart guy, and we don't want you to go be smart for someone else." In some jurisdictions they are flat-out unenforceable. But an NDA is definitely enforceable and quite a serious thing.
There is one very specific case where a non-compete actually makes sense, and this is when a company is sold. The owner will probably sign a non-compete with the buyer, otherwise he could immediately turn around and offer jobs to all of his old employees and gut the company he just sold to just an empty shell.
Suppose it was NOT the case that all human languages reach back to a common ancestor language. Then one or both of two things must be true:
1. Disparate groups of humans developed language independently of each other
2. Language was developed in one place, then language was lost, and somehow developed again in two or more places.
I mean, come on, how likely are either of those theories? It makes about as much sense as humans evolving more than once independently of each other.
What's the sum value of those contracts? Pay them off.
You know, I wonder about this sometimes. Despite the epic saga which is Microsoft, Bill Gates actually seems like the kind of guy who wants to make the world a bit better (for instance, see Project Tuva). If I was a man with a hundred billion dollars, I'd have no qualms spending half of that to make several very real and important problems in the world simply "go away."
Political backpressure shouldn't be a problem no matter what you do, since with that much cash you could easily buy the government along with whatever else you want to buy.
And before you cry "bad parenting", you can't disable that feature.
The feature you disable is the "child has access to smartphone which is capable of making purchases" feature. You see, what you do is you walk over to the child, and you take the phone out of the child's hands...
The article implies that the 100Million times stronger magnetic field is where the power is tapped from; thus it would have to weaken the field. What happens to the light?
It ceases to exist. There is no law of "conservation of light." It's okay for light to disappear.
So don't play? It's not rocket science.
That would be the answer, except that some people become psychologically addicted to playing these games and in a very real sense can't just "walk away." You can stand around saying they're stupid for getting themselves into that situation in the first place, but they are in that situation regardless, and now are being preyed upon. Maybe for you it's okay to prey upon people if they made a stupid decision and are now addicted to gambling, but to me that seems uncivilized. Let them throw their money away if they wish, but how about we try to make sure that the rules they think they are playing by are actually the rules they are playing by.
"the induced magnetic field is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux."
Quoting myself there... Obviously, what I meant to say is the induced electric field, not the induced magnetic field.
Isn't a static electric charge an example of E without M?
What is a static charge? I can choose a reference frame where the charge is in motion, and thus produces a magnetic field. If you look carefully at the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, you see things like "the force on the charge is proportional to the velocity of the charge," and "the induced magnetic field is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux."
Both of these statements immediately imply the question in whose reference frame are we to measure the velocity of the charge or the rate of change of magnetic flux? In one frame to another the velocity is different, as is the rate of change of flux. But no matter what reference frame you pick, the particle does the same thing. This means that the electrical force and magnetic force are actually the same force, but they appear to be different when you choose some particular reference frame in which to measure them. You could have chosen a frame in which both fields took on different values, yet the net effect on the particle is the same.
It is relativity which causes the apparent splitting of the one unified force (electromagnetism) into two different forces (electricity and magnetism). You cannot have one without the other, or rather, you can have as much or as little of one as you want, depending what frame you measure in.
They are the same and can't be separated.
The poor sit around thinking "Why is that guy fucking me over like that?"
The rich sit around thinking, "Why don't you do what I'm doing and be rich as well?"
As long as you treat the rich as an enemy, somebody not to be emulated, their strategies will accumulate more and more wealth and yours will not. Do what they're doing, and it starts to balance out. You're the one keeping yourself down.
I'm a little confused how you can just sit there not paying attention and that doesn't have any negative consequences. To me, that indicates that the wrong people are on the call. If everybody on the call doesn't have something to contribute to each part of the discussion, then what you've done is taken what is actually two or more teams and glued them together to make a "team" that's not really a team. Now you are mutually wasting everybody's time.
Using email instead of speaking with your voice is also a cop-out, because it allows you to intimidate people by the sheer volume of what you write. Face to face, a person can call your bullshit a lot sooner by interrupting you to either redirect you, ask a question, or what not. Email may feel efficient because it allows you to avoid the irritating problem of dealing with people, but if dealing with people is irritating then you aren't going to be able to construct a team since a team is about dealing with people.
Your post comes across as saying "I don't need to participate. This is a waste of my time. I'm too important, too cool for this." That may not be entirely your fault, because some idiot has constructed the team improperly, but on a functioning team there's no such thing as "That doesn't concern me." Maybe you don't have any specific input but you should be LISTENING.
Maybe I've just been blessed to work on better teams than you have, but your post comes off sounding egotistical to me.