Actually since black holes are part of the universe, and can have a net charge, this doesn't change the net charge of the universe.
Also, I think his stipulation was that the relationship with matter and energy is assumed, and that treating them as a single entity, matter-energy, one cannot create more. This certainly still holds true, since the creation of particles in your reference actually borrows energy that it doesn't need if the particles anihillate..but if they don't, they certainly use that energy.
LMAO...and who said he can't do humor without being coached.
I think he represented himself well, and I don't think Bush could have done as thorough a job in a live interactive interview. Bush is more an ideas person, which to me means he asks his advisors what ideas people like and then generalizes about them... dunno if id vote for Gore though, as i think it would mainly be voting against Bush and his idiotic inability to deal with actual figures.
With something that small and capacitant, we could easily have each buckyball mirrored 10fold....that way, if 1 failed 9 more have that information..and it could dynamically find free areas to continue with the mirroring. unless of course it is so fragile that normal use could cause a large percentage (>5%) of it to degrade per year
but how do we know that's not like someone rolling a die 10 times and getting a six each time, and thus concluding that any other number is unlikely?
Uhm...ok, roll the die once a year since life started on earth. If you get a 6 each time and conclude that any other number is unlikely, nobody here would blame you.
and discover is/.ed...whats the vacuum one? just by the name it sounds like the biggest load of uneducated crap ive ever heard of.
Sorry bub, Gore isn't explicitly making that promise. If you state that he implies it, then George W does too...you can try to be a partyline lover, but face it...Democrats and Republicans are VERY similar now in the government.
One thing I don't understand is...Republicans always preach about local control and a smaller national government...and then they talk about their nationally imposed right to own guns, or their desire to limit women from choosing abortion. You cant have both pies...if a women wants to get an abortion then republicans cannot say she isn't allowed to at the same time saying that the government shouldn't tell people what to do or to force them into any certain lifestyle.
and just so we don't misinterpret your last statement, this isnt a democracy. we have evolved into a capitalist state of sorts with a slowly shattering framework that still gives a small nod of respect towards the comman man, but is influenced entirely by corporate interests and the well-being of the economical situation of the country. Maybe in future governments, the decision to seperate economics and government will be made, similar to church and state...if such a thing is possible.
I will agree there are a few things left that are more 'democratic' and many of these are what you would call socialist I guess...the majority is still pretty poor and as you said, this is a popularity contest.
There is still no official body that's purpose was to do this. Bush has also exagerrated his figures and quite frankly, any examination of the figures to this point have been partial and non-conclusive.
The news media...yes we all have learned to trust them well haven't we now? C'mon, wake up.
Independent watchdog groups? yeah....name one thats not officially politically involved...I dare you.
They are politicians, it may be hard for them to describe their actual opinions on those subjects without pissing off either side of each topic.
All questions contained herein must be vague and generalized sufficiently so that each candidate can take the question and refer to their financial reforms and educational plans as the solution that the other candidate is lacking.
After watching the first Presidential Candidate debate, I discussed it with someone who is from Europe and he was quite confused by the blatent misunderstanding and interpretation of the financial outlines of each candidate. He made a very strong and prevelent comment: Why doesn't the American people have a structured independent body in place to publically review financial plans and post the results? W Bush can claim all he wants about Gore's financial plan, and Gore does the same for Bush; the American people then make their judgements based on who they believe more. This isn't a sales job they are applying for, why don't we have in place a public outlet for public examination of proposed plans such as the financial one? I believe this would alleviate some of the misconceptions that are based around these and other Presidential races.
Actually in this case I don't think it's so bad. JK has found a topic in which even those who hate him cannot avoid discussing the topic at hand; all flames against JK simply start other threads to discuss the mentality behind such a post. JK I applaud you for an interesting topic which flamers and non alike can discuss and flame.
I think it's ignorant to flame something for its length, depth or breadth..if it's something you cannot tackle then please decline from any response at all; simply return to your pile of blocks.
then again, according to Katz, you are promoting democracy which must mean that I'm....hey!
I think this Luddite movement is nothing new; in fact it's as old as civilization itself. As far as I can tell it's merely an expression of fear for people in power either politically, financially or morally, feeling their position threatened by something which they do not understand and that they feel is escaping from their grasps of comprehension and more importantly from their control.
Columbine advanced the hysterical ideal that computer games were not only unhealthy, but mortally dangerous.
First, I'm not sure if you meant mortally or morally, but I think morally is more appropriate. Second, as an avid video game player, and not (yet?) a parent, I think I should stress that the ideology that video games ARE morally healthy on their face value is incredibly misleading and is a position only held in opposition to attempts at censorship. Blowing off other people's heads is not morally acceptable in our present culture, and a simulation of such can easily be interpreted as not being either. The stress we should make in this situation isn't that the cause of such violence cannot come from these games/movies/media, but that it isn't the authors of these things that should be held responsible. Freedom of speech is still prevalent in this country (USA I mean) and the responsibility should be held with those responsible for the children's upbringing; Parents, not the public or the media.
Whenever a science article comes up, I rush to read it so that I can discuss some interesting topics will relatively intelligent people. Censorship and corporate brutality get old real fast for me. So, I see an article like this and I rush to see what people say.
And every time its one person saying "what is this?" and 15 people replying to it. Nobody actually discusses the article...its like a proving ground where people compete to correct another persons perception of the concept. What happened to the topic at hand?
Actually Hawking Radiation has nothing to do with fission of particles entering a black hole's radius. It comes from particle-antiparticle creation at a very close distance to the horizon, and one of those being subsequently trapped in the BH before re-annihilating.
Yes indeed, corpuscular was intended to illustrate a 19th century mentality of the concept of black holes (which originated in the 19th century). The concept was similar...that all 'corpuscles' of light escaping from said massive star strove against gravity so difficult that it turned aside and was rent back into its origin. Thereby, no light could escape such a massive star.
Red shifting to infinity is what does occur to such photons, escaping from a schwarzchild radius as such. Red shifting of a photon increases it's wavelength while reducing the amount of energy that photon contains. Therefore, infinite redshifting means the photon has an infinite wavelength and contains no energy (thereby obeying the law that no information or energy can directly* leave a schwarzchild radius [the technical term used for Black Hole until BH was coined in the 60s]) So, a photon escapes from the black hole, but it doesn't really...exist, technically. Not easy to illustrate in a post here, I'm sorry.
*directly being added after Hawkings theories of BH radiation
Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" is pretty good, and a really easy read.
If thats too much for you, Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" book can give you a very brief runthrough, but dont expect alot of real theory in there, more general 'vernacular descriptions' to ease the lamen's mind.
Many theorists (and with black holes, its nothing but that) have made convincing arguements for rotating singularities. This in effect causes non-uniform event horizons.
Light doesnt spiral down into the singularity, that is a very corpuscular way of approaching the issue. light actually redshifts to infinite and therefore its energy ceases to exist..
Also, I think the interpretation of the 'stationary observer' from hawkings book is being mis-construed; a stationary observer does not exist, and therefore it is a theoretical arguement illustrating the effects of spacetime shifting from the gravitational warping of the black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually since black holes are part of the universe, and can have a net charge, this doesn't change the net charge of the universe.
Also, I think his stipulation was that the relationship with matter and energy is assumed, and that treating them as a single entity, matter-energy, one cannot create more. This certainly still holds true, since the creation of particles in your reference actually borrows energy that it doesn't need if the particles anihillate..but if they don't, they certainly use that energy.
We can ask the question 'Why does the universe exist'
Of course in doing so, we complete the definition of our existance and therefore the universe no longer has any reason to exis*POOF*
LMAO...and who said he can't do humor without being coached.
I think he represented himself well, and I don't think Bush could have done as thorough a job in a live interactive interview. Bush is more an ideas person, which to me means he asks his advisors what ideas people like and then generalizes about them... dunno if id vote for Gore though, as i think it would mainly be voting against Bush and his idiotic inability to deal with actual figures.
With something that small and capacitant, we could easily have each buckyball mirrored 10fold....that way, if 1 failed 9 more have that information..and it could dynamically find free areas to continue with the mirroring. unless of course it is so fragile that normal use could cause a large percentage (>5%) of it to degrade per year
I think the walking concept is becoming less favorable in theory to that of people actually taking small boats these days...I could be wrong but..
but how do we know that's not like someone rolling a die 10 times and getting a six each time, and thus concluding that any other number is unlikely?
/.ed...whats the vacuum one? just by the name it sounds like the biggest load of uneducated crap ive ever heard of.
Uhm...ok, roll the die once a year since life started on earth. If you get a 6 each time and conclude that any other number is unlikely, nobody here would blame you.
and discover is
hehe. sounds like your asking for a paper in school...do you teach?
Sorry bub, Gore isn't explicitly making that promise. If you state that he implies it, then George W does too...you can try to be a partyline lover, but face it...Democrats and Republicans are VERY similar now in the government.
One thing I don't understand is...Republicans always preach about local control and a smaller national government...and then they talk about their nationally imposed right to own guns, or their desire to limit women from choosing abortion. You cant have both pies...if a women wants to get an abortion then republicans cannot say she isn't allowed to at the same time saying that the government shouldn't tell people what to do or to force them into any certain lifestyle.
and just so we don't misinterpret your last statement, this isnt a democracy. we have evolved into a capitalist state of sorts with a slowly shattering framework that still gives a small nod of respect towards the comman man, but is influenced entirely by corporate interests and the well-being of the economical situation of the country. Maybe in future governments, the decision to seperate economics and government will be made, similar to church and state...if such a thing is possible.
I will agree there are a few things left that are more 'democratic' and many of these are what you would call socialist I guess...the majority is still pretty poor and as you said, this is a popularity contest.
There is still no official body that's purpose was to do this. Bush has also exagerrated his figures and quite frankly, any examination of the figures to this point have been partial and non-conclusive.
The news media...yes we all have learned to trust them well haven't we now? C'mon, wake up.
Independent watchdog groups? yeah....name one thats not officially politically involved...I dare you.
George Byron?
1)Presidential promises
2)Politicians
3)Taxes
Oh, wait...I'm not running, nevermind.
They are politicians, it may be hard for them to describe their actual opinions on those subjects without pissing off either side of each topic.
All questions contained herein must be vague and generalized sufficiently so that each candidate can take the question and refer to their financial reforms and educational plans as the solution that the other candidate is lacking.
would you people get off it for once? he made an exaggerated statement about the effects of his lobbying for funding of the emerging internet.
A question for either of the 2 major candidates:
After watching the first Presidential Candidate debate, I discussed it with someone who is from Europe and he was quite confused by the blatent misunderstanding and interpretation of the financial outlines of each candidate. He made a very strong and prevelent comment: Why doesn't the American people have a structured independent body in place to publically review financial plans and post the results? W Bush can claim all he wants about Gore's financial plan, and Gore does the same for Bush; the American people then make their judgements based on who they believe more. This isn't a sales job they are applying for, why don't we have in place a public outlet for public examination of proposed plans such as the financial one? I believe this would alleviate some of the misconceptions that are based around these and other Presidential races.
THAT'S RIGHT! He's using that FUZZY MATH thing we so fear!
he's also very dead
as opposed to being only slightly dead...
to blaaaaiiittthhheeee
Actually in this case I don't think it's so bad. JK has found a topic in which even those who hate him cannot avoid discussing the topic at hand; all flames against JK simply start other threads to discuss the mentality behind such a post. JK I applaud you for an interesting topic which flamers and non alike can discuss and flame.
I think it's ignorant to flame something for its length, depth or breadth..if it's something you cannot tackle then please decline from any response at all; simply return to your pile of blocks.
then again, according to Katz, you are promoting democracy which must mean that I'm....hey!
I think this Luddite movement is nothing new; in fact it's as old as civilization itself. As far as I can tell it's merely an expression of fear for people in power either politically, financially or morally, feeling their position threatened by something which they do not understand and that they feel is escaping from their grasps of comprehension and more importantly from their control.
Columbine advanced the hysterical ideal that computer games were not only unhealthy, but mortally dangerous.
First, I'm not sure if you meant mortally or morally, but I think morally is more appropriate. Second, as an avid video game player, and not (yet?) a parent, I think I should stress that the ideology that video games ARE morally healthy on their face value is incredibly misleading and is a position only held in opposition to attempts at censorship. Blowing off other people's heads is not morally acceptable in our present culture, and a simulation of such can easily be interpreted as not being either. The stress we should make in this situation isn't that the cause of such violence cannot come from these games/movies/media, but that it isn't the authors of these things that should be held responsible. Freedom of speech is still prevalent in this country (USA I mean) and the responsibility should be held with those responsible for the children's upbringing; Parents, not the public or the media.
Whenever a science article comes up, I rush to read it so that I can discuss some interesting topics will relatively intelligent people. Censorship and corporate brutality get old real fast for me. So, I see an article like this and I rush to see what people say.
And every time its one person saying "what is this?" and 15 people replying to it. Nobody actually discusses the article...its like a proving ground where people compete to correct another persons perception of the concept. What happened to the topic at hand?
Actually Hawking Radiation has nothing to do with fission of particles entering a black hole's radius. It comes from particle-antiparticle creation at a very close distance to the horizon, and one of those being subsequently trapped in the BH before re-annihilating.
Yes indeed, corpuscular was intended to illustrate a 19th century mentality of the concept of black holes (which originated in the 19th century). The concept was similar...that all 'corpuscles' of light escaping from said massive star strove against gravity so difficult that it turned aside and was rent back into its origin. Thereby, no light could escape such a massive star.
Red shifting to infinity is what does occur to such photons, escaping from a schwarzchild radius as such. Red shifting of a photon increases it's wavelength while reducing the amount of energy that photon contains. Therefore, infinite redshifting means the photon has an infinite wavelength and contains no energy (thereby obeying the law that no information or energy can directly* leave a schwarzchild radius [the technical term used for Black Hole until BH was coined in the 60s]) So, a photon escapes from the black hole, but it doesn't really...exist, technically. Not easy to illustrate in a post here, I'm sorry.
*directly being added after Hawkings theories of BH radiation
Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" is pretty good, and a really easy read.
If thats too much for you, Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" book can give you a very brief runthrough, but dont expect alot of real theory in there, more general 'vernacular descriptions' to ease the lamen's mind.
Many theorists (and with black holes, its nothing but that) have made convincing arguements for rotating singularities. This in effect causes non-uniform event horizons.
Light doesnt spiral down into the singularity, that is a very corpuscular way of approaching the issue. light actually redshifts to infinite and therefore its energy ceases to exist..
Also, I think the interpretation of the 'stationary observer' from hawkings book is being mis-construed; a stationary observer does not exist, and therefore it is a theoretical arguement illustrating the effects of spacetime shifting from the gravitational warping of the black hole.