lets not make blanket statements on density vs heat. You see, its my understanding that there is this element called water, and under certain conditions its density increases with heat. Now i'm not sure where you would find the stuff or if this property is even significant in any way...
After RTFA, I checked dsRNA, wiki claims its pretty much specific to some RNA viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA
If my cells are trying to make this from some ancient virus, I'll bet my immune system wouldn't be happy about it anyways.
There may be other dangers involved, however. They probably would adjust the dose s.t. it wouldn't cause too much damage (hopefully anything like this would come out in the clinical trials.
They're looking at this all wrong politically, they spent all this money on the study and they got a paper worthy of Science. Money well spent, a very significant part of the problem identified. Got to be someone calling in a favor to slow it down for business reasons, because keeping something secret that's published in Science would be like trying to hide something on the 6 o'clock news.
My iphone 3G is getting 'phone Alzheimers' (It may have been dropped a few times as a child...and adult), therefore I think it's getting about time to take it out back with the shotgun and bring home a cute new iphone 5
When we say universal speed limit, we really do mean "universal". If event A occurs then observer B who is four light minutes away from where A occurs has absolutely no way of knowing that event A has happened until those four minutes have passed. In fact, from B's perspective, event A hasn't happened until B can see it; there is no such thing as universal simultaneity.
Imagine some being that cannot perceive light, has no tools to help it do so, but can perceive sound. Wouldn't the speed of sound seem to have the same importance to causality?
still, experiments would be able to confirm that things could move faster than the speed of sound, therefore I think the creatures would not try to associate sound speed with a "universal" speed limit, eventually they could use their devices to measure the speed of light.
this has more to do with the 'happy coincidence' that light (in a vacuum) travels at the universal limit c, one of the hardest things about relativity is giving up simultaneity, people don't agree anymore that things happen at the "same time", however, observers will always agree about whether one event COULD have caused another (because nobody can say they happened at the "same time")
a simple example of this would be to imagine setting off a pulse of light, then traveling superluminally toward an observer, then setting off a second pulse. The observer would see the second pulse arrive first and therefore that event would happen before the first one (in the frame of our observer).
The state of medical research today is, basically, full of
confirmation bias. Take $10,000,000 + "we think X causes cancer" and you
will get, surprise surprise, "proof" that X causes cancer.
Why not
give a small amount, even 10% of that research money go towards helping
alternative medicine practitioners prove that their work is actually
effective? We know it it from the millions of satisfied patients, now we
just need some money and lab space to prove it. Alt-Med has been growing
like gangbusters, its popularity at an all time high: it must work.
I love how this goes from 'medical research clearly has confirmation bias' to 'my idea obviously works I just need money to prove it'
Any private enterprise is good, especially if it does end up creating destructive technologies, because after all, wealth is not work, it's things we produce and can then own.
If I was a betting man, I might wager that this statement was designed to provoke a particular response.
The article clearly states he received money from API from 2001-2007.
I don't see a problem with taking money from organizations interested in the work he is doing. As a climate skeptic, why not market to companies who are interested in funding you. It's only a problem if it compromises your scientific integrity. Still, I wouldn't know if that answer is a minor slip up at the time or a guilty conscience hiding an unfairly biased perspective.
Honestly, I hate it when politics gets mixed up with science.
Slashdot Mirror
wow i owned myself by putting water as an element, touche self
lets not make blanket statements on density vs heat. You see, its my understanding that there is this element called water, and under certain conditions its density increases with heat. Now i'm not sure where you would find the stuff or if this property is even significant in any way...
and by RTFA i mean abstract :)
After RTFA, I checked dsRNA, wiki claims its pretty much specific to some RNA viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA If my cells are trying to make this from some ancient virus, I'll bet my immune system wouldn't be happy about it anyways. There may be other dangers involved, however. They probably would adjust the dose s.t. it wouldn't cause too much damage (hopefully anything like this would come out in the clinical trials.
They're looking at this all wrong politically, they spent all this money on the study and they got a paper worthy of Science. Money well spent, a very significant part of the problem identified. Got to be someone calling in a favor to slow it down for business reasons, because keeping something secret that's published in Science would be like trying to hide something on the 6 o'clock news.
My iphone 3G is getting 'phone Alzheimers' (It may have been dropped a few times as a child...and adult), therefore I think it's getting about time to take it out back with the shotgun and bring home a cute new iphone 5
When we say universal speed limit, we really do mean "universal". If event A occurs then observer B who is four light minutes away from where A occurs has absolutely no way of knowing that event A has happened until those four minutes have passed. In fact, from B's perspective, event A hasn't happened until B can see it; there is no such thing as universal simultaneity.
Imagine some being that cannot perceive light, has no tools to help it do so, but can perceive sound. Wouldn't the speed of sound seem to have the same importance to causality?
still, experiments would be able to confirm that things could move faster than the speed of sound, therefore I think the creatures would not try to associate sound speed with a "universal" speed limit, eventually they could use their devices to measure the speed of light. this has more to do with the 'happy coincidence' that light (in a vacuum) travels at the universal limit c, one of the hardest things about relativity is giving up simultaneity, people don't agree anymore that things happen at the "same time", however, observers will always agree about whether one event COULD have caused another (because nobody can say they happened at the "same time")
a simple example of this would be to imagine setting off a pulse of light, then traveling superluminally toward an observer, then setting off a second pulse. The observer would see the second pulse arrive first and therefore that event would happen before the first one (in the frame of our observer).
Journal Article: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i24/e243602 fascinating, and it is important that information not travel faster than c, which entanglement hasn't been shown to violate (yet) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
The state of medical research today is, basically, full of confirmation bias. Take $10,000,000 + "we think X causes cancer" and you will get, surprise surprise, "proof" that X causes cancer. Why not give a small amount, even 10% of that research money go towards helping alternative medicine practitioners prove that their work is actually effective? We know it it from the millions of satisfied patients, now we just need some money and lab space to prove it. Alt-Med has been growing like gangbusters, its popularity at an all time high: it must work.
I love how this goes from 'medical research clearly has confirmation bias' to 'my idea obviously works I just need money to prove it'
Any private enterprise is good, especially if it does end up creating destructive technologies, because after all, wealth is not work, it's things we produce and can then own.
If I was a betting man, I might wager that this statement was designed to provoke a particular response.
The article clearly states he received money from API from 2001-2007. I don't see a problem with taking money from organizations interested in the work he is doing. As a climate skeptic, why not market to companies who are interested in funding you. It's only a problem if it compromises your scientific integrity. Still, I wouldn't know if that answer is a minor slip up at the time or a guilty conscience hiding an unfairly biased perspective. Honestly, I hate it when politics gets mixed up with science.