But if you are listening to a good song on the radio, do you turn it up? It adds to the experience, some music sucks unless it's loud, just like some movies suck unless they are on a big screen with big sound. Other movies, like songs, may be good small, but get even better big.
Personally I enjoy a good sound system, and the best I typically get to experience is at the movie theater, so for me, SFX are a good selling point. (not that I'll pay $13 for SFX, but they certainly help)
(this is paraphrasing the last bits of the review) So in the end he gives us the statement that he really hasn't made any fundamental inroads with this.
"Is that all you've got to show for 10 years work?"
Seems from the time Amidala and Anikan landed to rescue Obi-Wan was taken from that game. The conveyor belt, the flying creatures. I was trying to decide if the creatures there were from the game to or not.
Right, basically conventional relativity claims these stars will collapse infinetly, and form a singularity. Quantum theory, so these guys claim, says the stars don't collapse infinelty, just a lot, and then stop collapsing because of quantum effects.
The problem I have with this explanaition is that these people are saying gravity (relativity) doesn't pull farther because of quantum effects. They are mixing two theories where we don't have a coherent theory to mix the two. a quote from the article:
the "gravastar," a kind of stellar-scale variation on quantum mechanical theory.
that strike anyone else as odd? macroscopic quantum mechanics? Whatever, I'm only a physics undergrad, haven't really gotten into that stuff yet.
Essentially, spinning the disk makes it stable (and look like a flying saucer, but that's beside the point:) in the magnetic fiel, You levitate someting on a magnetic field, and don't want it to fall off.
Now this guy puts something on top of this disk and claims the gravitational mass is effetively reduced. Gravitational mass arrises from two massive particles being attracted to one another, universally. Now, if the disk is spinning fast enough, the outside of the disk will slow it's time evolution (note: relativity) so perhaps for some reason that I don't understand because I don't really know relativity, it will attract less (emit less gravitons, but that's quantum mechanics and as you might know, quantum and relativity don't mix, the person to get them to mix will get a nobel prize for doing so). But of course 99.99999% (roughly) of the attraction on the object over the disk is from the earth, not the disk, so this is not right.
So somehow, the disk is blocking gravitational field. It's superconducting, so maybe the free electrons have something to do with it, well, electrons have what, something like 1/1000 of the mass of protons, so how can they make a 2% mass reduction.
Obviously, this guy doens't know what he's talking about, but then again, obviously, neither do I, so whatever.
Right then, why is this a news story at all? Let me tell you, it's a new thing for orbit, just like the robot arm was at one point. Not really all that exciting to those that don't care much about space flight, and rather a logical step when you think about it, but it's a major developement as far as building the Space Station goes. I thought it was cool, I'm glad/. posted it.
And yes the speed thing is rather pointless, I guess it's there to get Joe Bloe off the street to read the article.
yep, they actually wanted to use that for a bit, mind you they soon figured it would be better to change the name, but not before everybody got a chance to see that attempt at naming the new party was. You'd think they'd catch that earlier. I'm not exactly sure what the offcial name is now, but it doesn't have a crap accronym.
So, does anybody out there know enough about astrophysics to know how close this thing would be to becoming a black hole? THAT would be a cool process to watch. Basically, the question is, how massive is the pulsar, and how much stuff is it sucking up from the companion star?
Sound like my high school years. (actually not all that long ago.) At first I was shy, alone, didn't really have any friends (I don't know if that's what you are like, but for me it was a result of being shy) I didn't like the social life that created, so I started actually talking to people. You'd be amazed at how hard that is to begin with, and how easy after you have started. Mind you I'm still shy, but I have just enough confidence that I can make some friends when I go to a new place
So what does this have to do with girls? Hopefully these people you talk to and hang out with have friends that are female. Then hopefully they come to consider you a friend. Then calling up, or talking to and asking out for coffee over lunch, or after school is a lot easier. But whatever it is you do, put yourself on her side, and see how you would react to her asking you in that way. (I didn't do that one in high school, actually the only time in high school, wow what a failier, but I don't actually regret it, I learned from it, learned a lot)
another thing to note: you don't have to go from complete strangers to SOs, a first time together is a "get to know the other" thing. Going out (for a movie, whatever) with friends? ask her to come along. (Say: "I'm going to [insert activity here] with [insert friends names], wanna come?") Then, even if you don't eventually end up dating, you at least get to spend some real time with her.
There is already one great post with most of the info you need. But I feel the need to speak up as well.
First, telescopes are all well and good, but your own eyes can show you the best of what the sky has to offer, (eclipses, meteor showers) and you need to know the night sky fairly well to know where to point a telescope.
A telescope will not show you stuff like the pictures you will see in magazines, that was a camera looking at the same thing for a long time, and then putting all those photons together in one image, something your eye can not do.
Which brings up another important point, in a telescope, magnification is not really improtant. If I get 100000X I get to look inside a crater on the moon, (and get crap resolution) or I can get a reasonable magnification and look at the entire moonscape (which I can say from experience is quite beutiful). What is important is collecting lots of light. More light means better resolution. that means you want a large aperture.
The other thing you need in a telescope is a mount, a stable one.
But in the end I have to agree with the the other long post here, you don't need a telescope to enjoy astronomy. The sights I remember most, are a lunar eclipse when I was about 10, a meteor shower while camping, The comets that past by about 4 years ago, and seeing saturns rings. Only one of those involved a telescope.
but if you really need a telescope, may I suggest Astroscan.
And as the eveidence: (taken from the guy's company's website; http://www.jasker.com/article2.htm)
In reality the achievement of this invention adheres strictly with known, accepted and proven physics principles. It is emphasised there are no new discoveries disproving accepted physics laws. To reiterate there are no physics heresies, no physics contradictions and no ambiguous claims.
It was clear I agree. But I can't agree with their conclusions about the possible existence of "gravastars". It seems they used quantum theories on super dense masses, and came up with what looks like Bose-Einstein Condesates, which is all fine and good. People took Realativity, solved it for super-dense systems and came up with black holes. Only difference here, is that we have a workable gravitational theory in Relativity, but not in quantum. ie: there is no quantum thoery of gravity. So, using quantum to explain a gravitational effect is not really valid.
What is sounds like to me, is that some physicists had a wild drunken idea that sounded like fun, tried it out, came up with some weird stuff that seemed to resolve some problems (created some of it's own, but that's why even the physicists that came up with it are scepitcal) and some sensationalist science reporters (New Scientist) wrote up some story about how black holes are now passe.
This is VERY big. Very exciting. Right now physics has two major theories to explain the universe, quantum works very well on a small scale, but not on a large, realtivity works well on a large scale, but get to small and it doesn't. So far, all of the forces except gravity have been decribed in terms of both relativity and quantum, and now quantum effects have been observed in gravity. Hopfully this leads to a quantum theory of gravity, then grand unified theory. And hopefully "theory of everything".
the other thing you might consider is that, maybe they were pointing the camera there, and they only released the images now, once they have finished the research paper to go with it.
Well, I didn't read much of the article, but the little glances I get from these post make it sound like an interesting idea worth investigation.
I think the basic point you have to consider about science, is that we look for the truth, whatever it may be. We look for a way to explain the cosmos, we want it to be small, but that doesn't mean the explanation we find will be.
About your contention with the big bang theory. Reasonable suggestions, but from a scientific standpoint, your walking on thin ice. There are holes in the theory no doubt, but that theory is the best explanaition we have for the observations, and that's all. So until someone comes up with a better one, that will remain the common view.
The universe doesn't have to end, just our best theories at this point, suggest it will. Perhaps our best theories are influenced by psychological urgings, but if we keep testing them against reality, and keep trying to explain reality, we should be able to weed out most "urgings"
and about forces. We guess that gravity is connected to the other forces, there is no good theory that does this yet, and if it isn't we probably won't come up with one that can stand up to testing. But, there are three other forces, which have been shown to originate from the same things, so it's reasonable to guess that the last one will follow the trend. So we test to see if it does.
That's why the use nano-tubes. heard of a buckyball? same thing, in tube form. basically it's a superstable tube with carbon atoms linked to make the walls of the tube. It's also very strong, I heard rumours on the radio of useing nano-tubes to make a cable for a space elevator. (it was on a public radio science show, so it's somewhat reputable.) there are of course many problems to work through before this becomes a real possiblity.
The laws of physics you know that give your expected mass, have been around for a long time, have been tested a lot, and work very well. You, where you are have little to no effect on you from the dark matter. But when those same, well known, well tested laws are applied on a larger scale, they say we get x amount of stuff. But we can only see x/10 amount of stuff. the other x/9 amount of stuff we call dark matter.
Two basic possibilities to make up this dark matter, are WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) and MACHOs (Massive blah, I can't remeber) anway, little bitty things, or big things, jupiter sized. or both. There are searches for both going on all the time. Neutrinos are one candidate, and astronomers have been able to observe the effects of some MACHOs.
They would get scattered some, but presumably, the people would pick a wavelength of light that is not scattered by the atmosphere. They wouldn't pick UV, because that is scattered by the ozone layer (or what's left of it), but they might pick micro or radio waves (almost not scattered at all by the atmosphere, that's why we don't need space based radio telescopes)
Well, I have no idea what it is that you just said, and I think anybody that did understand all of that, would also know all that before you said it. So the only conclusion I can reach is that you are saying that to sound important and score points. I guess that's what I'm doing to. I just think it was a pointless post, I didn't learn anytying. And I am a physics major.
Cool! they think it can actually be done! if efficiently, this will be about the best source of energy you can get. (hehehe, Enterprise, here I come!)
I love this idea! but, I'm looking at what happened to nuclear [sp?] fission reactions. I don't know if our world can handle this. Right now, if "the bomb" goes off, most of the life on the planet dies (at worst). With matter/antimatter bombs, the worst would be the earth no longer being whole. with some rough calculations: 1/2 kilogram of antimatter (with equal matter) produces 9x10^16 Joules of energy. thats about a 22 megaton bomb (in TNT terms) a 20 megaton bomb kills New York. alright, I'm not going to keep ranting. This is just a comment on dumb people, I love the idea, if it can work.
This raises precisely the question I'm interested in. However, why do we need a beginning? why can't these branes just have always existed? We are only capable of thinking in finite terms, so we can't imagine something that didn't begin, and has just always been. But, if we do have a beginning that raises the question of "what happened before that?"
another thought:
This may seem to some to lead to an intelligent creator, but then we could ask the same things of the creator, has the creator always existed? or did the creator come into existence some finite time in the past?
Each EMU [space suit] has two oxygen tanks (similar to scuba diving tanks) that work with a carbon dioxide removal system to allow a 6 to 8.5 hour spacewalk.
-From the web site mentioned in the parent.
So, the suit has oxygen for 8.5 hours, (the web site also said battery power and whatever else was designed to be able to last that long), how did they stay out 9 hours?
Maybe in those last two hours in airlock they got some stuff replenished, I'm not sure, but it sounds like they couldn't take off the suits until after.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you are listening to a good song on the radio, do you turn it up? It adds to the experience, some music sucks unless it's loud, just like some movies suck unless they are on a big screen with big sound. Other movies, like songs, may be good small, but get even better big.
Personally I enjoy a good sound system, and the best I typically get to experience is at the movie theater, so for me, SFX are a good selling point. (not that I'll pay $13 for SFX, but they certainly help)
So in the end he gives us the statement that he really hasn't made any fundamental inroads with this.
"Is that all you've got to show for 10 years work?"
anyone played Jedi Knight?
Seems from the time Amidala and Anikan landed to rescue Obi-Wan was taken from that game. The conveyor belt, the flying creatures. I was trying to decide if the creatures there were from the game to or not.
The problem I have with this explanaition is that these people are saying gravity (relativity) doesn't pull farther because of quantum effects. They are mixing two theories where we don't have a coherent theory to mix the two. a quote from the article:
the "gravastar," a kind of stellar-scale variation on quantum mechanical theory.
that strike anyone else as odd? macroscopic quantum mechanics? Whatever, I'm only a physics undergrad, haven't really gotten into that stuff yet.
Now this guy puts something on top of this disk and claims the gravitational mass is effetively reduced. Gravitational mass arrises from two massive particles being attracted to one another, universally. Now, if the disk is spinning fast enough, the outside of the disk will slow it's time evolution (note: relativity) so perhaps for some reason that I don't understand because I don't really know relativity, it will attract less (emit less gravitons, but that's quantum mechanics and as you might know, quantum and relativity don't mix, the person to get them to mix will get a nobel prize for doing so). But of course 99.99999% (roughly) of the attraction on the object over the disk is from the earth, not the disk, so this is not right.
So somehow, the disk is blocking gravitational field. It's superconducting, so maybe the free electrons have something to do with it, well, electrons have what, something like 1/1000 of the mass of protons, so how can they make a 2% mass reduction.
Obviously, this guy doens't know what he's talking about, but then again, obviously, neither do I, so whatever.
And yes the speed thing is rather pointless, I guess it's there to get Joe Bloe off the street to read the article.
yep, they actually wanted to use that for a bit, mind you they soon figured it would be better to change the name, but not before everybody got a chance to see that attempt at naming the new party
was. You'd think they'd catch that earlier. I'm not exactly sure what the offcial name is now, but it doesn't have a crap accronym.
So, does anybody out there know enough about astrophysics to know how close this thing would be to becoming a black hole? THAT would be a cool process to watch. Basically, the question is, how massive is the pulsar, and how much stuff is it sucking up from the companion star?
So what does this have to do with girls? Hopefully these people you talk to and hang out with have friends that are female. Then hopefully they come to consider you a friend. Then calling up, or talking to and asking out for coffee over lunch, or after school is a lot easier. But whatever it is you do, put yourself on her side, and see how you would react to her asking you in that way. (I didn't do that one in high school, actually the only time in high school, wow what a failier, but I don't actually regret it, I learned from it, learned a lot)
another thing to note: you don't have to go from complete strangers to SOs, a first time together is a "get to know the other" thing. Going out (for a movie, whatever) with friends? ask her to come along. (Say: "I'm going to [insert activity here] with [insert friends names], wanna come?") Then, even if you don't eventually end up dating, you at least get to spend some real time with her.
So how does this help us get experimental evidence of quantum gravity?!
First, telescopes are all well and good, but your own eyes can show you the best of what the sky has to offer, (eclipses, meteor showers) and you need to know the night sky fairly well to know where to point a telescope.
A telescope will not show you stuff like the pictures you will see in magazines, that was a camera looking at the same thing for a long time, and then putting all those photons together in one image, something your eye can not do.
Which brings up another important point, in a telescope, magnification is not really improtant. If I get 100000X I get to look inside a crater on the moon, (and get crap resolution) or I can get a reasonable magnification and look at the entire moonscape (which I can say from experience is quite beutiful). What is important is collecting lots of light. More light means better resolution. that means you want a large aperture.
The other thing you need in a telescope is a mount, a stable one.
But in the end I have to agree with the the other long post here, you don't need a telescope to enjoy astronomy. The sights I remember most, are a lunar eclipse when I was about 10, a meteor shower while camping, The comets that past by about 4 years ago, and seeing saturns rings. Only one of those involved a telescope.
but if you really need a telescope, may I suggest Astroscan.
I hope these thoughts aren't too muddled.
In reality the achievement of this invention adheres strictly with known, accepted and proven physics principles. It is emphasised there are no new discoveries disproving accepted physics laws. To reiterate there are no physics heresies, no physics contradictions and no ambiguous claims.
What is sounds like to me, is that some physicists had a wild drunken idea that sounded like fun, tried it out, came up with some weird stuff that seemed to resolve some problems (created some of it's own, but that's why even the physicists that came up with it are scepitcal) and some sensationalist science reporters (New Scientist) wrote up some story about how black holes are now passe.
This is VERY big. Very exciting. Right now physics has two major theories to explain the universe, quantum works very well on a small scale, but not on a large, realtivity works well on a large scale, but get to small and it doesn't. So far, all of the forces except gravity have been decribed in terms of both relativity and quantum, and now quantum effects have been observed in gravity. Hopfully this leads to a quantum theory of gravity, then grand unified theory. And hopefully "theory of everything".
the other thing you might consider is that, maybe they were pointing the camera there, and they only released the images now, once they have finished the research paper to go with it.
I think the basic point you have to consider about science, is that we look for the truth, whatever it may be. We look for a way to explain the cosmos, we want it to be small, but that doesn't mean the explanation we find will be.
About your contention with the big bang theory. Reasonable suggestions, but from a scientific standpoint, your walking on thin ice. There are holes in the theory no doubt, but that theory is the best explanaition we have for the observations, and that's all. So until someone comes up with a better one, that will remain the common view.
The universe doesn't have to end, just our best theories at this point, suggest it will. Perhaps our best theories are influenced by psychological urgings, but if we keep testing them against reality, and keep trying to explain reality, we should be able to weed out most "urgings"
and about forces. We guess that gravity is connected to the other forces, there is no good theory that does this yet, and if it isn't we probably won't come up with one that can stand up to testing. But, there are three other forces, which have been shown to originate from the same things, so it's reasonable to guess that the last one will follow the trend. So we test to see if it does.
That's why the use nano-tubes. heard of a buckyball? same thing, in tube form. basically it's a superstable tube with carbon atoms linked to make the walls of the tube. It's also very strong, I heard rumours on the radio of useing nano-tubes to make a cable for a space elevator. (it was on a public radio science show, so it's somewhat reputable.) there are of course many problems to work through before this becomes a real possiblity.
The laws of physics you know that give your expected mass, have been around for a long time, have been tested a lot, and work very well. You, where you are have little to no effect on you from the dark matter. But when those same, well known, well tested laws are applied on a larger scale, they say we get x amount of stuff. But we can only see x/10 amount of stuff. the other x/9 amount of stuff we call dark matter.
Two basic possibilities to make up this dark matter, are WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) and MACHOs (Massive blah, I can't remeber) anway, little bitty things, or big things, jupiter sized. or both. There are searches for both going on all the time. Neutrinos are one candidate, and astronomers have been able to observe the effects of some MACHOs.
They would get scattered some, but presumably, the people would pick a wavelength of light that is not scattered by the atmosphere. They wouldn't pick UV, because that is scattered by the ozone layer (or what's left of it), but they might pick micro or radio waves (almost not scattered at all by the atmosphere, that's why we don't need space based radio telescopes)
Well, I have no idea what it is that you just said, and I think anybody that did understand all of that, would also know all that before you said it. So the only conclusion I can reach is that you are saying that to sound important and score points. I guess that's what I'm doing to. I just think it was a pointless post, I didn't learn anytying. And I am a physics major.
I love this idea! but, I'm looking at what happened to nuclear [sp?] fission reactions. I don't know if our world can handle this. Right now, if "the bomb" goes off, most of the life on the planet dies (at worst). With matter/antimatter bombs, the worst would be the earth no longer being whole. with some rough calculations: 1/2 kilogram of antimatter (with equal matter) produces 9x10^16 Joules of energy. thats about a 22 megaton bomb (in TNT terms) a 20 megaton bomb kills New York. alright, I'm not going to keep ranting. This is just a comment on dumb people, I love the idea, if it can work.
why can't this universe's creator have come into existence some finite time in the past? do you know how a creator of universes would work?
another thought:
This may seem to some to lead to an intelligent creator, but then we could ask the same things of the creator, has the creator always existed? or did the creator come into existence some finite time in the past?
So, the suit has oxygen for 8.5 hours, (the web site also said battery power and whatever else was designed to be able to last that long), how did they stay out 9 hours?
Maybe in those last two hours in airlock they got some stuff replenished, I'm not sure, but it sounds like they couldn't take off the suits until after.
I consider myself an athiest, I believe some people wouldn't act good without religion, some people (I like to think me) don't need the religion.