So now because religion has dominated for the past several thousand years, and there was no way that anybody in the past was not religious, I have to repect it now?
Well, okay, I do respect religion, it helps this society with moral standards, and gives some people reason to act "good". But I think the problem arrises when you give people in this religion power. The old saying, power corrupts (abosulte power corrupts absolutely) seems to hold in this situation. Give some mortal the ability to say "God demands your money" and then the result that this mortal gets more money, take a freaking guess what's going to happen! That is not the main tenant of religion though. Religion gives life on earth meaning, and rules to live by.
The key is - is the help worth the hurt... from the temporal vantage point we have (look into the past, compare notes, and make a decision. It's easy to say "that was a bad decision" *after* the fact).
Agreed, especially about the natrual, "unnatural" thing. I think in this case though, we don't know enough about the way that nature works as a whole to be able to decide properly wether or not the help overrules the hurt. Granted, one species of moth dissapearing probably doesn't matter, and that looks like the only danger here, but we really can't be sure, maybe they will react with so and so chemical in so and so bird's gizzard and cause problems.
So I agree, it doesn't really matter what happens, but as a part of nature ourselves, we have a survival instinct, we know our world works now, and most people don't want to mess with something that works, if they don't know what's going to happen. It might hurt us in the long run, that would mean that as a species we commited suicide, that doesn't really fit, in the Darwinian sense, species try to survive, environmentalism is one manifestation of this, and a valid one.
The idea was to set up a standing pressure wave in the nose cavity, so the moving air would cool the projectile.
I'm not sure I understand the physics of that. We cool off in air (on a hot day, or in the breeze) because the sweat evaporates from our skin, carrying off heat. Bullets don't sweat, and aren't moist. The moving air itself could carry off heat, but a normal bullet is hot because the air is moving past it fast enough to heat it by friction. I would guess then that the air in the cavity isn't leaving the cavity, and moving "slowley" inside, or vibrating (sound wave). Was that the idea?
I would suspect that this rail gun would not be the thing to ignite another cold war, especially seeing as the other possible nations that could face off against the US are either allies, or have enough internal problems to deal with already.
one more thing: technilogical superiority because you've got the fastest gun? there are many other things to consider, most of which the US does have, but this gun isn't THAT significant, I don't think.
could this become a feasable way to get pico-satelites in orbit? It sounds like, with further testing, they can get even acceleration that doesn't do too much damage to the pellet.
Dangit! my work account won't let me access those sites!
So is this the speed of sound measured in air or water? From what I know, the speed of sound in water is a lot more than the speed of sound in air.
If it's the speed of sound in water, I wonder what sort of wave effects this would have, especially on the surface of the water, a sonic boom in water instead of air might be cool to see!
Fundamentally, science is carefully considered observations. Thus, anything that cannot be observed cannot be attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God through science is an
absurdity. Finding the origins of life is a similarly un-addressable question.
I say, anything that cannot be observed has no influence on this universe. If it has influence, that influence can be observed. If miralcles happen, then they have influence, they will be VERY difficult to study, because of rare occurence, but they are observable and studyable. God may not be directly observable, buy neither are black holes, yet we have good reason to believe they exist. It may be that some day we see good reason to believe God exists, maybe life itself is this good reason. I believe we don't know enough about it to make that leap. The point is, if it is not observable, than it doesn't affect anything, and is basically not of this universe, if it were, it would affect something, and be observable in some way that we can theroize about, it may not be that we can figure out exactly what it is, but we can try to explain the effects it has.
When you try figure out the origins of life, you are exploring the past, a very difficult endevour, you go and observe it, just it's effects, and try to reproduce what might have happened. Fine, so there isn't much evidence, but what if we can make a pool of slime that produces life, what if we can show that it is likely that that sort of pool existed in the early stages of earth's life? That's not absolute proof, but it's a good theory to work with, just like all science.
Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.
Alright, I know I'm going to sound a bit harsh. Science studies what can be observed, if something cannot be observed, nor can it's effects so that it can be theorized about, than it doesn't affect this universe, and isn't a part of it. Ego, I suppose for some it is (me included). I believe what I see, I theorize about reasons, and keep an open mind to new explanations, and I'm skeptical about everything. I believe that is the best way to go about life.
And about who best understands life. I think, Biologists best understand the physical aspect, Sociologist the social (in humans) etc. Priests, Ministers, the religious. The origin of life, can ask, "why did it come" - a religious question. or "how did it come" - a scientific. Of these though, only the scientific seems to make any progress, and it influences how the "why" is debated.
um, no real problems you see, a laser (or maser, whatever) is focused into a beam, of coherent light. This means that it doesn't discipate over distance, things discipate when they spread apart, this is where you get the inverse squared law. Now, it is difficult to get light perfectly coherent so it will spread to some degree, and it seems in this case, that it spreads too much after 750m, for the thing to be effective as a weapon.
This would make it a point weapon, area weapon would take too much energy, as you suggest.
I'm surprised the size is still that large, that's practially within the visible range.
I would have expected the extra dimensions to be "obviosly" around Plank lengths. (10^-43m ?)
anyone know why they could be so large? or what does string (or brane) theory state?
0.1 mm would seem to be a size that could become useful for Star Trek like inventions in the near future!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, okay, I do respect religion, it helps this society with moral standards, and gives some people reason to act "good". But I think the problem arrises when you give people in this religion power. The old saying, power corrupts (abosulte power corrupts absolutely) seems to hold in this situation. Give some mortal the ability to say "God demands your money" and then the result that this mortal gets more money, take a freaking guess what's going to happen! That is not the main tenant of religion though. Religion gives life on earth meaning, and rules to live by.
perhaps all organizations of more than one person
Agreed, especially about the natrual, "unnatural" thing. I think in this case though, we don't know enough about the way that nature works as a whole to be able to decide properly wether or not the help overrules the hurt. Granted, one species of moth dissapearing probably doesn't matter, and that looks like the only danger here, but we really can't be sure, maybe they will react with so and so chemical in so and so bird's gizzard and cause problems.
So I agree, it doesn't really matter what happens, but as a part of nature ourselves, we have a survival instinct, we know our world works now, and most people don't want to mess with something that works, if they don't know what's going to happen. It might hurt us in the long run, that would mean that as a species we commited suicide, that doesn't really fit, in the Darwinian sense, species try to survive, environmentalism is one manifestation of this, and a valid one.
I hope that was coherent.
I'm not sure I understand the physics of that. We cool off in air (on a hot day, or in the breeze) because the sweat evaporates from our skin, carrying off heat. Bullets don't sweat, and aren't moist. The moving air itself could carry off heat, but a normal bullet is hot because the air is moving past it fast enough to heat it by friction. I would guess then that the air in the cavity isn't leaving the cavity, and moving "slowley" inside, or vibrating (sound wave). Was that the idea?
one more thing: technilogical superiority because you've got the fastest gun? there are many other things to consider, most of which the US does have, but this gun isn't THAT significant, I don't think.
could this become a feasable way to get pico-satelites in orbit? It sounds like, with further testing, they can get even acceleration that doesn't do too much damage to the pellet.
oh, one more thing, where can I get one? :)
So is this the speed of sound measured in air or water? From what I know, the speed of sound in water is a lot more than the speed of sound in air.
If it's the speed of sound in water, I wonder what sort of wave effects this would have, especially on the surface of the water, a sonic boom in water instead of air might be cool to see!
I say, anything that cannot be observed has no influence on this universe. If it has influence, that influence can be observed. If miralcles happen, then they have influence, they will be VERY difficult to study, because of rare occurence, but they are observable and studyable. God may not be directly observable, buy neither are black holes, yet we have good reason to believe they exist. It may be that some day we see good reason to believe God exists, maybe life itself is this good reason. I believe we don't know enough about it to make that leap. The point is, if it is not observable, than it doesn't affect anything, and is basically not of this universe, if it were, it would affect something, and be observable in some way that we can theroize about, it may not be that we can figure out exactly what it is, but we can try to explain the effects it has.
When you try figure out the origins of life, you are exploring the past, a very difficult endevour, you go and observe it, just it's effects, and try to reproduce what might have happened. Fine, so there isn't much evidence, but what if we can make a pool of slime that produces life, what if we can show that it is likely that that sort of pool existed in the early stages of earth's life? That's not absolute proof, but it's a good theory to work with, just like all science.
Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.
Alright, I know I'm going to sound a bit harsh. Science studies what can be observed, if something cannot be observed, nor can it's effects so that it can be theorized about, than it doesn't affect this universe, and isn't a part of it. Ego, I suppose for some it is (me included). I believe what I see, I theorize about reasons, and keep an open mind to new explanations, and I'm skeptical about everything. I believe that is the best way to go about life.
And about who best understands life. I think, Biologists best understand the physical aspect, Sociologist the social (in humans) etc. Priests, Ministers, the religious. The origin of life, can ask, "why did it come" - a religious question. or "how did it come" - a scientific. Of these though, only the scientific seems to make any progress, and it influences how the "why" is debated.
I'm going to quite rambling now and go for lunch.
This would make it a point weapon, area weapon would take too much energy, as you suggest.
I'm surprised the size is still that large, that's practially within the visible range. I would have expected the extra dimensions to be "obviosly" around Plank lengths. (10^-43m ?) anyone know why they could be so large? or what does string (or brane) theory state? 0.1 mm would seem to be a size that could become useful for Star Trek like inventions in the near future!