I don't mean to be messing with Hemos or anything, but why is the Psion so much better than other things. I am still convinced that the Cassiopeia E-100/105 is quite a bit better than this guy. I mean, color screen, 131 Mhz processor (OK, it is DragonBall) and Wince does make it not quite as good, but still. . . Any explanations as to the Psion's superiority would be appriciated. . .
Re:Rio has extreme battery life
on
PDA+MP3 Player
·
· Score: 1
Yes, except GMT is effected by daylight savings time, I think (Damn daylight savings time) . . . anyway. . .
I don't think that they actually are closing down Greenwich for time keeping, but they _did_ move the official center of astronomy out of there because the lights from London were too bright to do any type of astronomy. .
Re:Good taste?! You're kidding, right?
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 1
I agree that South Park is good, but tasteful? It's far from it. That's why it's so popular!
Re:Casio E-100: Palm + Rio killer
on
PDA+MP3 Player
·
· Score: 1
True. It is a battery hog, but it does operate on, unlike the Palm III, rechargable batteries. That's a big plus in my book.
Re:Casio E-100: Palm + Rio killer
on
PDA+MP3 Player
·
· Score: 1
This is why the E-100 will be great:
1. Yes, it only has 16 megs of RAM, but that can be fixed with a flash card.
2. Yes, it runs wince, and that is a draw back, but it does run 2.1, and that is a helluv a lot nicer than the first versions.
3. It _does_ play MP3's and although it's not the perfect solution, it comes closest.
And, buy.com has it for $410, assuming they ever get it in:-)
The Earth, when viewed from space, rotates on its axis (about) 366.25 times by the time it goes around the Sun. We on Earth only see this as 365.25 days due to the fact that we are going around the Sun as well and one whole rotation is lost due to movement in it's orbit (this is much easier with pictures:-))
Allright. Here is a better explanation (hopefully). There are 3.155815x10^7 seconds in a year. If we divide this time by the length of the sideral day, we get 366.25 . . . If we divide it by an Earth day (what we see here on Earth) we get 365.25 days. . .
Like everything, it's a matter of perspective. . .
I can't say to any major observational breakthroughs that I know of (although they very well may be out there) but new theory seems to suggest that AGN's (Active Galactic Nuclei, of which Quasars are a subset) are a stage of formation of _all_ galaxies, including our own. Observationally, the only data that I know of is the fact that Quasars fluctuate on a scale of a few days or weeks, which can only be understood if they are small and the only way things that small can give off that much energy from material falling into a black hole. . .
Well, technically some of the matter would be hidden by the event horizon, but the black hole is so tiny compared to the accretion disk that it doesn't really have an affect on the color. The main material that you have to look at in redshift/blueshift considerations is the material adjacent to the black hole, not the stuff in front of or behind the black hole.
And, you're right. Compared to the expansion of the universe, these redshifts/blueshifts are often pretty small. Whenever these measurements are being made, they use filters appropriate to the redshift that the object is at (i.e. a "5000 Angstrom filter" designed for high redshifts may actually let light through at a higher wavelength).
It sort of makes sense. The only trouble is that black hole sucking is isotropic (the same in all directions). So, there will always be a component towards and away from the observer. In theory, if we could resolve the acretion disk (we cannot come even close for Quasars) we would see some blue shifted light and some red shifted light. . . but at those distances everything is so redshifted anyway (do to universe expansion) that it all looks red:-)
You answered your own question. Any redshifted light would be counteracted by the blueshifted light. This is one reason why we see spread in the emission lines from Quasars. (part of the emission line is blue shifted and the other part is redshifted, so the line spreads out) The pink light is from something else. . . probably material in the acretion disk of the black hole.
The reason that we are detecting these (to use a technical term) wacked out planets is because there is a selection effect for them. That is, we tend to detect large planets, with highly eccentric orbits close to their stars. This just has to do with the fact that the detector technology is not good enough yet to detect the Doppler shifts caused by the smaller planets. So, there is a chance that there is a large percentage of stars out there with planets, but we just can't see them yet.
As for the formation point, there are several attempts at forming (no pun intended) a viable theory for Jupiter sized planets forming. It's actually quite interesting. A good site to go get this stuff from is right from the horse's mouth: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/p lanetsearch.html
That is Darcy's (one of the guy's who discovered a lot of these planets) page at SF State.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to be messing with Hemos or anything, but why is the Psion so much better than other things. I am still convinced that the Cassiopeia E-100/105 is quite a bit better than this guy. I mean, color screen, 131 Mhz processor (OK, it is DragonBall) and Wince does make it not quite as good, but still. . . Any explanations as to the Psion's superiority would be appriciated. . .
But does your Rio run at 121 Mhz?
More Power= More better
:-)
Yes, except GMT is effected by daylight savings time, I think (Damn daylight savings time) . . . anyway. . .
I don't think that they actually are closing down Greenwich for time keeping, but they _did_ move the official center of astronomy out of there because the lights from London were too bright to do any type of astronomy. .
I agree that South Park is good, but tasteful? It's far from it. That's why it's so popular!
True. It is a battery hog, but it does operate on, unlike the Palm III, rechargable batteries. That's a big plus in my book.
This is why the E-100 will be great:
:-)
1. Yes, it only has 16 megs of RAM, but that can be fixed with a flash card.
2. Yes, it runs wince, and that is a draw back, but it does run 2.1, and that is a helluv a lot nicer than the first versions.
3. It _does_ play MP3's and although it's not the perfect solution, it comes closest.
And, buy.com has it for $410, assuming they ever get it in
I guess it's just a matter of how you say it.
:-))
The Earth, when viewed from space, rotates on its axis (about) 366.25 times by the time it goes around the Sun. We on Earth only see this as 365.25 days due to the fact that we are going around the Sun as well and one whole rotation is lost due to movement in it's orbit (this is much easier with pictures
Allright. Here is a better explanation (hopefully). There are 3.155815x10^7 seconds in a year. If we divide this time by the length of the sideral day, we get 366.25 . . . If we divide it by an Earth day (what we see here on Earth) we get 365.25 days. . .
Like everything, it's a matter of perspective. . .
For someone who acts so holier-than-thou, you should at least get your facts right.
The year that we measure on the planet is 365.24 days (hence the leap year every 4 years). A sidreal year is actually 366.24 years . . .
Just thought you might want to know. . .
How is it possible that the velocity of the jets exceeds c? It should never exceed c from _any_ reference frame.
"approximately 3e8 meters/second"
"about 9.5e15"
You said it, when your approximating all over the place, it's not suprising that you should be off by a factor of 3.
I can't say to any major observational breakthroughs that I know of (although they very well may be out there) but new theory seems to suggest that AGN's (Active Galactic Nuclei, of which Quasars are a subset) are a stage of formation of _all_ galaxies, including our own. Observationally, the only data that I know of is the fact that Quasars fluctuate on a scale of a few days or weeks, which can only be understood if they are small and the only way things that small can give off that much energy from material falling into a black hole. . .
Well, technically some of the matter would be hidden by the event horizon, but the black hole is so tiny compared to the accretion disk that it doesn't really have an affect on the color. The main material that you have to look at in redshift/blueshift considerations is the material adjacent to the black hole, not the stuff in front of or behind the black hole.
And, you're right. Compared to the expansion of the universe, these redshifts/blueshifts are often pretty small. Whenever these measurements are being made, they use filters appropriate to the redshift that the object is at (i.e. a "5000 Angstrom filter" designed for high redshifts may actually let light through at a higher wavelength).
It is almost certain that Quasars are powered by black holes. That is what modern theory says, anyway, and it seems pretty valid.
It sort of makes sense. The only trouble is that black hole sucking is isotropic (the same in all directions). So, there will always be a component towards and away from the observer. In theory, if we could resolve the acretion disk (we cannot come even close for Quasars) we would see some blue shifted light and some red shifted light. . . but at those distances everything is so redshifted anyway (do to universe expansion) that it all looks red :-)
You answered your own question. Any redshifted light would be counteracted by the blueshifted light. This is one reason why we see spread in the emission lines from Quasars. (part of the emission line is blue shifted and the other part is redshifted, so the line spreads out) The pink light is from something else. . . probably material in the acretion disk of the black hole.
The reason that we are detecting these (to use a technical term) wacked out planets is because there is a selection effect for them. That is, we tend to detect large planets, with highly eccentric orbits close to their stars. This just has to do with the fact that the detector technology is not good enough yet to detect the Doppler shifts caused by the smaller planets. So, there is a chance that there is a large percentage of stars out there with planets, but we just can't see them yet.
p lanetsearch.html
As for the formation point, there are several attempts at forming (no pun intended) a viable theory for Jupiter sized planets forming. It's actually quite interesting. A good site to go get this stuff from is right from the horse's mouth:
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/
That is Darcy's (one of the guy's who discovered a lot of these planets) page at SF State.