I'm interested. How is a 1942 fanfare linked to an OS (other than the abandoned Copland OS, which, so far as I can tell, has nothing to do with Fanfare for the Common Man)?
Naming the server "Hezbollah" and having a bunch of cnames point to it ensures you can easily move a service at any later time without having to rename the server.
Right. It also means that if there's a horrible disk crash, the FBI and NSA no doubt have several nice backup copies from last Friday you can borrow.
Los Alamos (where I work) is always interested in having bright students (of any level, high school and beyond) come and work here. My particular group hosted a high school student last summer. I'm sure the other national labs have similar programs. Just snoop around the website (this might be a place to start for ideas: http://www.lanl.gov/education/profiles/index.shtml), email people who are doing cool things, and you might be surprised at the opportunities that open up.
I suspect you're speaking of an object's "proper time" (that referenced to an object's locally-Euclidean---that is, non-accelerated---reference frame) and something you're calling the "time reference". What do you mean by "time reference"?
Gravitational fields very much can and do affect objects' time: that's the whole idea of General Relativity. So far as I know, your example is speaking only of Special Relativistic effects with your mention of making an object move faster and changing its "time reference". The problem therein is that the object is, indeed, accelerated (as you mention) via gravitation, but then it can no longer be said to be in a locally-Euclidean reference frame. This goes for the satellites you've launched away from Earth and returned -- their turn-around point is going to include acceleration, and the effects on the time-coordinates of the satellites are very evident there.
Because a second/minute/year/millenia ago that spot was occupied by empty space. The earth is moving very fast through space.
You're assuming some immutable aether to give an absolute reference. Why assume that the place the object might appear later in time is some position stationary with respect to Sol, but not to the galaxy? Or the parent supercluster? Or some other object? We've abolished the Machian idea of an absolute reference frame by now.
Maybe, but that's a lot of speculation, and all of the points are refuted by my specific experience as an undergrad, grad student, and post-doc: The lead PI, especially if he or she is established (as Chu and Muller obviously are), will give credit where it's due to as many people as possible, *especially* undergraduates and grad students, who could really use a jump-start to their careers.
Agreed completely. Note, too, that the claimed "volume resolution" improvement is about 10^8; if this is an equal amount of resolution in three dimensions, then the linear improvement is about 464. This is definitely no mean feat, but it's not quite as radical a change as one first thinks.
Regardless, thanks for the lesson! Hanging out with native Chinese has really opened my eyes as to the vagaries of languages, and how ensconced they are in shared experiences, and how clueless outsiders may be to the meanings of non-literal phrases.
I think it all depends from which side you look at it. From the light's perspective, or from the surface.
So you're saying that from one perspective a surface will be attracted to the direction from which the light came, and from another perspective it will be repelled? That is *not* a relativistically viable effect:)
But, you can be placed on a centerfuge and give a acceleration that is indeed correct, but imply you're being launched...
You can give a _locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct, but not a _non_locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct (in other words, tidal forces will be very significant, especially for any centrifuge which is smaller than the entire earth. Someone simply dropping two objects separated by a meter or so can easily detect if they're in a gravity well---or in a centrifuge---or being accelerated more linearly, as to the moon).
It has been a wonderful joy watching the people here on Slashdot completely misunderstand the Electric Universe debate.
Once some unambiguous predictions (or even post-dictions) are made which are more comprehensively explained by an Electric Universe theory than by more traditional theory, then perhaps the misunderstandings will be resolved. Until then, expect to work very, very hard at making things understood, and expect more push-back.
Had to go look at the Electric Universe's webpage (won't link to it now; the curious can drive traffic). I see no mention of anything like this structure predicted on any sort of scale like this, though they post-hoc claim that galactic-sized spiraly bits can be explained with their theory. Probably their page is in need of revision, though, with these new findings...
That depends at which level you were taught that science. If it was in elementary school, or perhaps junior high, I can see the need to dumb things down. However, at any level above high school, people have been teaching this stuff since the 1960's, and really thinking about it since at least the 40's. If someone was teaching that it goes fish->amphibian->(eventually, perhaps)man, then they did you a great disservice.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the explanation.
I'm interested. How is a 1942 fanfare linked to an OS (other than the abandoned Copland OS, which, so far as I can tell, has nothing to do with Fanfare for the Common Man)?
Remarkably, the Merrimack of the US Confederacy started out trying to sink the Monitor in the same way.
Naming the server "Hezbollah" and having a bunch of cnames point to it ensures you can easily move a service at any later time without having to rename the server.
Right. It also means that if there's a horrible disk crash, the FBI and NSA no doubt have several nice backup copies from last Friday you can borrow.
No way! Daylight Donuts' breakfast burritos are far better :)
http://www.lanl.gov/education/precollege/
Los Alamos (where I work) is always interested in having bright students (of any level, high school and beyond) come and work here. My particular group hosted a high school student last summer. I'm sure the other national labs have similar programs. Just snoop around the website (this might be a place to start for ideas: http://www.lanl.gov/education/profiles/index.shtml), email people who are doing cool things, and you might be surprised at the opportunities that open up.
I suspect you're speaking of an object's "proper time" (that referenced to an object's locally-Euclidean---that is, non-accelerated---reference frame) and something you're calling the "time reference". What do you mean by "time reference"?
Gravitational fields very much can and do affect objects' time: that's the whole idea of General Relativity. So far as I know, your example is speaking only of Special Relativistic effects with your mention of making an object move faster and changing its "time reference". The problem therein is that the object is, indeed, accelerated (as you mention) via gravitation, but then it can no longer be said to be in a locally-Euclidean reference frame. This goes for the satellites you've launched away from Earth and returned -- their turn-around point is going to include acceleration, and the effects on the time-coordinates of the satellites are very evident there.
Because a second/minute/year/millenia ago that spot was occupied by empty space. The earth is moving very fast through space.
You're assuming some immutable aether to give an absolute reference. Why assume that the place the object might appear later in time is some position stationary with respect to Sol, but not to the galaxy? Or the parent supercluster? Or some other object? We've abolished the Machian idea of an absolute reference frame by now.
Maybe, but that's a lot of speculation, and all of the points are refuted by my specific experience as an undergrad, grad student, and post-doc: The lead PI, especially if he or she is established (as Chu and Muller obviously are), will give credit where it's due to as many people as possible, *especially* undergraduates and grad students, who could really use a jump-start to their careers.
Lewinski?
Close, but no cigar.
Worked for Monika Lewinsky.
Lewinski? Don't want to stain that good name. Might get a dressing-down.
The last thing you want is someone so hands on in a high level position.
Worked for Monika Lewinsky.
Agreed completely. Note, too, that the claimed "volume resolution" improvement is about 10^8; if this is an equal amount of resolution in three dimensions, then the linear improvement is about 464. This is definitely no mean feat, but it's not quite as radical a change as one first thinks.
Regardless, thanks for the lesson! Hanging out with native Chinese has really opened my eyes as to the vagaries of languages, and how ensconced they are in shared experiences, and how clueless outsiders may be to the meanings of non-literal phrases.
Perhaps. The OED first has the phrase used in 1708, but not "explained" as due to being conceived or born on a gun-deck until 1867.
An alternate suggestion would be to do everything yourself onboard, then release it all at once when you hit shore.
Ah, yes. The traditional way of sailors dealing with . . . things, since man first started traversing the waters.
It's a nice way of thinking about it. Almost by _definition_, heat is simply energy for which we don't bother to quantify momentum.
I think it all depends from which side you look at it. From the light's perspective, or from the surface.
So you're saying that from one perspective a surface will be attracted to the direction from which the light came, and from another perspective it will be repelled? That is *not* a relativistically viable effect :)
Of course, clicking on the following might lead to seven more grams of carbon dioxide being generated . . ..
Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation
http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf (pdf warning, obviously)
But, you can be placed on a centerfuge and give a acceleration that is indeed correct, but imply you're being launched...
You can give a _locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct, but not a _non_locally_Euclidean_ acceleration which is correct (in other words, tidal forces will be very significant, especially for any centrifuge which is smaller than the entire earth. Someone simply dropping two objects separated by a meter or so can easily detect if they're in a gravity well---or in a centrifuge---or being accelerated more linearly, as to the moon).
It has been a wonderful joy watching the people here on Slashdot completely misunderstand the Electric Universe debate.
Once some unambiguous predictions (or even post-dictions) are made which are more comprehensively explained by an Electric Universe theory than by more traditional theory, then perhaps the misunderstandings will be resolved. Until then, expect to work very, very hard at making things understood, and expect more push-back.
you can think of it as the afterglow of the big bang.
Oh, as though slashdotters know what "afterglow" is.
The britts could do it, now it's you turn, Yanks.
Pot, meet kettle?
Had to go look at the Electric Universe's webpage (won't link to it now; the curious can drive traffic). I see no mention of anything like this structure predicted on any sort of scale like this, though they post-hoc claim that galactic-sized spiraly bits can be explained with their theory. Probably their page is in need of revision, though, with these new findings...
That depends at which level you were taught that science. If it was in elementary school, or perhaps junior high, I can see the need to dumb things down. However, at any level above high school, people have been teaching this stuff since the 1960's, and really thinking about it since at least the 40's. If someone was teaching that it goes fish->amphibian->(eventually, perhaps)man, then they did you a great disservice.