... you're a troll. In the previous thread on the same topic, you wrote something similar and people told you that you were being foolish. Thanks for proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, what your real intent is.
Momentum's conserved, mass is conserved, energy is conserved -- nothing unusual is happening here. It's just the sloshing of the matter in an object. There's no violation of physics here.
Life isn't a violation of the second law, either. Put energy into a system, and you can reduce entropy locally. The only things that violate the second law are perpetual motion machines. (Small statistical glitches, like those reported last week, aren't violations either, as the second law is statistical.)
That doesn't sound like Doppler-based measurement. It's simple laser ranging, though you've got to take the Doppler effect into account because of the relative motion of the Earth and the satellite.
Actually, the Palermo scale gives a really good idea about when to be concerned, and it isn't based upon expectations like the ones you're calculating. It compares the probability of a collision with Earth to the background probability of such collisions.
Imagine that you're inspecting a plane to determine whether you want to fly on it or not. If you determine that the probability of crashing while flying that plane is roughly the same as flying on a random plane, it would have something analogous to a Palermo score of 0. If it is 10 times more likely to crash, it would have a palermo score of +1. If it's ten times *less* likely to crash, it has a Palermo score of -1. (This is a rough analogy, of course.)
This rock has a Palermo score of -3. This means that this particular rock is much, much less likely to hit us in the next few centuries than a random, as-yet-undetected massive chunk of rock.
You've got to take backgrounds into account when you look at risks like this, otherwise you'll waste your worrying on the wrong things -- kinda like spending lots of effort and money on a crash-safe Volvo SUV and forgetting to buckle your seatbelt.
It makes about as much sense as a reporter who sees that Tom Cruise is getting paid $20 million for an upcoming movie -- and then concluding that a small strip of his flesh would earn $40,000 in the role. When, of course, the small strip of flesh would do a better job.
I think you're confused on this one. A plane can look like a sine wave if you're tilted with respect to it -- for instance, the sun seems to move in a sine wave between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer, but the solar system is a plane, and all motion within it is pretty much planar. (And the paths are great circles on the celestial sphere that are inclined with respect to the equatorial plane.)
The Earth passes through the central plane of the galaxy without hitting anything because even in that plane, there ain't much stuff there. Space is big.
Here at the APS site, there's an abstract. It looks like a bad paper -- one of a zillion theories that make mountains out of correlations. It's not even this author's first proposal of this sort. Five years ago, he suggested that the cosmic rays caused extinction events.
Sounds like this guy has a favorite hammer, and he's now convinced that everything looks like a nail.
Say, for instance, you have the sequence of amino acids that make up a protein, but you don't know its three-dimensional shape. You need some serious CPU time to simulate it folding up, or to see how the active site of an enzyme interacts with its target, or numerous other tasks. It's still chemistry even if it doesn't stink up the lab.
The Russians splattered plutonium in the href="http://www.jamesoberg.com/articles/plutonium.html">Andes, thanks to the failed Mars96 probe. The RTGs are probably intact, but you'd think that people would at least try to find out.
The Pioneers and Voyagers are the only man-made objects to have left our solar system. Even though the spacecraft are sending little more information than "I'm not dead yet," physicists can use those signals to determine where the influence of the solar wind (the heliopause) ends, and whether or not gravity behaves as expected at large distances. (See, for example, this article.)
Umm... a "Giant Squid" can be Architeuthis dux, or A. harveyi, or A. martensi, or A. sanctipauli, or a half dozen others. What do you have against a new species being found?
I cracked up when I got to the sentence: "The giant squid is believed to feed on, among other things, the world's biggest animals with several eyewitness stories from fisherman who have seen the squid in fierce battles with whales." Usual high standards of CNN science journalism. *sigh*
I've seen lots of explanations like this, and I find none of them convincing -- they are all based upon using modern methods to find coincidences and then extrapolating backwards.
And as for rebirth of the universe, there's specific evidence to the contrary. In the Maya city of Palenque, an inscription on king Pakal's tomb extrapolates the king's ancestry into the past and deep into the future. As Linda Schele, an eminent Maya scholar, put it: "Not satisfied with this chronological feat, Pakal started from his birth date to cast forward in time to the day when the calendar-round of his accession, 5 Lamat 1 Mol, would repeat for the eightieth time.... We will have to wait until October 23, A.D. 4772, to confirm his prophecy. Obviously, Pakal and his itz'at did not believe that the world would end on 13.0.0.0.0 in A.D. 2012, as modern myth would have it."
You're right that the Maya didn't predict solar flares in 2012. But the Maya didn't even predict a planetary convergence, the end of the world, or anything else in 2012. Their calendar merely ends. It's unclear what they thought the significance was, but at least one Mayan document talks about events after 2012, so they clearly didn't think that the world was going to end.
MOND is the best theory of this sort, and it just doesn't work. It does a great job with some galaxies, but with dwarf galaxies and galaxy clusters, it fails. Furthermore, for technical reasons, it isn't compatible with the mathematics of Einstein's general theory, so it's really not a very good alternative to dark matter.
This confused me at first, too. It can't be used for orbital debris, because the resolution's too small. But it seems this is for detecting spy satellites that are beyond the range of typical ground-based radar systems. And from the technique used, it seems that it will be an existence/tracking method rather than truly resolving the object.
It took this long to analyze its function, which was published in this week's Science magazine (along with the giant-brained mutant mice, which I thought was a much cooler story.)
Slashdot Mirror
They're wax.
... you're a troll. In the previous thread on the same topic, you wrote something similar and people told you that you were being foolish. Thanks for proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, what your real intent is.
Life isn't a violation of the second law, either. Put energy into a system, and you can reduce entropy locally. The only things that violate the second law are perpetual motion machines. (Small statistical glitches, like those reported last week, aren't violations either, as the second law is statistical.)
That doesn't sound like Doppler-based measurement. It's simple laser ranging, though you've got to take the Doppler effect into account because of the relative motion of the Earth and the satellite.
It appeared in the May 10 issue of Science; abstract here. Can't blame PopSci for being so late, though. They're a monthly.
Imagine that you're inspecting a plane to determine whether you want to fly on it or not. If you determine that the probability of crashing while flying that plane is roughly the same as flying on a random plane, it would have something analogous to a Palermo score of 0. If it is 10 times more likely to crash, it would have a palermo score of +1. If it's ten times *less* likely to crash, it has a Palermo score of -1. (This is a rough analogy, of course.)
This rock has a Palermo score of -3. This means that this particular rock is much, much less likely to hit us in the next few centuries than a random, as-yet-undetected massive chunk of rock.
You've got to take backgrounds into account when you look at risks like this, otherwise you'll waste your worrying on the wrong things -- kinda like spending lots of effort and money on a crash-safe Volvo SUV and forgetting to buckle your seatbelt.
It makes about as much sense as a reporter who sees that Tom Cruise is getting paid $20 million for an upcoming movie -- and then concluding that a small strip of his flesh would earn $40,000 in the role. When, of course, the small strip of flesh would do a better job.
... they'll be killing all of the butterflies. They're in the way of the Three Gorges Dam anyhow.
The Earth passes through the central plane of the galaxy without hitting anything because even in that plane, there ain't much stuff there. Space is big.
Sounds like this guy has a favorite hammer, and he's now convinced that everything looks like a nail.
I'm gonna cancel my subscription. Besides, Mr. Postman from operation TIPS was bound to get suspicious of me anyhow.
Say, for instance, you have the sequence of amino acids that make up a protein, but you don't know its three-dimensional shape. You need some serious CPU time to simulate it folding up, or to see how the active site of an enzyme interacts with its target, or numerous other tasks. It's still chemistry even if it doesn't stink up the lab.
Damn. I meant Andes.
The Russians splattered plutonium in the href="http://www.jamesoberg.com/articles/plutonium .html">Andes, thanks to the failed Mars96 probe. The RTGs are probably intact, but you'd think that people would at least try to find out.
The Pioneers and Voyagers are the only man-made objects to have left our solar system. Even though the spacecraft are sending little more information than "I'm not dead yet," physicists can use those signals to determine where the influence of the solar wind (the heliopause) ends, and whether or not gravity behaves as expected at large distances. (See, for example, this article.)
Umm... a "Giant Squid" can be Architeuthis dux, or A. harveyi, or A. martensi, or A. sanctipauli, or a half dozen others. What do you have against a new species being found?
*fweet*
Illegal use of purple prose. Fifteen yards. Repeat first down.
I cracked up when I got to the sentence: "The giant squid is believed to feed on, among other things, the world's biggest animals with several eyewitness stories from fisherman who have seen the squid in fierce battles with whales." Usual high standards of CNN science journalism. *sigh*
And as for rebirth of the universe, there's specific evidence to the contrary. In the Maya city of Palenque, an inscription on king Pakal's tomb extrapolates the king's ancestry into the past and deep into the future. As Linda Schele, an eminent Maya scholar, put it: "Not satisfied with this chronological feat, Pakal started from his birth date to cast forward in time to the day when the calendar-round of his accession, 5 Lamat 1 Mol, would repeat for the eightieth time.... We will have to wait until October 23, A.D. 4772, to confirm his prophecy. Obviously, Pakal and his itz'at did not believe that the world would end on 13.0.0.0.0 in A.D. 2012, as modern myth would have it."
You're right that the Maya didn't predict solar flares in 2012.
But the Maya didn't even predict a planetary convergence, the end of the world, or anything else in 2012.
Their calendar merely ends. It's unclear what they thought the significance was, but at least one Mayan document talks about events after 2012, so they clearly didn't think that the world was going to end.
MOND is the best theory of this sort, and it just doesn't work. It does a great job with some galaxies, but with dwarf galaxies and galaxy clusters, it fails. Furthermore, for technical reasons, it isn't compatible with the mathematics of Einstein's general theory, so it's really not a very good alternative to dark matter.
So long as it doesn't learn to read the newspaper, too. Then we'd never get the damn dogs outta the bathroom.
(Cool link, BTW!)
It took this long to analyze its function, which was published in this week's Science magazine (along with the giant-brained mutant mice, which I thought was a much cooler story.)
As the article says, the Federation of American Scientists says that this facility is like GEODSS.