The cops that shoot traffic radar don't get cancer from the radiation, they get it from God smiting them for doing the most asshole job for 20-30 years.
You are interpreting.98+/-.19 c, which is the result given in the paper. It does not mean that some of the signal went at.98-.19=.81c and some of it went at.98+.19=1.17c. It means the researchers are 95% confident that what they measured traveled between.81c and 1.17c.
Um no. If there is a way for *information* to propagate faster than the speed of light, this violates causality. For example, from one reference frame, I could repeat what you just said, and in another reference frame, you could repeat what I just said. One can cause the other, but they both can't cause each other, which would be possible with sending information faster than c.
OK that was a bad explanation. Just know that information travelling faster than the speed of light violates causality, according to special relativity.
Quantum entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" can cause a change in a system to propagate faster than the speed of light (instantly, in fact), but it cannot be used to send information. And yes, IIAQP (quantum physicist).
If everyone did this, it was just make taxes jump significantly, meaning EVERYONE would pay more for power. Oh, and no one would use the electricity grid, so you can forget power when a clouds in the way. The tax credit for solar power does not fall under the "common good."
I fully support new power sources, and the very obvious cheap, long-lasting, safe, clean source is nuclear power. But greenie socialists killed nuclear power a few decades ago.
You should be thanking the oil companies for making oil plentiful, available, and cheap, not demonizing them. Cheap oil is the backbone of the world's economy.
Well it works out just fine with mass distorting spacetime through general relativity. But gravitons are a quantum particle, so general relativity can't really describe them.
Yeah I know there is such a thing as engine breaks. I was trying to be as condescending as possible to match the tone of the post I was replying to. Although engine brakes still rely on friction between the tire and road to work.
Well it is quite ignorant to imply that not only are all wife-beaters and poor drivers drunk, but further that anyone who drinks not only does these things regularly, but also is immoral and a hedonist. I'm a conservative as well, but a Irish Catholic that loves his green beer on St. Patty's day, so I'm sure you hold me in contempt.
Is that supposed to be an insult to Americans? That our society values technological advances in cars?
You just proved his point about elitism. You are saying that Americans aren't as "good" as you since automatic transmissions are in widespread use here.
If your citizens are blind enough to allow to government to put 150% taxes on gas, that's your problem. "Ecology taxes" is a poorly hidden version of politicians saying "we want to spend more of your money".
Oh, and since you don't seem to understand this, I'll explain it. The engine doesn't actually slow down the car. You see, they invented something called brakes, so people could slow down as quickly as their tire friction allows (I included the wikipedia links since you don't seem to know what these two things are).
An accident in operation resulting in any sort of contamination is damn near impossible. I would be fine with the safety considerations of living next to a nuclear power plant with modern safety precautions (the eye sore, of course, is another matter). A transportation accident would result in costly cleanup, but hardly disastrous. Not to mention the extreme precautions taken to prevent such an occurance.
I'm not claiming to have crunched the numbers myself, but the wikipedia article I linked claims the cost of nuclear power is on par or slightly cheaper than natural gas or coal (including construction, waste storage, dismantling of the plant, etc), and is not in danger of running out of fuel for a very long time. Oh, and did I mention it has zero pollution?
Nuclear fuel, specifically uranium, while theoretically limited, is enough to last for hundreds if not thousands of years (link*)--and I'm sure at that point we will have developed fusion, and I don't think we'll run out of hydrogen any time soon. I couldn't find any information on how big the uranium reserves are in the US, but it is listed as one of the top producers of uranium in the article linked.
I really don't understand the opposition to moving to nuclear power. It's cheaper, safe, and storage issues add nothing more than cost to the power (which is already factored in).
*According to wikipedia, at current uranium prices, it will be profitable to extract uranium for 50 years. If that price is doubled, the time span jumps to hundreds of years. And the uranium is a small portion of the cost of a power plant--doubling the fuel cost would increase the total cost of the power by 5%.
Wile I certainly admit that copyright laws may apply for too long, the post I was replying to was suggesting the abolishment of ALL intellectual property, and that "notion of owning ideas and information" is somehow a bad thing.
Patent and copyright laws are something the federal government explicitly has the power to do under the Constitution, unlike many other things the federal government does.
While I'm not sure if his relativity paper (the most controversial one) had trouble getting published, I do know that it was rejected as his doctoral thesis. In 1920, after a key prediction of general relativity was verified, one Nobel committee member said "Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize even if the whole world demands it." As another poster alluded to, when he received the Nobel prize in 1922, it was with the understanding that he would not mention relativity in his acceptance speech.
The intermingling of politics and science is not new.
And I am not suggesting, as you tried to say I am, that the holder of a minority opinion must always be right. I am pointing out that political censoring has precedent in science, and was using perhaps the most widely known scientific theory as an example.
Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.
What do you mean a thermal efficiency near zero? The colder the cold reserve, the more efficient a heat engine is. Though perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean...
Um...have you ever done quantum mechanics? Assuming a full background in classical mechanics/E&M, it will still take dozens of pages of calculations before you will be able to see the solution to the wavefunction of the electron in a hydrogen atom. Oh, and this wavefunction is slightly wrong anyway. To get the right one, you'll need several more months of quantum mechanics/quantum field theory.
Physics IS banal and tedious. If you really don't like Newtonian physics, you aren't going to like learning relativity and quantum mechanics and working problems with them. I mean really learn them, not listen to a couple odd situations and think "oh, that's cool".
And there are already benefits of using 1a supernovae as standard candles. The data that points to an accelerating expansion of the universe was from using 1a supernovae, not Cepheids.
Slashdot Mirror
The cops that shoot traffic radar don't get cancer from the radiation, they get it from God smiting them for doing the most asshole job for 20-30 years.
You are interpreting .98+/-.19 c, which is the result given in the paper. It does not mean that some of the signal went at .98-.19=.81c and some of it went at .98+.19=1.17c. It means the researchers are 95% confident that what they measured traveled between .81c and 1.17c.
Um no. If there is a way for *information* to propagate faster than the speed of light, this violates causality. For example, from one reference frame, I could repeat what you just said, and in another reference frame, you could repeat what I just said. One can cause the other, but they both can't cause each other, which would be possible with sending information faster than c.
OK that was a bad explanation. Just know that information travelling faster than the speed of light violates causality, according to special relativity.
Quantum entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" can cause a change in a system to propagate faster than the speed of light (instantly, in fact), but it cannot be used to send information. And yes, IIAQP (quantum physicist).
If everyone did this, it was just make taxes jump significantly, meaning EVERYONE would pay more for power. Oh, and no one would use the electricity grid, so you can forget power when a clouds in the way. The tax credit for solar power does not fall under the "common good."
I fully support new power sources, and the very obvious cheap, long-lasting, safe, clean source is nuclear power. But greenie socialists killed nuclear power a few decades ago.
We aren't quite up to interfering cats yet, but a relatively large biological molecule (porphyrin) has been successfully made to interfere with itself.
You should be thanking the oil companies for making oil plentiful, available, and cheap, not demonizing them. Cheap oil is the backbone of the world's economy.
Well it works out just fine with mass distorting spacetime through general relativity. But gravitons are a quantum particle, so general relativity can't really describe them.
Yeah I know there is such a thing as engine breaks. I was trying to be as condescending as possible to match the tone of the post I was replying to. Although engine brakes still rely on friction between the tire and road to work.
If I buy a cup of coffee that can immediately be consumed without injury, that coffee was not sold hot enough.
Well it is quite ignorant to imply that not only are all wife-beaters and poor drivers drunk, but further that anyone who drinks not only does these things regularly, but also is immoral and a hedonist. I'm a conservative as well, but a Irish Catholic that loves his green beer on St. Patty's day, so I'm sure you hold me in contempt.
Is that supposed to be an insult to Americans? That our society values technological advances in cars?
You just proved his point about elitism. You are saying that Americans aren't as "good" as you since automatic transmissions are in widespread use here.
If your citizens are blind enough to allow to government to put 150% taxes on gas, that's your problem. "Ecology taxes" is a poorly hidden version of politicians saying "we want to spend more of your money".
Oh, and since you don't seem to understand this, I'll explain it. The engine doesn't actually slow down the car. You see, they invented something called brakes, so people could slow down as quickly as their tire friction allows (I included the wikipedia links since you don't seem to know what these two things are).
I'm ashamed my nation has people like you that think George W. Bush is selling lives for oil.
Many of them are first-generation citizens, so deportation is not an option.
An accident in operation resulting in any sort of contamination is damn near impossible. I would be fine with the safety considerations of living next to a nuclear power plant with modern safety precautions (the eye sore, of course, is another matter). A transportation accident would result in costly cleanup, but hardly disastrous. Not to mention the extreme precautions taken to prevent such an occurance.
I'm not claiming to have crunched the numbers myself, but the wikipedia article I linked claims the cost of nuclear power is on par or slightly cheaper than natural gas or coal (including construction, waste storage, dismantling of the plant, etc), and is not in danger of running out of fuel for a very long time. Oh, and did I mention it has zero pollution?
WoW is work, duh
Nuclear fuel, specifically uranium, while theoretically limited, is enough to last for hundreds if not thousands of years (link*)--and I'm sure at that point we will have developed fusion, and I don't think we'll run out of hydrogen any time soon. I couldn't find any information on how big the uranium reserves are in the US, but it is listed as one of the top producers of uranium in the article linked.
I really don't understand the opposition to moving to nuclear power. It's cheaper, safe, and storage issues add nothing more than cost to the power (which is already factored in).
*According to wikipedia, at current uranium prices, it will be profitable to extract uranium for 50 years. If that price is doubled, the time span jumps to hundreds of years. And the uranium is a small portion of the cost of a power plant--doubling the fuel cost would increase the total cost of the power by 5%.
Wile I certainly admit that copyright laws may apply for too long, the post I was replying to was suggesting the abolishment of ALL intellectual property, and that "notion of owning ideas and information" is somehow a bad thing.
Patent and copyright laws are something the federal government explicitly has the power to do under the Constitution, unlike many other things the federal government does.
Yeah, who needs any of the stuff that's been patented through a private research lab. Like anyone ever uses a transistor.
While I'm not sure if his relativity paper (the most controversial one) had trouble getting published, I do know that it was rejected as his doctoral thesis. In 1920, after a key prediction of general relativity was verified, one Nobel committee member said "Einstein must never receive a Nobel Prize even if the whole world demands it." As another poster alluded to, when he received the Nobel prize in 1922, it was with the understanding that he would not mention relativity in his acceptance speech.
The intermingling of politics and science is not new.
And I am not suggesting, as you tried to say I am, that the holder of a minority opinion must always be right. I am pointing out that political censoring has precedent in science, and was using perhaps the most widely known scientific theory as an example.
Excellent point. In fact, Einstein's claims of relativity and quantized 'packets' of light (photons) were considered controversial for well over a decade after he published the papers concerning them in 1905. It is certainly not inconceivable that the 'right' position is not accepted as such in the professional scientific community.
What do you mean a thermal efficiency near zero? The colder the cold reserve, the more efficient a heat engine is. Though perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean...
Um...have you ever done quantum mechanics? Assuming a full background in classical mechanics/E&M, it will still take dozens of pages of calculations before you will be able to see the solution to the wavefunction of the electron in a hydrogen atom. Oh, and this wavefunction is slightly wrong anyway. To get the right one, you'll need several more months of quantum mechanics/quantum field theory.
Physics IS banal and tedious. If you really don't like Newtonian physics, you aren't going to like learning relativity and quantum mechanics and working problems with them. I mean really learn them, not listen to a couple odd situations and think "oh, that's cool".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_candles
And there are already benefits of using 1a supernovae as standard candles. The data that points to an accelerating expansion of the universe was from using 1a supernovae, not Cepheids.
onewordlame