"If you're classing quantum mechanics as something that's insufficiently understood, I'd strongly disagree - we're currently way past that to quantum field theory."
The phrase "quantum mechanics" refers to both non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics (the latter being quantum field theory). If you can't even get the lingo straight, what's the point in replying?
For something to lose energy, it needs to bump into a lot of stuff. If dark matter really is weakly interacting, then you would expect it to have a higher temperature than more interactive stuff at the same number density. As for why it is hotter to begin with, who knows...
Have you really understood anything if the best you can do is write down a huge, abstract equation? (and in General Relativty and Quantum Physics, these equations get very huge/abstract)
These political goons are screwing this country over for years to come with every action they take to impede scientific progress. What's worse, these people don't appear to know the first thing about science. Apparently, it doesn't take much to get into NASA these days. From the article:
"Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, 'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.'"
If the Big Bang is merely an opinion, then the last ~100 years of scientific progress have been for naught. Thank you, Mr. Douche, for setting a great example for the children of tomorrow.
I can easily say that the newer versions of Photoshop dwarf the competition. I specifically focus on restoration and cleanup of old photographs, and this is where Photoshop excels. Photoshop's layout seems much more straightforward, and its utilities more accessible and versatile than those in GIMP.
This is news?? Didn't they have this technology in Jurassic Park back in 1993?? Clearly this is once again the fault of the Slashdot editors, for Hollywood has never deceived me before.
According to this, the object orbits at 52-62 AU, not 37 AU, but I wouldn't put it past the Slashdot editors to be wrong. How does Pluto compare to Phobos and Deimos?
"It would mean they'd have to reclassify all of the planets without stars for the same reason. And nobody is going to seriously suggest that a gas ball 100s of times the size of Jupiter is an asteroid or a comet. For a start, the press would crucify them."
Am I the only one for whom this statement made absolutely no sense? We were talking about a lower limit, not an upper limit... and we were talking about our Solar System. Defining planets as asteroids or comets??? Where did that come from?
"Don't worry, this would probably only affect your balls if they were farthe away than Pluto. If that's the case, then you have greater things to worry about than if they're listed as planets."
I can see the book now... "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Women have sent Men's Balls into a Trans-Neptunian Orbit"
It seems like the IAU could pin down a definition of what a "planet" is by setting some cutoff based on the object's gravitational effect on the Sun, which fall off as 1/r^2, so that even though the object is slightly larger than Pluto, it is so much farther away from the Sun than Pluto that its gravitational influence is below some arbitrary cutoff.
"Someone who is attracted to children has no more control over it than someone who is gay."
Strict homosexuality is simply the product of a society afraid of homosexuality. Does that mean it's wrong? Of course not. But they are as much in control of their lives as anyone else. Does that mean any of us are ever in control? I don't know.
"More of the 'uh... well, it went away when you came in. It's only around when you're not looking. And it knocks things over when I'm the only one in the room' variety..."
This sounds more like the work of a quantum physicist.
We only go after countries that don't have WMDs, otherwise there would be the threat of them launching them at us. That's why we don't go after North Korea, because they do have WMDs.
I was just going to reply about this show! It was excellent, and I couldn't wait for the 2nd season to start... but then there was something else aired in its place... and that was the end of that.
"That it has happened repeatedly in the past does not prove it will happen in the future, sure...But it does provide for very good odds that it will."
This claim is very poorly formed. You are taking a situation akin to flipping a coin N times and applying it to something completely different.
"How about a complete waveform exiting an object before it has been completely sent? How about nonlocality/spooky action at a distance?"
These examples occur at the quantum scale, and do not violate the speed limit of c. "Spooky action at a distance" is just a catch-phrase people like to use. No information is actually travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, c.
It's nonsense to say that a theory can apply "here", but not "there"
If by "nonsense", you mean "the way all of physics works", then sure, I would agree. Newton's laws apply on a macro scale for slow speeds. We don't toss them out as being wrong because we don't need ultra-high precision for most activities. Quantum mechanics works on the small scale, while relativity works on the large and high speed scales. They all have their applicable zones. That is how all of physics works. Do you have any experience whatsoever in the field?
"History has shown that it's best to bet AGAINST the current scientific theories, as they will all be disproven eventually."
Logical fallacy. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen again, or that it will always happen in the future.
"There are many cases where faster-than-light phenomenon can be observered"
These cases involve light travelling slower than c. There aren't any case where faster than c phenomenon have been observed.
"and there are many cases where relativity falls down."
These cases are all in regimes that we are not talking about. Relativity fails at small scales, and we are talking about large scales. There is no basis for saying that "because relativity is known to fail in certain regimes, it may fail in its most accurate regime."
"I see no reason to believe that C is in-fact the universal speed limit."
You're confusing the variable speed of light with the universal speed of light (c).
This all assumes that the Universe is very life-centric. Simply because we would like to go somewhere and come back within our normal lifetimes doesn't mean it is possible. c is the universal speed limit.
You completely missed the point of my statement. It takes ~4 years from Earth's perspective for light to reach the nearest star outside the solar system, but from light's "frame", it takes no time. If we could get extremely close to the speed of light, we could get to that star in 1 minute, or in 10 seconds, or in 1 second. You don't have to go faster than the speed of light.
If you don't believe me, check out this flash animation which allows you to go up to 99.99% of the speed of light. Even though the total distance travelled (from Earth's perspective) is 8.4 light years, it only takes you one-third of a year to make the trip. Meanwhile, on Earth, almost 24 years pass, because you are going slower than the speed of light. If you could go the speed of light (and could stop instantaneously), you could make the trip in 0 time, and only 8.4 years would pass on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you're classing quantum mechanics as something that's insufficiently understood, I'd strongly disagree - we're currently way past that to quantum field theory."
The phrase "quantum mechanics" refers to both non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics (the latter being quantum field theory). If you can't even get the lingo straight, what's the point in replying?
"Does it matter if you can still derive predictions?"
Predictions allow you to check an existing hypothesis, but to make more progress requires a better understanding of what is actually happening.
For something to lose energy, it needs to bump into a lot of stuff. If dark matter really is weakly interacting, then you would expect it to have a higher temperature than more interactive stuff at the same number density. As for why it is hotter to begin with, who knows...
Have you really understood anything if the best you can do is write down a huge, abstract equation? (and in General Relativty and Quantum Physics, these equations get very huge/abstract)
These political goons are screwing this country over for years to come with every action they take to impede scientific progress. What's worse, these people don't appear to know the first thing about science. Apparently, it doesn't take much to get into NASA these days. From the article:
"Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is 'not proven fact; it is opinion,' Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, 'It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.'"
If the Big Bang is merely an opinion, then the last ~100 years of scientific progress have been for naught. Thank you, Mr. Douche, for setting a great example for the children of tomorrow.
I can easily say that the newer versions of Photoshop dwarf the competition. I specifically focus on restoration and cleanup of old photographs, and this is where Photoshop excels. Photoshop's layout seems much more straightforward, and its utilities more accessible and versatile than those in GIMP.
Playing My Little Pony: Los Angeles with a burned out old fart... that's every techie's dream...
This is news?? Didn't they have this technology in Jurassic Park back in 1993?? Clearly this is once again the fault of the Slashdot editors, for Hollywood has never deceived me before.
Dostoyevsky was right all along.
It wasn't supposed to be funny... but sure...
Finally! A blog that rivals MySpace and LiveJournal! And with the camera, we're sure to get photos of some hot chicks...
According to this, the object orbits at 52-62 AU, not 37 AU, but I wouldn't put it past the Slashdot editors to be wrong. How does Pluto compare to Phobos and Deimos?
"It would mean they'd have to reclassify all of the planets without stars for the same reason. And nobody is going to seriously suggest that a gas ball 100s of times the size of Jupiter is an asteroid or a comet. For a start, the press would crucify them."
Am I the only one for whom this statement made absolutely no sense? We were talking about a lower limit, not an upper limit... and we were talking about our Solar System. Defining planets as asteroids or comets??? Where did that come from?
"Don't worry, this would probably only affect your balls if they were farthe away than Pluto. If that's the case, then you have greater things to worry about than if they're listed as planets."
I can see the book now... "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Women have sent Men's Balls into a Trans-Neptunian Orbit"
It seems like the IAU could pin down a definition of what a "planet" is by setting some cutoff based on the object's gravitational effect on the Sun, which fall off as 1/r^2, so that even though the object is slightly larger than Pluto, it is so much farther away from the Sun than Pluto that its gravitational influence is below some arbitrary cutoff.
"Someone who is attracted to children has no more control over it than someone who is gay."
Strict homosexuality is simply the product of a society afraid of homosexuality. Does that mean it's wrong? Of course not. But they are as much in control of their lives as anyone else. Does that mean any of us are ever in control? I don't know.
"More of the 'uh... well, it went away when you came in. It's only around when you're not looking. And it knocks things over when I'm the only one in the room' variety..."
This sounds more like the work of a quantum physicist.
"Dark matter does not exist. That is all."
Are you one of the Men in Black???
(Bad joke. I'm sorry.)
We only go after countries that don't have WMDs, otherwise there would be the threat of them launching them at us. That's why we don't go after North Korea, because they do have WMDs.
I was just going to reply about this show! It was excellent, and I couldn't wait for the 2nd season to start... but then there was something else aired in its place... and that was the end of that.
"Better is wikipedia's Gimbaled thrust and the NASA pages it points to."
I just started this page a few hours ago! Must be a new record for wiki-to-slashdot linking.
"That it has happened repeatedly in the past does not prove it will happen in the future, sure...But it does provide for very good odds that it will."
This claim is very poorly formed. You are taking a situation akin to flipping a coin N times and applying it to something completely different.
"How about a complete waveform exiting an object before it has been completely sent? How about nonlocality/spooky action at a distance?"
These examples occur at the quantum scale, and do not violate the speed limit of c. "Spooky action at a distance" is just a catch-phrase people like to use. No information is actually travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, c.
It's nonsense to say that a theory can apply "here", but not "there"
If by "nonsense", you mean "the way all of physics works", then sure, I would agree. Newton's laws apply on a macro scale for slow speeds. We don't toss them out as being wrong because we don't need ultra-high precision for most activities. Quantum mechanics works on the small scale, while relativity works on the large and high speed scales. They all have their applicable zones. That is how all of physics works. Do you have any experience whatsoever in the field?
"History has shown that it's best to bet AGAINST the current scientific theories, as they will all be disproven eventually."
Logical fallacy. Just because it has happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen again, or that it will always happen in the future.
"There are many cases where faster-than-light phenomenon can be observered"
These cases involve light travelling slower than c. There aren't any case where faster than c phenomenon have been observed.
"and there are many cases where relativity falls down."
These cases are all in regimes that we are not talking about. Relativity fails at small scales, and we are talking about large scales. There is no basis for saying that "because relativity is known to fail in certain regimes, it may fail in its most accurate regime."
"I see no reason to believe that C is in-fact the universal speed limit."
You're confusing the variable speed of light with the universal speed of light (c).
This all assumes that the Universe is very life-centric. Simply because we would like to go somewhere and come back within our normal lifetimes doesn't mean it is possible. c is the universal speed limit.
You completely missed the point of my statement. It takes ~4 years from Earth's perspective for light to reach the nearest star outside the solar system, but from light's "frame", it takes no time. If we could get extremely close to the speed of light, we could get to that star in 1 minute, or in 10 seconds, or in 1 second. You don't have to go faster than the speed of light.
If you don't believe me, check out this flash animation which allows you to go up to 99.99% of the speed of light. Even though the total distance travelled (from Earth's perspective) is 8.4 light years, it only takes you one-third of a year to make the trip. Meanwhile, on Earth, almost 24 years pass, because you are going slower than the speed of light. If you could go the speed of light (and could stop instantaneously), you could make the trip in 0 time, and only 8.4 years would pass on Earth.