I may be mistaken, but I think I've heard a similar line from Rick Berman.
Boy, he fucking proved that in spades. Especially with the help of Brannon Braga, whose Trek output was of a quality that, to this day, my circle of friends gladly use his surname to refer to the act of human solid elimination. (Unless it's a three-parter, in which case it is a 'Lucas').
The sun works on an 11 year cycle. There is also other smaller cycles that run in this. One is a 28 day cycle. These are very important to long range (and short range) communication.
I can name another 28-day cycle that affects communication. It largely results in a short-range information transfer that everything is my fault.
Because the research was done at UNAM. And the only thing worse than cheap Mexican tequila is cheap Mexican vodka. Even the worms refuse to drown in it.
Well, there should be a gamma-ray line at about 511 keV (0.024 A) in all pulsars, since the polar magnetic field strength generates electron-positron pairs, which then annihilate. This produces a broad line (it's a two-photon process), whic has been observed in other pulsars (iirc).
What's surprising here is the absence of thermal emission from other plasma in the magnetic field which, as you imply, impacts the pulsar at the magnetic poles to produce heat (and hence light.)
The question is then, where is this plasma that we usually see trapped in the pulsars' magnetic field. Since this pulsar is no longer inside its parent supernova remnant bubble, I would argue that that
this plasma has just been left behind. Why the general interstellar medium has not somewhat replaced it is a bit of a mystery, but that's why we build telescopes in the first place: to find out.
I find this comment utterly impenetrable. Anyone care to translate?
Perhaps. It depends on how partisan his constituency is. It may be that in Alaska, the Democrats are the *Chicago Cubs* and the Republicans are *whatever team they play for the pennant*.
or one, does this means that stars are continously recycled by the black hole believed to be at the center of each galaxy? i.e. They get sucked in, crushed, then ejected as gassous emmisions which then collect and reform as a new star.
What happens, roughly, is that stars that stray too close to the black hole are torn apart by the tidal forces, their constituent gas adding to a large torus of gas orbiting the black hole.
Some fraction of this torus loses enough angular momentum to either fall into the event horizon of the black hole, lost "forever" (astronomically speaking), or a grazing collision that
gives it enough energy to avoid being sucked in. This gas can form a galactic wind of sorts: that flow becomes collimated by the high spin rate of the black hole and the torus of gas around it. This produces jets like those seen emanating from the core of M87. That gas, with its high temperature and flow rate, will not cool to a low enough temperature to coalesce into new stars any time "soon" (astronomically speaking.)
Now, there are flows that involve gas being ejected from the disk of the galaxy with less energy, which can rain back down onto the disk and contribute to newly-formed stars. But these "champagne flows" are usully caused not by the energetics of the central black holes, but rather the collective stellar winds from the stars in the disk; for example, the galactic superwind of M82
In both cases, the thermal energy of the ejecta is insufficient to explain the gravitational anomalies you mention.
As far as the Moon, I'd guess it would probably make a poor calibration target, because it is just so big.
The main issue here, though, is that it is bright as a bastard (non-SI unit). The photon flux would fry the CCDs beyond practical use. There is, oddly enough, a grain of truth in the original post — HST does observe the Earth on occasion for calibration purposes. They are used to determine the pixel-to-pixel response of the instruments; they are uninteresting otherwise, because of the orbital motion of the telescope (in fact, they are called "streak flats" because of the Earth whizzing across the field of view.)
A good rule of thumb to use is: in a vacuum, a cloud of gas will expand at the current speed of sound in the gas. Of course, as it expands the sound speed drops, so the dispersal rate will drop drastically once the cloud, say, doubles in size. So, for the 10cm hole scenario in the GP post, the rate of air loss (area of hole x sound speed) would be about 150 cubic meters per minute at 1 atmosphere, not really an explosive decompression unless the flow rips the hole much wider.
As for (emission) nebulae, they have the additional complications of arising from a self-gravitating molecular cloud and the fact that the expansion is isothermal (because of the nearby ionizing source. Also, they are honking huge, so it takes much longer to double in volume.
People have to remember that it takes a 2/3 majority to make a bill VETO proof - and with the very slim majority the Democrats have in
congress currently, they need support from Republicans.
They should have passed one anyway. That they didn't is why their approval rating is even lower than W's (well, that and taking impeachment off of the table.)
If they were elected for any reason is was to TRY something, not to change the name on the collar of the presidential lapdog.
MODERATOR: "Senator Biden, what qualifies you to be Vice President?"
BIDEN: [answer redacted due to copyrights held by the estate of Neil Kinnock and the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome]
MODERATOR: "Yes, yes. And you, Governor Pain, what qualifies you?"
PALIN: "Nothing."[long pause] "But I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!" Exeunt, pursued by a bear. With hair plugs and wearing lipstick.
Which reminds me, I need to make sure that my wet bar is fully stocked.
When I finally took Calc from a non-major I finally actually understood and learned it.
And I highlight what I consider to be the operative word in your rebuttal. I contend that the only reason that you FINALLY understand it is your previous experience DOING it. I going to go WAY out on a limb here, but I suspect that you did not learn to speak English by pondering the intricacies of the past subjunctive in your crib; nor did you master sums in kindergarten by cracking open a Golden Books reprint of Principia Mathematica. You aped what you heard, were shown, or just flat out told to do. Later on, either from necessity, curiosity, desperation, or just plain anger at not knowing why you were doing this tedious crap, you gathered the underlying fundamentals of those things you now grok.
The other way rarely works; I have received piles of bullshit over the years churned out by cranks telling me how 100 hours of staring at Einstein's Brownian Motion paper proves that the Sun is powered by elf farts. And most of it had insufficient postage because Fuzzy McShutIn doesn't know how many nickel stamps it takes to get to sixty cents.
As to the other respondent: no, this is not some bullshit "education psychology" theory dreamt up around a hippie campfire. It's some old-school shit called "work", and it's the way education worked for hundreds of years. Galileo had to roll a lot of balls down inclined planes before he could squish Aristotle's ideas.
Yes, but you must "do" before you can "understand". To steal an idiom from another field, in order to understand art you must first look at a thousand paintings.
I've never really understood the opposition to rote learning, myself. Sure it's tedious to, say, have to memorize historical dates, but it has a point to it: once you reach a critical mass of dates, you can start to associate them with respect to one another. It's called synthesis, it trains the mind, and it comes in handy. Even for those not destined to be history professors.
So, you know what, future doctors of America? Suck it up and take your damn orgo. Others have to go through far more for far less potential career earnings.
P.S. A Laplace transform is a method of translating differential equations into algebraic ones. It's friggin useful. And, if you had to do 4000 integrals in your Calc 101 class, they are a breeze to do.
O'Reilly isn't a news guy, he is up front about being on the opinion side of the line. And I really wouldn't want him with an R after his name anyway, he is more of a P for populist, but more than anything he is a blowhard self promoter.
So is Wolf Blitzer, really. Now, I'm sure the case that the GP should have made was Brit Hume(R), who is so in the Republican bag his feet don't even stick out. And he *is* touted as a news guy.
Also, a (P) after O'Reilly's name is justified, but I don't think it would stand for "Populist".
Slashdot Mirror
Boy, he fucking proved that in spades. Especially with the help of Brannon Braga, whose Trek output was of a quality that, to this day, my circle of friends gladly use his surname to refer to the act of human solid elimination. (Unless it's a three-parter, in which case it is a 'Lucas').
I can name another 28-day cycle that affects communication. It largely results in a short-range information transfer that everything is my fault.
Because the research was done at UNAM. And the only thing worse than cheap Mexican tequila is cheap Mexican vodka. Even the worms refuse to drown in it.
If you actually gave a shit about the Constitution you should have done something about it eight years ago. Asshat.
This admonition might have held some truck with me two days ago, before I shipped my XBox 360 to the repair center after the RRoD.
I've heard that somewhere before....
Well, there should be a gamma-ray line at about 511 keV (0.024 A) in all pulsars, since the polar magnetic field strength generates electron-positron pairs, which then annihilate. This produces a broad line (it's a two-photon process), whic has been observed in other pulsars (iirc).
What's surprising here is the absence of thermal emission from other plasma in the magnetic field which, as you imply, impacts the pulsar at the magnetic poles to produce heat (and hence light.) The question is then, where is this plasma that we usually see trapped in the pulsars' magnetic field. Since this pulsar is no longer inside its parent supernova remnant bubble, I would argue that that this plasma has just been left behind. Why the general interstellar medium has not somewhat replaced it is a bit of a mystery, but that's why we build telescopes in the first place: to find out.
Perhaps. It depends on how partisan his constituency is. It may be that in Alaska, the Democrats are the *Chicago Cubs* and the Republicans are *whatever team they play for the pennant*.
What happens, roughly, is that stars that stray too close to the black hole are torn apart by the tidal forces, their constituent gas adding to a large torus of gas orbiting the black hole. Some fraction of this torus loses enough angular momentum to either fall into the event horizon of the black hole, lost "forever" (astronomically speaking), or a grazing collision that gives it enough energy to avoid being sucked in. This gas can form a galactic wind of sorts: that flow becomes collimated by the high spin rate of the black hole and the torus of gas around it. This produces jets like those seen emanating from the core of M87. That gas, with its high temperature and flow rate, will not cool to a low enough temperature to coalesce into new stars any time "soon" (astronomically speaking.)
Now, there are flows that involve gas being ejected from the disk of the galaxy with less energy, which can rain back down onto the disk and contribute to newly-formed stars. But these "champagne flows" are usully caused not by the energetics of the central black holes, but rather the collective stellar winds from the stars in the disk; for example, the galactic superwind of M82
In both cases, the thermal energy of the ejecta is insufficient to explain the gravitational anomalies you mention.
The main issue here, though, is that it is bright as a bastard (non-SI unit). The photon flux would fry the CCDs beyond practical use. There is, oddly enough, a grain of truth in the original post — HST does observe the Earth on occasion for calibration purposes. They are used to determine the pixel-to-pixel response of the instruments; they are uninteresting otherwise, because of the orbital motion of the telescope (in fact, they are called "streak flats" because of the Earth whizzing across the field of view.)
AHA! I knew he was connected to the liberal media! They just don't want America to win.
A good rule of thumb to use is: in a vacuum, a cloud of gas will expand at the current speed of sound in the gas. Of course, as it expands the sound speed drops, so the dispersal rate will drop drastically once the cloud, say, doubles in size. So, for the 10cm hole scenario in the GP post, the rate of air loss (area of hole x sound speed) would be about 150 cubic meters per minute at 1 atmosphere, not really an explosive decompression unless the flow rips the hole much wider.
As for (emission) nebulae, they have the additional complications of arising from a self-gravitating molecular cloud and the fact that the expansion is isothermal (because of the nearby ionizing source. Also, they are honking huge, so it takes much longer to double in volume.
Reading the conservative slams on Krugman's Nobel is like reading the Timecube posts on every Slashdot physics story.
Except that the grammar is distinctly better on the Timecube comments.
Close — you forgot to drop the 'g'. Oh, and there's a ;) at the end.
Edyie Gorme called it: "Blame It On The Bosenova"
It's usually styrofoam and shaped like a bald head.
They should have passed one anyway. That they didn't is why their approval rating is even lower than W's (well, that and taking impeachment off of the table.) If they were elected for any reason is was to TRY something, not to change the name on the collar of the presidential lapdog.
Oh yeah, that's gonna be great:
MODERATOR: "Senator Biden, what qualifies you to be Vice President?"
BIDEN: [answer redacted due to copyrights held by the estate of Neil Kinnock and the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome]
MODERATOR: "Yes, yes. And you, Governor Pain, what qualifies you?"
PALIN: "Nothing."[long pause] "But I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!"
Exeunt, pursued by a bear. With hair plugs and wearing lipstick.
Which reminds me, I need to make sure that my wet bar is fully stocked.
You must not be an American. I was hoping for total annihilation rather than having to live through the election.
I would think a more appropriate December date for it would be the 7th.
You know who else was more powerful than I can possibly imagine? Hint: Rhymes with Amolf Mitler.
Fascist.
And I highlight what I consider to be the operative word in your rebuttal. I contend that the only reason that you FINALLY understand it is your previous experience DOING it. I going to go WAY out on a limb here, but I suspect that you did not learn to speak English by pondering the intricacies of the past subjunctive in your crib; nor did you master sums in kindergarten by cracking open a Golden Books reprint of Principia Mathematica. You aped what you heard, were shown, or just flat out told to do. Later on, either from necessity, curiosity, desperation, or just plain anger at not knowing why you were doing this tedious crap, you gathered the underlying fundamentals of those things you now grok.
The other way rarely works; I have received piles of bullshit over the years churned out by cranks telling me how 100 hours of staring at Einstein's Brownian Motion paper proves that the Sun is powered by elf farts. And most of it had insufficient postage because Fuzzy McShutIn doesn't know how many nickel stamps it takes to get to sixty cents.
As to the other respondent: no, this is not some bullshit "education psychology" theory dreamt up around a hippie campfire. It's some old-school shit called "work", and it's the way education worked for hundreds of years. Galileo had to roll a lot of balls down inclined planes before he could squish Aristotle's ideas.
Yes, but you must "do" before you can "understand". To steal an idiom from another field, in order to understand art you must first look at a thousand paintings.
I've never really understood the opposition to rote learning, myself. Sure it's tedious to, say, have to memorize historical dates, but it has a point to it: once you reach a critical mass of dates, you can start to associate them with respect to one another. It's called synthesis, it trains the mind, and it comes in handy. Even for those not destined to be history professors.
So, you know what, future doctors of America? Suck it up and take your damn orgo. Others have to go through far more for far less potential career earnings.
P.S. A Laplace transform is a method of translating differential equations into algebraic ones. It's friggin useful. And, if you had to do 4000 integrals in your Calc 101 class, they are a breeze to do.
They should hit Broadway with them. I can see it now: "Jerryfeld and Gatesinstern Are Dead".
So is Wolf Blitzer, really. Now, I'm sure the case that the GP should have made was Brit Hume(R), who is so in the Republican bag his feet don't even stick out. And he *is* touted as a news guy.
Also, a (P) after O'Reilly's name is justified, but I don't think it would stand for "Populist".