A theory I've kept for a long time is that the universe is always exploding (and always has done) and is infinite towards the centre and infinite going outwards.
Can objects we can't see over the horizon be moving away from us faster than the light can reach us?
13.7 odd billion years seems like a long enough time for mass to get to C speed relative to us. I know I should go to university for all this, but I would like to know... If something does accelerate past C speed from an observer, would its' emitted wavelengths continually shift toward red, microwave, radiowave then be so large that they are un-noticable?
Is it possible that all the energy coming from stars over all that time and distance has some effect on everything else?
eg.
If 10 billion light years worth of protons travelling from a galaxy had a mass, does it's own emitted energy pull it away from the bang? and do other stars' emitted energy push away at the accellerating galaxies?
What was that experiment confirming Earth's 'tearing' effect of gravity the sattelite? I'm just wondering if emitted energy pushes away in the same way that 'tearing' mass pulls sattelites slightly more.
Sorry, I've so many questions like this, can you answer them slashdot?
- yeh
Re:the real measurement
on
Got Game
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am a 'volume keyer' typing parts of addresses and are one of the fastest out of around 150 people, and have been for the past 2 years.
Managers and others there don't know how I get consistantly high speeds. To put in perspective, I typically get 11,000-13,000 kestrokes per hour, whereas others are getting 6,000-9,000. As this job doesn't challenge me mentally, while typing postcodes and town names, my spare thoughts try and get me ever faster. Another thing most of my collegues don't understand is that I tend to push it so my fingers, arms and eyes hurt a little, just to get that quicker speed, and be ahead of everyone else, like a game.
I put this limit-pushing speed down to my experiences with Quakes and Dooms.
The job was good to begin with but after 2.5 years, keying 4 hours a day, and 6am starts, I need new application!
100 monitors for 16+ hours is going to save on the electric bill too.
Not much if the monitors support DPMS.
I'm sure the monitors do support DPMS but they are not taking advantage of it. They seem to think that just having a screensaver on saves power. Thank you for the suggestion though, I'll put that point forward.
I am saving energy by using compact flourecent bulbs, turning off things like the t.v. and video rather than them being left in standby. 40c clothes wash, only boiling as much water as I need in the kettle, wearing more layers and turning the heating down. None take much effort.
Also, I heard the amount of power saved by recycling an aluminium can, can power a t.v. for 2 hours (bbc news).
Prolonging is a very good idea because in a few decades we will almost certainly have efficient fusion reactors, meaning we can get all our electricity without producing greenhouse gases. If we do nothing until then, we could begin a chain of unstoppable events that could wipe out large amounts of peoples, animals, land and countries within a couple of centuries.
http://www.fusion.org.uk/
I must add that where I work, there are approx. 200 computers turned on 24/7 all year. For 16 hours of the day only half are being used, yet the rest are still turned on. The managers refuse to turn the boxes off for network reasons, but I insist that the monitors be turned off when not in use. Im trying to use my power as an employee to do this, and shall not rest until the matter is sorted. 100 monitors for 16+ hours is going to save on the electric bill too.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the correction.
that link is serious!
What about this one...
A theory I've kept for a long time is that the universe is always exploding (and always has done) and is infinite towards the centre and infinite going outwards.
Can objects we can't see over the horizon be moving away from us faster than the light can reach us?
13.7 odd billion years seems like a long enough time for mass to get to C speed relative to us. I know I should go to university for all this, but I would like to know...
If something does accelerate past C speed from an observer, would its' emitted wavelengths continually shift toward red, microwave, radiowave then be so large that they are un-noticable?
excuse my language, I meant photon not proton, although protons may also have an effect.
Is it possible that all the energy coming from stars over all that time and distance has some effect on everything else?
eg.
If 10 billion light years worth of protons travelling from a galaxy had a mass, does it's own emitted energy pull it away from the bang? and do other stars' emitted energy push away at the accellerating galaxies?
What was that experiment confirming Earth's 'tearing' effect of gravity the sattelite?
I'm just wondering if emitted energy pushes away in the same way that 'tearing' mass pulls sattelites slightly more.
Sorry, I've so many questions like this, can you answer them slashdot?
-
yeh
I am a 'volume keyer' typing parts of addresses and are one of the fastest out of around 150 people, and have been for the past 2 years.
Managers and others there don't know how I get consistantly high speeds. To put in perspective, I typically get 11,000-13,000 kestrokes per hour, whereas others are getting 6,000-9,000. As this job doesn't challenge me mentally, while typing postcodes and town names, my spare thoughts try and get me ever faster.
Another thing most of my collegues don't understand is that I tend to push it so my fingers, arms and eyes hurt a little, just to get that quicker speed, and be ahead of everyone else, like a game.
I put this limit-pushing speed down to my experiences with Quakes and Dooms.
The job was good to begin with but after 2.5 years, keying 4 hours a day, and 6am starts, I need new application!
100 monitors for 16+ hours is going to save on the electric bill too.
Not much if the monitors support DPMS.
I'm sure the monitors do support DPMS but they are not taking advantage of it. They seem to think that just having a screensaver on saves power. Thank you for the suggestion though, I'll put that point forward.
I am saving energy by using compact flourecent bulbs, turning off things like the t.v. and video rather than them being left in standby. 40c clothes wash, only boiling as much water as I need in the kettle, wearing more layers and turning the heating down. None take much effort. Also, I heard the amount of power saved by recycling an aluminium can, can power a t.v. for 2 hours (bbc news). Prolonging is a very good idea because in a few decades we will almost certainly have efficient fusion reactors, meaning we can get all our electricity without producing greenhouse gases. If we do nothing until then, we could begin a chain of unstoppable events that could wipe out large amounts of peoples, animals, land and countries within a couple of centuries. http://www.fusion.org.uk/ I must add that where I work, there are approx. 200 computers turned on 24/7 all year. For 16 hours of the day only half are being used, yet the rest are still turned on. The managers refuse to turn the boxes off for network reasons, but I insist that the monitors be turned off when not in use. Im trying to use my power as an employee to do this, and shall not rest until the matter is sorted. 100 monitors for 16+ hours is going to save on the electric bill too.