It is still not possible for two objects to be moving away from eachother at greater than the speed of light, so it is impossible for the stream to be flowing at 2*c.
I still think that it is impossible for something to be moving away from you at greater than the speed of light.
Consider this: Two space ships leave earth traveling at opposite directions, both at.75c relative to earth.
However relative to eachother the spaceships aren't traveling at 1.5c, but rather 0.96c, determined using the Lorentz transform.
So it is impossible for two objects to be moving apart from eachother at greater than the speed of light.
Since it is impossible for a star to be moving away from us at greater than the speed of light it is also impossible for that stars light to be red shifted out of existance.
Since this study is sponsored by the USDA, which is heavily infulenced by the ethanol lobby, I tend to believe the more conservative estimates of below 1.
I'm with you, but you need to do something to make your base model look different from the next model up (with slightly higher profit margins.) Power everything seems like a better candidtate for marketing based exclusion than ABS to me.
relative velocity is greater than the speed of light
From what I recall of physics this is not possible, since the speed of light is the limit regardless of your frame of reference. The fastest anything can move away from you is the speed of light, but in order to do that it would have to have infinite energy.
If someone can clarify I'd love to hear it, because I've never been able to quite wrap my brain around cosmic boundries either.
Well i did some checking, and I had no idea it was still so easy to get a car w/o ABS...
Its a shame because the hardware required to add it isn't that expensive, and its likely absent in the lower trim levels to facilitate "market segmentation."
Oh well I conceede the point, ABS isn't as ubiquitous as I had assumed. It's still a good feature and I would like to see the car manufacturers remove power windows/locks on the base line model and replace it with ABS to set the models apart.
All all but the purest "economy cars" have ABS standard. And even cars like the kia rio (~$11k) have it as an option. Furthermore dealers won't order a car without ABS because its a good option, and options pad the dealers profit margin. In order to get a car without ABS 90% of the time you would have to order it. Its unlikely that you could go to any dealer and pick up a new car without ABS.
Furthermore ABS is one of the best features added to a car since seatbelts. There were idots on the road before seatbelts and there will be idiots on the road after autopilot, I don't see new features making poorer drivers.
And before you jump on me I know that ABS can increase braking distance under certain circumstances (primarily on dry pavement,) but I don't trust that guy behind me who isn't paying enough attention to know that I've stopped to know what threashold breaking feels like either.
I had a rental car a little while ago that had on-board navigation, and while I can't say that it wasn't a tad distracting, it did help me get around a city I'd never been to before. As far as I'm concerned turn left on half a mile is less distracting than trying to read a map while driving.
Ever notice how WMD now describes anything larger than a hand grenade?
I think we should call them what they really are, chemical agents, biological agents, radiation dispersing device (dirty bomb), or nuclear wepons. Of those the only truely WMD is the nuke, maybe a chemical agent like VX might qualify.
Dirty bombs, and most chem wepons can maybe take out a few blocks, and bio wepons are finiky at best. Things like anthrax are definately not WMD.
This is an interesting argument but here's the thing, our rules don't apply to God if God has any power.
The way I see it people like to think of God two different ways depending on the situation. In one case there is the religious God who we think is personal, intervening, and reachable.
Then when we need to assign God power he becomes the philosophical God, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal.
If God is to have any real power he has to exist out side of space and time, which means he is not subject to the rules of our universe, or he fails to be God. This includes the principle of non-contradiction and any other laws we are governed by.
I personally find that the Jewish mystical philosophers of the Middle Ages (i.e. Mosses Maimonides) were closest to the truth when they say that no labels that we can express in language describe God; it is neither correct nor incorrect to say God is just, kind, loving, vengeful, etc. The words simply do not apply to God. Even to say God is good, has as much meaning as to say that idea tastes like strawberries. (to clarify any adjective applies to God as well as taste applies to an idea)
Basically all you can say about God is that we can't say anything about him.
No it's worse than that. It takes less energy to process earth oil than is contianed in the oil. Thats why gas is such a convienient form of energy.
It takes more energy to electrolyze water to create hydrogen than is stored in the hydrogen, which is why hydrogen fuel is suspect as a real solution.
The only way to get hydrogen that contains more energy than was used to liberate it is to strip it from hydrocarbons (usually methane.) I'm not sure how the efficiency of stripping hydrogen from methane compares to refining gasoline, but either way you slice it you are still using fossil fuel.
Transmitting power, and IC engines add value. It is more valuable to have power at my home than at the power plant. It is more valuable for me to be able to drive than have a gallon of gas. These things add value.
I'm not sure of methanol, but creating ethanol subtracts value. It takes more units of energy to process the corn than you can get out of the ethanol. There is no additional value of having one unit of enrgy stored in ethanol than one unit of energy stored in gasoline, in fact there is less. It's the same as saying we lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
I didn't really follow you there, but it does take energy to create methanol. Just because it is a natural product doen't mean it is energy free.
I don't know that much about methanol directly, but in the case of ethanol production it takes more energy to process it than you get out. Meaning if you made an ethanol plant that used ethanol as its sole source of power you would have to burn all the product AND import ethanol to keep it running.
Yeah I know about this, this is the R&D route that Mercedes is taking. The problem it solves is not the energy balance one, its the hydrogen transport one. They recon that because transporting hydrogen isn't safe its better to carry something more like gasoline, and use an on-board chem plant to convert it to hydrogen.
It doesn't touch the energy problem. Methanol fuel suffers from the same problems as ethanol additives, but only more so because the trees have longer life cycles, and produce less -OH (I think) per pound than corn. Either way until we can get ethanol-blended fuels to work without subsidies (never) methanol won't work either.
If we could easily, ecomomically, and commercially get energy out of any organic matter we wouldn't have a problem. The reason I said that hydrocarbons means foriegn oil is that oil has loosely bound hydrogen, which can be stripped and collected without too much effort.
In order to get energy out of Corn you have to grow it, ferment it, then strip the hydrogen. This isn't an economical solution. If you skip the hydrogen stripping step you have the process for creating ethanol, and that isn't a economically viable solution. The energy balance just doesn't work out.
In order to get hydrogen out of human sewage you have to ferment it, and strip it. This means you have to handle lots of human waste, which is a problem. Issues like containment, processing, and just having giant vats of fermenting crap make this solution impractical, although slightly less so than corn.
Natural gas suffers the same flaws of foriegn oil, with the added bonus of more volatile prices.
So hydrocarbons==oil for any purpose other than chemisty.
I think that the catalyst problem is more solvable than the more fundamental problem of hydrogen source. It bothers me to no end when people tout hydrogen fuel as pollution free. It's not. You only move the source of pollution away from the highly visible tail pipe.
There are two sources of hydrogen, electrolyzing water, and stripping it from hydrocarbons. Both of these sources suffer severe drawbacks.
Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell. This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants... Wait isn't nuclear bad? At least that's what the majority of the public thinks so it won't happen. The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power. Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.
The other option is, well ironic. We need fuel cells to free ourselves from foreign oil. So we'll get the hydrogen from hydrocarbons. We'll call them hydrocarbons, so that Susie Homemaker won't immediately pick up on the problem that hydrocarbons are foreign oil. Sure it can be more efficient from wellhead to power, which is undeniable a good thing. The problem is that if it works it will reinvigorate the commuter culture here in America, which will exacerbate the problem.
In conclusion the hydrogen economy is uneconomical, and will never happen. But then again the same is true of ethanol-blended fuel, so we can always prop it up on free government subsidies.
Well I hate to inturupt a fairly logical debate (wait where am I again?) with this, but if the artist owned the copyright I'd feel much more strongly about piracy than I do with the labels owning the copyright. It may not be sound logic, but when the label stops viewing music as art, and starts viewing it as content to me some of the sanctity disapears, and all I see is greedy suits exploiting coerced artists.
Because it would be better with Tom Cruise? Lets face it if the movie sucks it doesn't matter who the actors are, good actors only serve to elevate a good movie to great, not redeem a crappy movie.
Valid point with Boss though, but I'm inclined to think that Jessica Simpson makes up for that.
Many studios have commissioned market research to investigate the causes of moviegoing behavior - or the lack thereof
So... We're in trouble because we're not creating enough diverse and original material.
Hey I've got a great idea. We should hire a market reseach firm to analyze the public, run some statistics, and figure out exactly what the average American wants. We can then create a movie plot formula that will appeal perfectly to the average American, thus generating hit after hit.
Michael Lynton, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, which had some flops this summer, including the science fiction action movie "Stealth" and the romantic comedy "Bewitched." "Audiences have gotten smart to the marketing, and they can smell the good ones from the bad ones at a distance."
So they guy who Ok'd stealth is aware that we can smell stinkers? Maybe he should have elevated the public in his mind before giving that steaming pile the greenlight (Of, course I'm only assuming its terrible, I haven't been to a movie this summer)
Ok so the linked article is a little presumptious and arrogent, but it is far from the most stupid thing I've seen.
It is correct in pointing out the significant differences between what SS1 did and LEO. I think it downplays the significance of the accomplishment, and plays up "built to do a simple task" a little too much. After all Spirit of St. Louis was also specially designed just to do a "simple" task.
The fact of the matter is that the average American assumes that Rutan is just a few years from beating NASA at its own game, and this is not nearly the case. Private invention can only lead us forwards, and I don't think that what SS1 did should be wirtten off.
Slashdot Mirror
It is still not possible for two objects to be moving away from eachother at greater than the speed of light, so it is impossible for the stream to be flowing at 2*c.
I still think that it is impossible for something to be moving away from you at greater than the speed of light.
.75c relative to earth.
Consider this:
Two space ships leave earth traveling at opposite directions, both at
However relative to eachother the spaceships aren't traveling at 1.5c, but rather 0.96c, determined using the Lorentz transform.
So it is impossible for two objects to be moving apart from eachother at greater than the speed of light.
Since it is impossible for a star to be moving away from us at greater than the speed of light it is also impossible for that stars light to be red shifted out of existance.
No one is going to read this now, but according to the mose generous sources the payback on ethanol is 1.01 http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf
Since this study is sponsored by the USDA, which is heavily infulenced by the ethanol lobby, I tend to believe the more conservative estimates of below 1.
I'm with you, but you need to do something to make your base model look different from the next model up (with slightly higher profit margins.) Power everything seems like a better candidtate for marketing based exclusion than ABS to me.
From what I recall of physics this is not possible, since the speed of light is the limit regardless of your frame of reference. The fastest anything can move away from you is the speed of light, but in order to do that it would have to have infinite energy.
If someone can clarify I'd love to hear it, because I've never been able to quite wrap my brain around cosmic boundries either.
Well i did some checking, and I had no idea it was still so easy to get a car w/o ABS...
Its a shame because the hardware required to add it isn't that expensive, and its likely absent in the lower trim levels to facilitate "market segmentation."
Oh well I conceede the point, ABS isn't as ubiquitous as I had assumed. It's still a good feature and I would like to see the car manufacturers remove power windows/locks on the base line model and replace it with ABS to set the models apart.
All all but the purest "economy cars" have ABS standard. And even cars like the kia rio (~$11k) have it as an option. Furthermore dealers won't order a car without ABS because its a good option, and options pad the dealers profit margin. In order to get a car without ABS 90% of the time you would have to order it. Its unlikely that you could go to any dealer and pick up a new car without ABS.
Furthermore ABS is one of the best features added to a car since seatbelts. There were idots on the road before seatbelts and there will be idiots on the road after autopilot, I don't see new features making poorer drivers.
And before you jump on me I know that ABS can increase braking distance under certain circumstances (primarily on dry pavement,) but I don't trust that guy behind me who isn't paying enough attention to know that I've stopped to know what threashold breaking feels like either.
I had a rental car a little while ago that had on-board navigation, and while I can't say that it wasn't a tad distracting, it did help me get around a city I'd never been to before. As far as I'm concerned turn left on half a mile is less distracting than trying to read a map while driving.
Ever notice how WMD now describes anything larger than a hand grenade?
I think we should call them what they really are, chemical agents, biological agents, radiation dispersing device (dirty bomb), or nuclear wepons. Of those the only truely WMD is the nuke, maybe a chemical agent like VX might qualify.
Dirty bombs, and most chem wepons can maybe take out a few blocks, and bio wepons are finiky at best. Things like anthrax are definately not WMD.
This is an interesting argument but here's the thing, our rules don't apply to God if God has any power.
The way I see it people like to think of God two different ways depending on the situation. In one case there is the religious God who we think is personal, intervening, and reachable.
Then when we need to assign God power he becomes the philosophical God, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal.
If God is to have any real power he has to exist out side of space and time, which means he is not subject to the rules of our universe, or he fails to be God. This includes the principle of non-contradiction and any other laws we are governed by.
I personally find that the Jewish mystical philosophers of the Middle Ages (i.e. Mosses Maimonides) were closest to the truth when they say that no labels that we can express in language describe God; it is neither correct nor incorrect to say God is just, kind, loving, vengeful, etc. The words simply do not apply to God. Even to say God is good, has as much meaning as to say that idea tastes like strawberries. (to clarify any adjective applies to God as well as taste applies to an idea)
Basically all you can say about God is that we can't say anything about him.
No it's worse than that. It takes less energy to process earth oil than is contianed in the oil. Thats why gas is such a convienient form of energy.
It takes more energy to electrolyze water to create hydrogen than is stored in the hydrogen, which is why hydrogen fuel is suspect as a real solution.
The only way to get hydrogen that contains more energy than was used to liberate it is to strip it from hydrocarbons (usually methane.) I'm not sure how the efficiency of stripping hydrogen from methane compares to refining gasoline, but either way you slice it you are still using fossil fuel.
Transmitting power, and IC engines add value. It is more valuable to have power at my home than at the power plant. It is more valuable for me to be able to drive than have a gallon of gas. These things add value.
I'm not sure of methanol, but creating ethanol subtracts value. It takes more units of energy to process the corn than you can get out of the ethanol. There is no additional value of having one unit of enrgy stored in ethanol than one unit of energy stored in gasoline, in fact there is less. It's the same as saying we lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
I didn't really follow you there, but it does take energy to create methanol. Just because it is a natural product doen't mean it is energy free.
I don't know that much about methanol directly, but in the case of ethanol production it takes more energy to process it than you get out. Meaning if you made an ethanol plant that used ethanol as its sole source of power you would have to burn all the product AND import ethanol to keep it running.
Uh where do you get the methanol? This is the very reason that hydrocarbons (methanol included) are used to create hydrogen.
However, ethanol production is not economically or energetically feasable. Neither is methanol.
Yeah I know about this, this is the R&D route that Mercedes is taking. The problem it solves is not the energy balance one, its the hydrogen transport one. They recon that because transporting hydrogen isn't safe its better to carry something more like gasoline, and use an on-board chem plant to convert it to hydrogen.
It doesn't touch the energy problem. Methanol fuel suffers from the same problems as ethanol additives, but only more so because the trees have longer life cycles, and produce less -OH (I think) per pound than corn. Either way until we can get ethanol-blended fuels to work without subsidies (never) methanol won't work either.
If we could easily, ecomomically, and commercially get energy out of any organic matter we wouldn't have a problem. The reason I said that hydrocarbons means foriegn oil is that oil has loosely bound hydrogen, which can be stripped and collected without too much effort.
In order to get energy out of Corn you have to grow it, ferment it, then strip the hydrogen. This isn't an economical solution. If you skip the hydrogen stripping step you have the process for creating ethanol, and that isn't a economically viable solution. The energy balance just doesn't work out.
In order to get hydrogen out of human sewage you have to ferment it, and strip it. This means you have to handle lots of human waste, which is a problem. Issues like containment, processing, and just having giant vats of fermenting crap make this solution impractical, although slightly less so than corn.
Natural gas suffers the same flaws of foriegn oil, with the added bonus of more volatile prices.
So hydrocarbons==oil for any purpose other than chemisty.
I think that the catalyst problem is more solvable than the more fundamental problem of hydrogen source. It bothers me to no end when people tout hydrogen fuel as pollution free. It's not. You only move the source of pollution away from the highly visible tail pipe.
There are two sources of hydrogen, electrolyzing water, and stripping it from hydrocarbons. Both of these sources suffer severe drawbacks.
Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell. This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants... Wait isn't nuclear bad? At least that's what the majority of the public thinks so it won't happen. The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power. Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.
The other option is, well ironic. We need fuel cells to free ourselves from foreign oil. So we'll get the hydrogen from hydrocarbons. We'll call them hydrocarbons, so that Susie Homemaker won't immediately pick up on the problem that hydrocarbons are foreign oil. Sure it can be more efficient from wellhead to power, which is undeniable a good thing. The problem is that if it works it will reinvigorate the commuter culture here in America, which will exacerbate the problem.
In conclusion the hydrogen economy is uneconomical, and will never happen. But then again the same is true of ethanol-blended fuel, so we can always prop it up on free government subsidies.
Well I hate to inturupt a fairly logical debate (wait where am I again?) with this, but if the artist owned the copyright I'd feel much more strongly about piracy than I do with the labels owning the copyright. It may not be sound logic, but when the label stops viewing music as art, and starts viewing it as content to me some of the sanctity disapears, and all I see is greedy suits exploiting coerced artists.
Yes, the difference is mostly in arrogance, ego, and the absolute need to never be mistaken for a Big10 alum.
Oh and an endowment that could support a third world country.
Because it would be better with Tom Cruise? Lets face it if the movie sucks it doesn't matter who the actors are, good actors only serve to elevate a good movie to great, not redeem a crappy movie.
Valid point with Boss though, but I'm inclined to think that Jessica Simpson makes up for that.
I'm still not going to see it till DVD though.
I'm in the US, and if I were required to sterotype a particular racial group with movie misbehaving I would think its white kids too.
Aye, but surprisingly they're blaming themselves.
Well except Fox that is.
So... We're in trouble because we're not creating enough diverse and original material.
Hey I've got a great idea. We should hire a market reseach firm to analyze the public, run some statistics, and figure out exactly what the average American wants. We can then create a movie plot formula that will appeal perfectly to the average American, thus generating hit after hit.
It's sure to work
So they guy who Ok'd stealth is aware that we can smell stinkers? Maybe he should have elevated the public in his mind before giving that steaming pile the greenlight (Of, course I'm only assuming its terrible, I haven't been to a movie this summer)
This is one of the more dangerous thoughts a country could have...
Iraqi insurgents
Somali malitias
Viet Cong
Bay of Pigs
George Washington
I'm sure I missed a bunch, but you get the point.
Ok so the linked article is a little presumptious and arrogent, but it is far from the most stupid thing I've seen.
It is correct in pointing out the significant differences between what SS1 did and LEO. I think it downplays the significance of the accomplishment, and plays up "built to do a simple task" a little too much. After all Spirit of St. Louis was also specially designed just to do a "simple" task.
The fact of the matter is that the average American assumes that Rutan is just a few years from beating NASA at its own game, and this is not nearly the case. Private invention can only lead us forwards, and I don't think that what SS1 did should be wirtten off.