The grandparent is correct. The magnetic field doesn't play a part in the polarization. The vertical electric waves get absorbed by the vertical polarizer and the horizontal do not. (As the GP does I'm not going into detail about the absorption.) To spell it out explicitly it's not the slit that does the filtering.
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
Reference please? Seriously... because many scientists disagree. Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) argues that the chance of complex life appearing given random fundamental constants is about 50 percent. That doesn't seem to astronomical to me.
Nope. The OP is correct. While we may know nothing about what DM is we do know a bit about what it isn't. It cannot be matter as we know it because it doesn't interact with EM waves.
People should keep this kinda stuff in mind when bashing scientists (like intelligent design supporters, anti-vaccination people, and other alternative medicine supporters.) The experts in a field really are experts. The argument from authority fallacy only applies to people talking outside of their field.
In a type II superconductor when in its mixed phase state it has lines of superconducting and lines of normal areas called flux. In a field there is a force on the flux lines and they tend to move creating heat. All this happens even though it has zero resistance.
String theory actually makes testable predictions. It's just that most of them cannot be tested at this time. I've been waiting but ID doesn't provide even one testable prediction.
Very informative and coherent post. I am personally in the middle of the "firestorm of research" myself. I am a graduate student and have personally made a 52K superconductor. My professor has the entire group (about 10 people) working on this and I am about to post a preprint article on the data taken so far. This is a very exciting time to be a graduate student. It has been 12-14 hour days for me and a few others for the past few weeks. Not since the discovery of MgB2 in early 2001 has the field been this hot.
According to this page http://superconductors.org/185k_pat.htm the previous record was actually 185K and it points out the the coldest recorded temperature on the planet is 183.95K. What is actually more exciting (to me at least) is the new non-cuprate superconductors. They are fluorine doped RFeOAs (R = rare earth) with Tc ~ 40-50K. This will hopefully give insight into the mechanisms of non-BCS superconductivity.
Clones are more different than identical twins. They start with th same DNA (just like a twin) but are subject to the same errors during development. In addition to that, however, they are growing in a different environment unlike twins who share at least the same environment for the first 9 months if talking about humans. Hence, clones are less similar than twins.
DrLang21 has it right. It was two groups that no longer mated. This is one step of the evolutionary change.
We've shown specialtion. A new species breaking off from another so that they no longer mate. True it's still a fruit fly but it's another kind of fruit fly.
We've shown genetic drift. Two groups that no longer mate have different sets of genetic mutations. This is part of the so called micro-evolution.
We've shown that genetic drift leads to the inability to reproduce (or to have non-sterile offspring). See horse/donkey/mule or domestic sheep/goat/other wild sheep.
We've seen the gradual change of species over time. Look at the fossil records.
No we will never see the entire picture until humans live millions of more years but all the pieces of the puzzle are there and fit into one nice picture. And gluing the puzzle together is genetics that shows we are related to an orange, but not as closely as we are to insects, dogs, and chimps.
You have christians that believe in christ but don't take the bible literally or take only parts of the bible as true and then you have "true" christians that believe in the inerrancy of the bible. One might look at Bob and say is a christian but doesn't think homosexuality is bad and someone one says that he is not a "true" christian.
That would just be a moving-the-goalpost fallacy. They ask for speciation and we show it but then the ask for something else. Well that something else can be seen in genetics and the fossil record. Individually there may be some skepticism but collectively there isn't.
And I mean skepticism about whether evolution exists. Of course there is plenty of healthy skepticism within the evolution community but nothing that flat out denies the glaring obvious. And even if there is doubts within the community that should not trickle down to the high schools. It should be worked out at the university level first.
It is the king of all biological theories and definitely one of the top 5 (I would probably say 3) most successful. And it's the top (and only AFAIK) unifying theory. In physics we have some very successful theories but not nearly as unifying as evolution. We strive to have an "evolution" in physics.
or this paper that shows "allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations" [Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308-1311.]
or a similar paper using other fruit flys [Kirkpatrick, M. and V. Ravigné (2002) "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments" The American Naturalist 159:S22-S35 DOI]
Do mainly to the electronic structure which ultimately has little to do with the crystal structure. More precisely the electronic structure uses the crystal structure as a frame but two materials with the same crystal structure can (and usually do) have very different electronic structures. To put it in layman terms.
I didn't RTFA. Is 'proof of the existence of God' on there? I mean so many people claim to be able to that one of these years it should be on a list. No? Maybe next year.
Goddamn it. I've been reading this wonderful fucking thread about cussing and I am mother-fucking annoyed by the number of people who feel they have to censor themselves here. Cocksucker, cocksucker, cocksucker! Shit or get off the pot.
Slashdot Mirror
The grandparent is correct. The magnetic field doesn't play a part in the polarization. The vertical electric waves get absorbed by the vertical polarizer and the horizontal do not. (As the GP does I'm not going into detail about the absorption.) To spell it out explicitly it's not the slit that does the filtering.
And before we discern if god exists we need a clear definition. We don't even have one of those at this point.
Because the odds of 1 universe getting created that has the right properties for any complex systems to exist are beyond astronomical. The odds of something as complex as solar systems even less likely. And things as complex as life even more remote.
Reference please? Seriously... because many scientists disagree. Vic Stenger (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) argues that the chance of complex life appearing given random fundamental constants is about 50 percent. That doesn't seem to astronomical to me.
Nope. The OP is correct. While we may know nothing about what DM is we do know a bit about what it isn't. It cannot be matter as we know it because it doesn't interact with EM waves.
People should keep this kinda stuff in mind when bashing scientists (like intelligent design supporters, anti-vaccination people, and other alternative medicine supporters.) The experts in a field really are experts. The argument from authority fallacy only applies to people talking outside of their field.
Correction: Funny AND tasteless.
In a type II superconductor when in its mixed phase state it has lines of superconducting and lines of normal areas called flux. In a field there is a force on the flux lines and they tend to move creating heat. All this happens even though it has zero resistance.
Zowie Bowie would take second place in my book.
I was going to mod this funny but when you feel you have to explain your own comment is a joke then it's no longer funny.
String theory actually makes testable predictions. It's just that most of them cannot be tested at this time. I've been waiting but ID doesn't provide even one testable prediction.
Very informative and coherent post. I am personally in the middle of the "firestorm of research" myself. I am a graduate student and have personally made a 52K superconductor. My professor has the entire group (about 10 people) working on this and I am about to post a preprint article on the data taken so far. This is a very exciting time to be a graduate student. It has been 12-14 hour days for me and a few others for the past few weeks. Not since the discovery of MgB2 in early 2001 has the field been this hot.
According to this page http://superconductors.org/185k_pat.htm the previous record was actually 185K and it points out the the coldest recorded temperature on the planet is 183.95K. What is actually more exciting (to me at least) is the new non-cuprate superconductors. They are fluorine doped RFeOAs (R = rare earth) with Tc ~ 40-50K. This will hopefully give insight into the mechanisms of non-BCS superconductivity.
Clones are more different than identical twins. They start with th same DNA (just like a twin) but are subject to the same errors during development. In addition to that, however, they are growing in a different environment unlike twins who share at least the same environment for the first 9 months if talking about humans. Hence, clones are less similar than twins.
DrLang21 has it right. It was two groups that no longer mated. This is one step of the evolutionary change. We've shown specialtion. A new species breaking off from another so that they no longer mate. True it's still a fruit fly but it's another kind of fruit fly. We've shown genetic drift. Two groups that no longer mate have different sets of genetic mutations. This is part of the so called micro-evolution. We've shown that genetic drift leads to the inability to reproduce (or to have non-sterile offspring). See horse/donkey/mule or domestic sheep/goat/other wild sheep. We've seen the gradual change of species over time. Look at the fossil records. No we will never see the entire picture until humans live millions of more years but all the pieces of the puzzle are there and fit into one nice picture. And gluing the puzzle together is genetics that shows we are related to an orange, but not as closely as we are to insects, dogs, and chimps.
You have christians that believe in christ but don't take the bible literally or take only parts of the bible as true and then you have "true" christians that believe in the inerrancy of the bible. One might look at Bob and say is a christian but doesn't think homosexuality is bad and someone one says that he is not a "true" christian.
That would just be a moving-the-goalpost fallacy. They ask for speciation and we show it but then the ask for something else. Well that something else can be seen in genetics and the fossil record. Individually there may be some skepticism but collectively there isn't. And I mean skepticism about whether evolution exists. Of course there is plenty of healthy skepticism within the evolution community but nothing that flat out denies the glaring obvious. And even if there is doubts within the community that should not trickle down to the high schools. It should be worked out at the university level first.
It is the king of all biological theories and definitely one of the top 5 (I would probably say 3) most successful. And it's the top (and only AFAIK) unifying theory. In physics we have some very successful theories but not nearly as unifying as evolution. We strive to have an "evolution" in physics.
or this paper that shows "allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations" [Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308-1311.]
or a similar paper using other fruit flys [Kirkpatrick, M. and V. Ravigné (2002) "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments" The American Naturalist 159:S22-S35 DOI]
or any of the genetic evidence for speciation?
So did you buy that stuff, borrow it, or already own it? Wait!? Don't answer that. I'm going to assume you just found it.
All christians are either type 1 or immoral. Only the crazy ones don't ignore some parts. Also this is a logical fallacy. See no true Scotsman.
Do mainly to the electronic structure which ultimately has little to do with the crystal structure. More precisely the electronic structure uses the crystal structure as a frame but two materials with the same crystal structure can (and usually do) have very different electronic structures. To put it in layman terms.
I didn't RTFA. Is 'proof of the existence of God' on there? I mean so many people claim to be able to that one of these years it should be on a list. No? Maybe next year.
Thank you for explaining the joke made by the GP. I don't think anyone would have figured it out on their own.
It did not need to be said. Please keep your unimaginative comments to yourself.
Goddamn it. I've been reading this wonderful fucking thread about cussing and I am mother-fucking annoyed by the number of people who feel they have to censor themselves here. Cocksucker, cocksucker, cocksucker! Shit or get off the pot.