Did you just Google all this shit an Wikipedia and jot down your failed interpretation?
No, actually I did it the hard way, by earning a Ph.D. in physics.
It's not that what you are saying is wrong, it's more that you mix together correct statements with dubious statements, ignore most of modern physics experimental results, and then go on to make unorthodox and mostly-unsupported assertions. The point you should take away is that critiquing the 130-year-old Michelson-Morley experiments is mostly irrelevant; there are much better and much more recent experimental confirmations of special relativity. Yes, it is possible to come up with ether theories that also fit the same date, but in doing so the net result is that the theory ends up saying that the ether is undetectable, and the mathematical formulation is identical to special relativity.
I'll have to agree with whoever it is who said that this isn't actually political.
It was pointing out the connection between the muted tree colors and the unseasonably warm weather in New England. Nowhere was climate change or greenhouse warming mentioned. if you think any discussion about warm weather is a political statement about climate change, that is something about you brought to the discussion, not inherent in the original post.
I notice that the original article was Wall Street Journal, which hasn't been a big " propagandize climate change religion" source-- if anything, they are the opposite, tending to downplay climate change.
Or, to misquote Freud, "sometimes a leaf is just a leaf."
You're right that if Einstein hadn't come up with it, special relativity could have been derived from the mathematical insights provided by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, but they hadn't yet quite put it all together into the single elegant package Einstein did.
You're off target about pretty much everything else, though. The Michelson-Morley experiment was only the first of many, many experiments that validate special relativity-- with today's measurement technologies that can measure the speed of light directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble Michelson and Morley did to do interferometry. There isn't any way to incorporate ether into today's extensive array of experimental results other than "luminiferous ether, if it exists, is completely unobservable."
Most optical gyroscopes use fibers these days, and don't deal with the speed of light in vacuum at all, although you can do it with ring laser gyroscopes... which obey special relativity.
A source, not the source. Kind of like how The Doctor from Doctor Who may be a Doctor but not the only doctor.
I'm not even sure he even is a doctor. Where did he get his Ph.D. from? Does Gallifrey even have Ph.D. granting institutions? He's sure not a M.D.-- what's his doctorate in, exactly?
If there is visible light we can be certain that it wasn't a black hole that was formed. Most likely either a complete detonation or a larger neutron star.
The visible light doesn't come from the remnant, it comes from the glowing cloud of vapor that's the ejecta from the collision.
Actually, black holes are some of the most brightly visible objects in the universe: quasars. You don't see the black hole itself, but the accretion disk of all the stuff being heated into incandescence in the process of being swallowed radiates spectacularly.
Some of them are very good. It's the ones that aren't, and particularly the ones that fail because of the lack of an introduction, that are the subject of discussion.
Nothing will help a ditch digger, because there are no jobs left for ditch diggers. What used to take a team of men a week to do, today I just rent a backhoe and get done in an afternoon.
I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I find the average science article on a subject that I don't already know to be way too technical. They usually lack any sort of overview for non-experts.
I do like technical detail in the article-- but not instead of the article.
The article says this: "Queensland Law Society president and succession law specialist Christine Smyth said the law was changed in 2006 to allow for less formal types of documents to be accepted as wills."
Earlier in the article it states: "The Queensland Government's website says for a will to be valid, it must be in writing and "signed by you in front of two witnesses, both of whom must be over 18 years old, cannot be visually impaired and should not be included as beneficiaries in the will."
I would presume that the website would include any changes to the law from eleven years ago.
I'm more puzzled by the fact that the article says that a will must be witnessed by two people who aren't beneficiaries, yet this one doesn't seem to be.
No, Blade Runner does not occur in the original book. I think Ridley Scott or whoever titled the movie got it from a completely unrelated book and used it just because they liked the name. Ok, found it. Author of unrelated book is William S. Burroughs.
Uh, why are you repeating information that is in the summary, instead of just scrolling up to read it (or better yet, actually reading TFA)?
Summarizing the summary: The title came from the book The Bladerunner by Alan Nourse, as adapted into an unproduced screenplay by William S. Burroughs.
I'm baffled that Alan Nourse is refered to as "a mysterious writer by the name of Alan E. Nourse"-- mysterious? Nourse?
There's nothing mysterious about Alan Nourse, who is pretty well documented. He was a quite popular writer mostly of juveniles (*) back in the 50s and 60s.
The only mysterious thing was how his name was pronounced: "nurse." Which was apparently amusing, since he interned with a doctor whose family name was "doctor", leading to paging over the intercom of "Paging Doctor Doctor, Doctor Nurse."
--
footnote: a classification that no longer exists. "Juveniles" has now become either "young adult" or "middle grade".
They're more trustworthy than anonymous cowards, that's for sure.
When an AC posts the AC can't rely on reputation. To get the post taken seriously the AC can only rely on readily verifiable or well-known facts and a reasonably understandable chain of reasoning, otherwise they must expect their post to be ignored.
Really? If so, the anonymous cowards do a notoriously lousy job of doing so. Posts by anonymous cowards are almost always lacking in verifiable information, well-known facts, and understandable chains of reasoning, but are good with insults, stereotypes, and fact-free assertions usually grounded in one political ideology or another.
As far as I can tell, the people who post as anonymous cowards do so because they are posting garbage that they don't want associated with their names.
Seems you cut out all of my part of the post , but here we are. So I'll drop some comments that aren't specifically related to you.
Oops, sorry-- My response had been addressed to the previous post (the one saying solar panels were not light compared to kittens or feathers); I mis-threaded it.
Good comments, if I had mod points I'd mod you up.
...when compared to diesel locomotives and concrete mixers, yes they are. Compared to feathers or kittens, not so much.
Neither feathers nor kittens would have been my first choice for generating electrical power to charge batteries. My guess is that the weight of feathers and/or kittens needed to provide a megawatt of electrical power would probably be more than the same power generated by solar arrays, but I'd be very interested in hearing the results of your experiment showing the contrary.
How will these Powerwall units be recharged after they have been used up on the first go around?
From solar panels.
The electricity infrastructure is going to be down for quite a while, as the power plants and transmission lines have to be replaced.
Yes, that's exactly why you want the solar panels and battery storage.
Whilst solar panels sound like a good idea, how will you install PV when the vast majority of buildings are wrecked, and building materiel is going to be prioritised for reconstruction of homes and public structures?
I would think that setting up solar panels to provide emergency power would have a high priority. Setting up solar panels (or, repairing some of the installations that already exist on the island) is going to be very quick compared to reconstructing a demolished building; devoting a day or so to restoring the power grid is not going to delay the months-to-years long process of rebuilding the island.
Solar panels are relatively light and cheap, and Puerto Rico has a lot of solar power. This is a good idea, a quick way to get usable power in place fast.
No. The photon is the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible, according to the theory of quantum mechanics.
It's not that we can't measure anything smaller. It's that the universe, as we know it, doesn't allow electromagnetic radiation to be transferred in smaller units.
Now, you could hypothesize some better theory might come along and supercede quantum mechanics. But it's hard to see how any theory that's consistent with what we already know would not include Planck's relation.
Seems odd that two only slightly related news stories are concatenated into a single/. post. The keychain hack seems to be working on any Mac OS, not just High Sierra.
Yes, if you hunt long enough I suppose you can find idiots who say almost anything. You can find people saying that the Earth is flat, or the rapture is coming next week, or reptilians have replaced the royal family of England with duplicates.
I don't know who thenewamerican is, but they don't seem to be a very reliable source; they seem to have an axe to grind. A difficulty with many of these political sites is that they cherry-pick predictions, and for that matter cherry-pick data, on the assumption that nobody will check them. Better to go back to the original sources.
I've been graphing global temperatures and comparing them to predictions for years, starting with the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model, which predicted 2.25 degrees per doubling (this is still, fifty years later, within the estimated error range of the most recent IPCC consensus band.)
The measured data is right on the prediction. That's fifty years of data-- quite remarkable.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you just Google all this shit an Wikipedia and jot down your failed interpretation?
No, actually I did it the hard way, by earning a Ph.D. in physics.
It's not that what you are saying is wrong, it's more that you mix together correct statements with dubious statements, ignore most of modern physics experimental results, and then go on to make unorthodox and mostly-unsupported assertions. The point you should take away is that critiquing the 130-year-old Michelson-Morley experiments is mostly irrelevant; there are much better and much more recent experimental confirmations of special relativity. Yes, it is possible to come up with ether theories that also fit the same date, but in doing so the net result is that the theory ends up saying that the ether is undetectable, and the mathematical formulation is identical to special relativity.
I'll have to agree with whoever it is who said that this isn't actually political.
It was pointing out the connection between the muted tree colors and the unseasonably warm weather in New England. Nowhere was climate change or greenhouse warming mentioned. if you think any discussion about warm weather is a political statement about climate change, that is something about you brought to the discussion, not inherent in the original post.
I notice that the original article was Wall Street Journal, which hasn't been a big " propagandize climate change religion" source-- if anything, they are the opposite, tending to downplay climate change.
Or, to misquote Freud, "sometimes a leaf is just a leaf."
Seems to me that explaining the world around us is of interest to nerds.
Not all "news for nerds" has to be "here's the latest update about Ruby on Rails implementation on Ubuntu run on a Raspberry Pi to mine bitcoin."
You're right that if Einstein hadn't come up with it, special relativity could have been derived from the mathematical insights provided by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, but they hadn't yet quite put it all together into the single elegant package Einstein did.
You're off target about pretty much everything else, though. The Michelson-Morley experiment was only the first of many, many experiments that validate special relativity-- with today's measurement technologies that can measure the speed of light directly, there is no need to go to all the trouble Michelson and Morley did to do interferometry. There isn't any way to incorporate ether into today's extensive array of experimental results other than "luminiferous ether, if it exists, is completely unobservable."
Most optical gyroscopes use fibers these days, and don't deal with the speed of light in vacuum at all, although you can do it with ring laser gyroscopes... which obey special relativity.
A source, not the source. Kind of like how The Doctor from Doctor Who may be a Doctor but not the only doctor.
I'm not even sure he even is a doctor. Where did he get his Ph.D. from? Does Gallifrey even have Ph.D. granting institutions? He's sure not a M.D.-- what's his doctorate in, exactly?
If there is visible light we can be certain that it wasn't a black hole that was formed. Most likely either a complete detonation or a larger neutron star.
The visible light doesn't come from the remnant, it comes from the glowing cloud of vapor that's the ejecta from the collision.
Actually, black holes are some of the most brightly visible objects in the universe: quasars. You don't see the black hole itself, but the accretion disk of all the stuff being heated into incandescence in the process of being swallowed radiates spectacularly.
Of 2.2m players they found 322k cheaters, that's 15% of the players, and that's only counting the ones they found.
Not necessarily. They probably banned the same cheaters multiple times.
There is no such thing. Find any jewel on the planet, it has a price value attached to it.
What is the price of the crown jewels of England?
For that matter, what is the price of the Hope Diamond?
Things do not have a price unless they are available to be sold.
Some of them are very good. It's the ones that aren't, and particularly the ones that fail because of the lack of an introduction, that are the subject of discussion.
Nothing will help a ditch digger, because there are no jobs left for ditch diggers. What used to take a team of men a week to do, today I just rent a backhoe and get done in an afternoon.
I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I find the average science article on a subject that I don't already know to be way too technical. They usually lack any sort of overview for non-experts.
I do like technical detail in the article-- but not instead of the article.
The article says this: "Queensland Law Society president and succession law specialist Christine Smyth said the law was changed in 2006 to allow for less formal types of documents to be accepted as wills."
Earlier in the article it states: "The Queensland Government's website says for a will to be valid, it must be in writing and "signed by you in front of two witnesses, both of whom must be over 18 years old, cannot be visually impaired and should not be included as beneficiaries in the will."
I would presume that the website would include any changes to the law from eleven years ago.
I'm more puzzled by the fact that the article says that a will must be witnessed by two people who aren't beneficiaries, yet this one doesn't seem to be.
No, Blade Runner does not occur in the original book. I think Ridley Scott or whoever titled the movie got it from a completely unrelated book and used it just because they liked the name. Ok, found it. Author of unrelated book is William S. Burroughs.
Uh, why are you repeating information that is in the summary, instead of just scrolling up to read it (or better yet, actually reading TFA)?
Summarizing the summary: The title came from the book The Bladerunner by Alan Nourse, as adapted into an unproduced screenplay by William S. Burroughs.
I'm baffled that Alan Nourse is refered to as "a mysterious writer by the name of Alan E. Nourse"-- mysterious? Nourse?
There's nothing mysterious about Alan Nourse, who is pretty well documented. He was a quite popular writer mostly of juveniles (*) back in the 50s and 60s.
The only mysterious thing was how his name was pronounced: "nurse." Which was apparently amusing, since he interned with a doctor whose family name was "doctor", leading to paging over the intercom of "Paging Doctor Doctor, Doctor Nurse."
--
footnote: a classification that no longer exists. "Juveniles" has now become either "young adult" or "middle grade".
They're more trustworthy than anonymous cowards, that's for sure.
When an AC posts the AC can't rely on reputation. To get the post taken seriously the AC can only rely on readily verifiable or well-known facts and a reasonably understandable chain of reasoning, otherwise they must expect their post to be ignored.
Really? If so, the anonymous cowards do a notoriously lousy job of doing so. Posts by anonymous cowards are almost always lacking in verifiable information, well-known facts, and understandable chains of reasoning, but are good with insults, stereotypes, and fact-free assertions usually grounded in one political ideology or another.
As far as I can tell, the people who post as anonymous cowards do so because they are posting garbage that they don't want associated with their names.
Seems you cut out all of my part of the post , but here we are. So I'll drop some comments that aren't specifically related to you.
Oops, sorry-- My response had been addressed to the previous post (the one saying solar panels were not light compared to kittens or feathers); I mis-threaded it.
Good comments, if I had mod points I'd mod you up.
Neither feathers nor kittens would have been my first choice for generating electrical power to charge batteries. My guess is that the weight of feathers and/or kittens needed to provide a megawatt of electrical power would probably be more than the same power generated by solar arrays, but I'd be very interested in hearing the results of your experiment showing the contrary.
How will these Powerwall units be recharged after they have been used up on the first go around?
From solar panels.
The electricity infrastructure is going to be down for quite a while, as the power plants and transmission lines have to be replaced.
Yes, that's exactly why you want the solar panels and battery storage.
Whilst solar panels sound like a good idea, how will you install PV when the vast majority of buildings are wrecked, and building materiel is going to be prioritised for reconstruction of homes and public structures?
I would think that setting up solar panels to provide emergency power would have a high priority. Setting up solar panels (or, repairing some of the installations that already exist on the island) is going to be very quick compared to reconstructing a demolished building; devoting a day or so to restoring the power grid is not going to delay the months-to-years long process of rebuilding the island.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-industry-wants-to-help-puerto-rico.
They're more trustworthy than anonymous cowards, that's for sure.
Solar panels are relatively light and cheap, and Puerto Rico has a lot of solar power. This is a good idea, a quick way to get usable power in place fast.
The storage is the tough part, and that's the part the powerwall is good for. There's already 88 MW of distributed solar and 127 MW of utility-scale solar available in Puerto Rico
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-industry-wants-to-help-puerto-rico.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/01/tesla-powerwalls-solar-panels-sent-puerto-rico/
No. The photon is the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible, according to the theory of quantum mechanics.
It's not that we can't measure anything smaller. It's that the universe, as we know it, doesn't allow electromagnetic radiation to be transferred in smaller units.
Now, you could hypothesize some better theory might come along and supercede quantum mechanics. But it's hard to see how any theory that's consistent with what we already know would not include Planck's relation.
Seems odd that two only slightly related news stories are concatenated into a single /. post.
The keychain hack seems to be working on any Mac OS, not just High Sierra.
That's a straw man argument.
Yes, if you hunt long enough I suppose you can find idiots who say almost anything. You can find people saying that the Earth is flat, or the rapture is coming next week, or reptilians have replaced the royal family of England with duplicates.
You are refuting straw man arguments.
I don't know who thenewamerican is, but they don't seem to be a very reliable source; they seem to have an axe to grind. A difficulty with many of these political sites is that they cherry-pick predictions, and for that matter cherry-pick data, on the assumption that nobody will check them. Better to go back to the original sources.
I've been graphing global temperatures and comparing them to predictions for years, starting with the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model, which predicted 2.25 degrees per doubling (this is still, fifty years later, within the estimated error range of the most recent IPCC consensus band.)
The measured data is right on the prediction. That's fifty years of data-- quite remarkable.