In Australia it's an excuse to get out in the sun for a day and drink, while playing a sport that isn't too strenuous for the hot weather. If you live in Melbourne for a summer and you'll probably get it, or at least become obsessed with it, even if you don't get it:).
I'm thinking laziness may be the common factor here. If you are lazy and don't challenge yourself to exercise then your BMI goes up. If you are lazy and don't challenge yourself mentally, your IQ goes down.
There are other factors like being unfit means you get less oxygen to the brain, and high BMI people are less likely to be fit and healthy on average. But I feel these factors would have far less effect on the correlation than their general lack of application would.
Real ones or perceived ones? ie. do we know any proof of the Riemann Hypothesis will be useful in these ways, or do we just have a feeling that it might give insight into it?
I don't think the Riemann Hypothesis will have that much value. It's just a big challenge. We know it holds to at least squillions, and could guess that it is most likely right without proving it.
P vs. NP on the other hand would be more than quite significant. It would turn the world upside down, inside out, and potentially make our mathematical abilities unstoppable. The day someone does an RSA challenge number by hand or in their head will be a grand day indeed.
I'm guessing one of these things would be invaluable in many of the African countries. But as mentioned by the article they are unlikely to ever get there because the US government wants to use them for war purposes and won't disclose the methods or technology involved. Once again bringing democracy(anarchy) to Iraq on TV will come before stopping millions from dying of thirst and contaminated drinking water.
Well on Earth life has 100% chance of occurring for a start. Which suggests that life occurs, and can sensibly be extended to life occurs elsewhere just by assuming homogeneity (as they do with everything else). It's also good to note we know shit all about anything beyond Earth, as much as we'd like to pretend we do. Common sense says there are about 80 naturally occurring elements. Of these elements, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. are quite low on the periodic table and quite common (or at least in our solar system). I'm guessing the possible combinations of these elements that can form planets would not be extremely large. There are also basic chemical processes that occur when these elements are put together and a set amount of structures that can be supported. Looking at what we know (ie. earth) one of them that seems to occur is proteins and life.
Life also seems to evolve in the direction of more strong or more intelligent because life with weak traits dies off or gets killed. Why these processes would magically occur differently elsewhere is beyond me.
But think about how good it will be when they can do these things with higher level lifeforms. For instance if we could use people to switch things and their brains to do complex calculations and somehow network them together using some form of complex communication made up of various sequences of sound...
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms."
I'm still waiting for a day when they can publish science news without suggesting stuff that is greater than what has been done. Reading this you would think they teleported some macroscopic solid containing a complex structure of atoms, or so they'd like you to think.
For once it would be nice to read the full story the first time so you didn't have to find the real one that says they have pretty much done the same as normal but with a twist so they can claim something new. In terms of practical implications it has absolutely no value in making us closer to teleporting macroscopic objects (unless clouds of gas or BECs can be called objects). When they can teleport a spoon or a tennis ball or a rabbit then they can mention 'macroscopic teleportation'. Till then they should stick to throwing around 'quantum computing' as their catch phrase. Though in its usability quantum computing is only a small amount ahead of string theory and maybe behind fusion.
On a more serious note there is a dark spot somewhere near the pole in Uranus which is creating a dark vortex large enough to engulf two-thirds of the United States. Should we be worried. And is this any danger to the planet?
If you put a person in water they have to compete with the force of the water also. Wouldn't matter what you put in my lungs, if you gave the the choice of being accelerated to 8km/s in water or air, I'd take the air any day.
The analogy that string theorists and media make between string theory and Einstein is criminal. Einstein saw that the previous physics was not holding up with the old theory in experiments, and there was a need for a new theory or perspective. The majority of Einstein's discoveries were new rules made from observations also. Ie. speed of light = c in any inertial reference frame, and space time curving near large masses. It was a new way of looking at things to account for experiment.
String theorists on the other hand, saw a mathematical formula and have tried to make a theory of everything from it. There is obviously a need for quantum gravity theories as we move into the future, but the scientific way to approach this, as Einstein did, would be to look at the experimental results in quantum and relativity, and the previous theories, and see where the conflict is and explain it. Not beat around in the dark with numbers and when they find things using incomplete theories, claim that they exist.
I agree totally that they are destructive to science. They can work in the maths faculty if they wish but to waste physics funding and physics media space when there are so much more important and valuable finds out there, is criminal. How funding can go into a theory that implies nothing testable, hence nothing valuable is beyond me. And they say we will need it when we can test it. What a joke. When we can test it, we can develop the right theory from experimental evidence. This is called science:).
I'm agreeing with KFG. If he can claim it generates 214mN/kW, then do the test properly and put something higher like a gigawatt into it so he knows for certain. The results he has chosen intentionally ignore the things which may disprove his theory. And he really shouldn't say it's tested unless it has been tested properly, because it is misleading and can cause a lot of trouble for other scientists who might try to use his theory believing that it's right.
The thing that worries me is the integrity of the magazines and people who are willing publish and fund this crap. Though I'd say he's doing pretty well at conning the buisinessmen.
I was sure no one would be stupid enough to use charge with a photon...
But it sort of works, because if you put q=0 in the formula then F=0, just like the thrust his machine will produce.
Just thinking of it simply as conservation of momentum.
Make the following assumptions: - Fan goes nowhere or at least doesnt change its momentum. - Air particles start from stationary. - No momentum is transferred to the water (not true but...)
We find: - If the air particles end up with net momentum forward, the boat goes backward. - If the air particles end up with net momentum backward, the boat goes forward.
So if it is possible for the air to collide with the sail and end up travelling backwards, ie. just reflect off it, then the boat will go forwards. Thats assuming a reasonable amount of the air hits the sail of course.
Slashdot Mirror
In Australia it's an excuse to get out in the sun for a day and drink, while playing a sport that isn't too strenuous for the hot weather. If you live in Melbourne for a summer and you'll probably get it, or at least become obsessed with it, even if you don't get it :).
I'm thinking laziness may be the common factor here. If you are lazy and don't challenge yourself to exercise then your BMI goes up. If you are lazy and don't challenge yourself mentally, your IQ goes down.
There are other factors like being unfit means you get less oxygen to the brain, and high BMI people are less likely to be fit and healthy on average. But I feel these factors would have far less effect on the correlation than their general lack of application would.
If china can get the support of the US, Japan, etc. They can expand their borders a little, and no one will care.
Real ones or perceived ones? ie. do we know any proof of the Riemann Hypothesis will be useful in these ways, or do we just have a feeling that it might give insight into it?
I don't think the Riemann Hypothesis will have that much value. It's just a big challenge. We know it holds to at least squillions, and could guess that it is most likely right without proving it.
P vs. NP on the other hand would be more than quite significant. It would turn the world upside down, inside out, and potentially make our mathematical abilities unstoppable. The day someone does an RSA challenge number by hand or in their head will be a grand day indeed.
Argh!
& lr=&safe=off&q=uranal+probe&btnG=Search
Sorry to double post, but I just searched the net and they've got the pictures back already!
http://images.google.com.au/images?svnum=10&hl=en
I heard NASA is also thinking of sending a probe to Uranus in the near future. Maybe to look for more evidence of what is causing the dark spot.
I'm guessing one of these things would be invaluable in many of the African countries. But as mentioned by the article they are unlikely to ever get there because the US government wants to use them for war purposes and won't disclose the methods or technology involved. Once again bringing democracy(anarchy) to Iraq on TV will come before stopping millions from dying of thirst and contaminated drinking water.
Send it to New Scientist, they'll print it.
Religion.
Well on Earth life has 100% chance of occurring for a start. Which suggests that life occurs, and can sensibly be extended to life occurs elsewhere just by assuming homogeneity (as they do with everything else). It's also good to note we know shit all about anything beyond Earth, as much as we'd like to pretend we do. Common sense says there are about 80 naturally occurring elements. Of these elements, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc. are quite low on the periodic table and quite common (or at least in our solar system). I'm guessing the possible combinations of these elements that can form planets would not be extremely large. There are also basic chemical processes that occur when these elements are put together and a set amount of structures that can be supported. Looking at what we know (ie. earth) one of them that seems to occur is proteins and life.
Life also seems to evolve in the direction of more strong or more intelligent because life with weak traits dies off or gets killed. Why these processes would magically occur differently elsewhere is beyond me.
Like imagine accidently killing the memory while cleaning. Or the overclockers feeding their memory stuff to help it clone itself.
But think about how good it will be when they can do these things with higher level lifeforms. For instance if we could use people to switch things and their brains to do complex calculations and somehow network them together using some form of complex communication made up of various sequences of sound...
"Imagine if police could arrest you if your horoscope was certain you'll kill someone today"
Imagine how many people of that star sign would be killing people if the horoscope was right.
If i had any mod points I'd give you some. :)
Damn he set that up well for you.
I had to look up esoteric too; I sometimes get the feeling that scientists read the thesaurus more than the journals in America.
"The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms."
I'm still waiting for a day when they can publish science news without suggesting stuff that is greater than what has been done. Reading this you would think they teleported some macroscopic solid containing a complex structure of atoms, or so they'd like you to think.
For once it would be nice to read the full story the first time so you didn't have to find the real one that says they have pretty much done the same as normal but with a twist so they can claim something new. In terms of practical implications it has absolutely no value in making us closer to teleporting macroscopic objects (unless clouds of gas or BECs can be called objects). When they can teleport a spoon or a tennis ball or a rabbit then they can mention 'macroscopic teleportation'. Till then they should stick to throwing around 'quantum computing' as their catch phrase. Though in its usability quantum computing is only a small amount ahead of string theory and maybe behind fusion.
On a more serious note there is a dark spot somewhere near the pole in Uranus which is creating a dark vortex large enough to engulf two-thirds of the United States. Should we be worried. And is this any danger to the planet?
"So fucking what"
What comment exactly is this directed at and why?
p.s. This is out of interest, not picking...
Or a sting ray...
If you put a person in water they have to compete with the force of the water also. Wouldn't matter what you put in my lungs, if you gave the the choice of being accelerated to 8km/s in water or air, I'd take the air any day.
Damn, America is so far infront the others will never catch them. You've even beaten the Hungarians...
The analogy that string theorists and media make between string theory and Einstein is criminal. Einstein saw that the previous physics was not holding up with the old theory in experiments, and there was a need for a new theory or perspective. The majority of Einstein's discoveries were new rules made from observations also. Ie. speed of light = c in any inertial reference frame, and space time curving near large masses. It was a new way of looking at things to account for experiment.
:).
String theorists on the other hand, saw a mathematical formula and have tried to make a theory of everything from it. There is obviously a need for quantum gravity theories as we move into the future, but the scientific way to approach this, as Einstein did, would be to look at the experimental results in quantum and relativity, and the previous theories, and see where the conflict is and explain it. Not beat around in the dark with numbers and when they find things using incomplete theories, claim that they exist.
I agree totally that they are destructive to science. They can work in the maths faculty if they wish but to waste physics funding and physics media space when there are so much more important and valuable finds out there, is criminal. How funding can go into a theory that implies nothing testable, hence nothing valuable is beyond me. And they say we will need it when we can test it. What a joke. When we can test it, we can develop the right theory from experimental evidence. This is called science
I'm agreeing with KFG. If he can claim it generates 214mN/kW, then do the test properly and put something higher like a gigawatt into it so he knows for certain. The results he has chosen intentionally ignore the things which may disprove his theory. And he really shouldn't say it's tested unless it has been tested properly, because it is misleading and can cause a lot of trouble for other scientists who might try to use his theory believing that it's right.
The thing that worries me is the integrity of the magazines and people who are willing publish and fund this crap. Though I'd say he's doing pretty well at conning the buisinessmen.
I was sure no one would be stupid enough to use charge with a photon...
But it sort of works, because if you put q=0 in the formula then F=0, just like the thrust his machine will produce.
Just thinking of it simply as conservation of momentum.
Make the following assumptions:
- Fan goes nowhere or at least doesnt change its momentum.
- Air particles start from stationary.
- No momentum is transferred to the water (not true but...)
We find:
- If the air particles end up with net momentum forward, the boat goes backward.
- If the air particles end up with net momentum backward, the boat goes forward.
So if it is possible for the air to collide with the sail and end up travelling backwards, ie. just reflect off it, then the boat will go forwards. Thats assuming a reasonable amount of the air hits the sail of course.