I'm talking about the specific observations made by Clayton Christensen about how some innovation "helps create a new market... and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market... displacing an earlier technology there" [wiki disruptive technology]. It's really classic and it's not about adapting or becoming irrelevant. Companies find it almost impossible to disrupt themselves because usually when the innovation comes along it's not capable of serving an existing company's customers. Over time, with a trajectory of improvement, the innovation meets mainstream needs and displaces the incumbent (vacuum tubes/transistors, mainframes/minicomputers, chemical photography/digital photography and so on). Clayton's book The Innovator's Dilemma is probably the best read on this topic.
The BBC article cited in the main post has no mention of the redshift associated with this whitedrawf. It just says "The mass calculations are based on how the star's light is distorted by its neighbour's intense gravitational field." This New Scientist article reporting on the same news does mention redshift - I like redshift: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8460&f eedId=space_rss20
Other info on redshit can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
There is a good 14min broadcast of whats involved with hydrogen as a viable fuel source. I believe the question of where to get the hydrogen from is discussed and microbes come up. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01.ht ml
What's your opinion on the where telescope are going long-term - very long term.
Would the moon be an ideal place for telescopes? Radio telescopes would be shielded from most of Earth's chatter and lens based scope's could be constructed even larger because of weaker gravity. It's nice to wonder what we might see with a telescope that had a 1 kilometer aperture. By the way, I envy your line of work.
Thanks for dropping that knowledge. Thought you or others might like to read about the Thirty-Meter Telescope(TMT). "What makes the TMT so unique is its diameter -- or aperture -- and the light-grabbing dimensions of its primary mirror, which will produce images 10 to 100 times the clarity of the Hubble telescope." http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.ht ml?tw=rss.TEK
With some great techniques for correcting the disturbances our atmosphere creates and a lot of huge (e.g.http://www.gmto.org/) ground based telescope slated for construction, it seems that super expensive space telescope will fall out of favor. I think we def need to continue with the JGW scope though - or at least send something to Lagrange point 2 before china does.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking about the specific observations made by Clayton Christensen about how some innovation "helps create a new market ... and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market ... displacing an earlier technology there" [wiki disruptive technology]. It's really classic and it's not about adapting or becoming irrelevant. Companies find it almost impossible to disrupt themselves because usually when the innovation comes along it's not capable of serving an existing company's customers. Over time, with a trajectory of improvement, the innovation meets mainstream needs and displaces the incumbent (vacuum tubes/transistors, mainframes/minicomputers, chemical photography/digital photography and so on). Clayton's book The Innovator's Dilemma is probably the best read on this topic.
The BBC article cited in the main post has no mention of the redshift associated with this whitedrawf. It just says "The mass calculations are based on how the star's light is distorted by its neighbour's intense gravitational field." This New Scientist article reporting on the same news does mention redshift - I like redshift: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8460&f eedId=space_rss20
Other info on redshit can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
There is a good 14min broadcast of whats involved with hydrogen as a viable fuel source.t ml
I believe the question of where to get the hydrogen from is discussed and microbes come up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01.h
What's your opinion on the where telescope are going long-term - very long term. Would the moon be an ideal place for telescopes? Radio telescopes would be shielded from most of Earth's chatter and lens based scope's could be constructed even larger because of weaker gravity. It's nice to wonder what we might see with a telescope that had a 1 kilometer aperture. By the way, I envy your line of work.
Thanks for dropping that knowledge. Thought you or others might like to read about the Thirty-Meter Telescope(TMT). "What makes the TMT so unique is its diameter -- or aperture -- and the light-grabbing dimensions of its primary mirror, which will produce images 10 to 100 times the clarity of the Hubble telescope." http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.ht ml?tw=rss.TEK
With some great techniques for correcting the disturbances our atmosphere creates and a lot of huge (e.g.http://www.gmto.org/) ground based telescope slated for construction, it seems that super expensive space telescope will fall out of favor. I think we def need to continue with the JGW scope though - or at least send something to Lagrange point 2 before china does.