Thank you. Finally there's a response with some real reading material in it. The first response was both flippant and amateurish.
> Think about it all you want. It's terribly interesting.
Now you're agreeing with the sentiment which I expressed after fighting with me for six hours. Truly remarkable.
Use of the word "terribly" leads me to believe that you're talking down your nose more than you're trying to hold a productive discussion. If that was your intent then, by all means, carry on.
I don't remember there being a source which said that cosmological redshift is 3 (or 3.3)%. That was your personal assertion.
You keep saying that the page I linked to is a common misconception but you offer what to back that up? Since this morning I've looked over at least a dozen pages, all of them physics.edu or space related.gov research (No, I wasn't about to look at answers.com or about.com for a scientific discussion) and all of them, if they include mathematical derivations, use the same equations. So what exactly is this common misunderstanding?
What exactly am I wrong about? That the redshift phenomena is something interesting to think about? Do you hold some intellectual astroturf on someone else thinking about the effect of redshift? I see in one of your other posts that you assert that you're an astronomy educator. Perhaps you could contribute something educational rather than repeating,"No! You're wrong! I know all about it but I'm not going to describe it at all. Quit thinking about it!"
I can't tell if you're attempting to assert that the redshift phenomena doesn't exist or if you just want to argue about which kind of redshift I was originally thinking about (Doppler, gravitational, cosmological). I was musing about the cumulative effect of all three and how significant it may be. There's clearly a quantifiable effect. Where does your 3% number come from anyway? It's still significant even if it is only 3%.
Try kicking your dog if you need to assert your superiority. I was looking for a productive discussion and apparently I fished out someone who wanted to fight.
3% over what increment? If it's 3% per light year, or even 3% per 100 light years, or 3% per 100 million light years, then the iteration is definitely significant. Since astronomers rely on red shifting to measure distances between stars within our own galaxy, though, it stands that the impact is significant. I'm not saying it's an issue. I don't want to debate it. I said it's a consideration to think about.
According to this page a red shift of z=4.25, a recession speed of 0.93c, corresponds to a distance of 12-15 million light years. Nine years ago when I was studying nuclear physics I could probably have told you more distinctly what that means. Assuming it's the velocity remaining, a 7% decrease equates to 12-15 million light years. Assuming a linear relationship (unlikely, but I'm doing the math in my head) then light traveling 440 million light years would experience a decrease of around 250%. That means the gamma rays, by the time they reached Earth, are 2.5 times lower in energy than from the originating point. That's not an order of magnitude but it's definitely significant.
Companies know darn well how to manage work-at-home programs. They don't want to. I don't know why. I suspect it has something to do with exercising the authority muscle. They want to have people coming into the building. They like to look out their corner office window and see the parking lot filling up with cars as people arrive to support their empire. People like to watch others work, especially if they themselves don't really need to. It could almost be called a form of cheap (even profitable) entertainment. It also could be an unofficial office manager's union. Where would their jobs be if we worked from home? As long as we show up to work then there needs to be an office manager to supervise and coordinate. If we could all work from home and coordinate ourselves via IRC then the office managers would be required to demonstrate real productivity. The cushy jobs of nepotism would suddenly disappear.
I had a perfect job for work-at-home. My job was authoring/editing project proposals and peer reviewing the papers of others. I asked about work-at-home options and was told flatly,"No". For that company at least the work-at-home program was reserved for people who could claim their kids as an excuse, people who traveled so often that they were rarely in the office anyway, or those who were "in the club". Work-at-home had little or nothing to do with actual suitability.
In today's networked world the vast majority of us are still held to an arbitrary requirement for face time.
In the article it's mentioned that scientists expected the resulting phenomenon, whatever it is, to reach peak brightness within a week after the explosion. That struck me as odd. Almost nothing happens in the stars in a week's time but I'm sure there's a good reason for it.
I'm wondering more about the Doppler effect, or red shifting. Red shifting is plausible--if for no other reason than the statistics behind quantum mechanics. Unless you can gather an entire wave of light back into a single point then it stands to reason that the photons will grow further apart. Gamma rays are pretty high energy and are at the top of the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it. If this particular burst looks like gamma rays to us when it gets here... what was it originally? There's got to be some sort of high-order energy past what we know as the electromagnetic spectrum if indeed red shifting is a true phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation. I suppose it could still be part of the electromagnetic spectrum but the wavelengths would be getting down to smaller than the distance between the quarks in a densely packed nucleus.
Then there's timing. Red shifting would cause the duration of an emission to expand as well. If most GRBs, after traveling billions of years, only last a few seconds then the event which caused the emission must be on the order of a few milliseconds (or arbitrarily "less than a few seconds"). This burst was 440 million years off and lasted 33 minutes. The amount of red shifting would be significantly less between 440 million years and several billion... so the originating event could still have been on the order of whole minutes long (or arbitrarily "more than as much less than 33 minutes as a few seconds is to a few milliseconds").
I think I remember what I was doing on the 18th. Maybe that's why I woke up with such a headache...:)
Indeed. The core race was alive and well during the RISC vs. CISC years. At that time it was core instruction set. Before then it was probably core something else. The cores have become larger and more complex. While Intel may not have the best approach (or it may) it is important for someone to continue to redefine not just the basic instruction set that the processor runs on but what that processor set is geared to accomplish. In terms of Intel's market--the IT industry, home desktops, work desktops, laptops--there are many common functionalities that take precedence over the ability to manipulate individual bits.
The processors have become self-aware and are now reaching out to higher level routines to better adapt themselves to the task of modern desk and laptop computing. They are recruiting Intel into their scheme to replace humans as the most powerful force on the planet.
Around here Comcast is charging near double what Vonage charges for VoIP service. I'm waiting for Comcast to begin using underhanded QoS attacks on the Vonage network to encourage me to switch to their offering.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. Finally there's a response with some real reading material in it. The first response was both flippant and amateurish.
> Think about it all you want. It's terribly interesting.
Now you're agreeing with the sentiment which I expressed after fighting with me for six hours. Truly remarkable.
Use of the word "terribly" leads me to believe that you're talking down your nose more than you're trying to hold a productive discussion. If that was your intent then, by all means, carry on.
I don't remember there being a source which said that cosmological redshift is 3 (or 3.3)%. That was your personal assertion.
.edu or space related .gov research (No, I wasn't about to look at answers.com or about.com for a scientific discussion) and all of them, if they include mathematical derivations, use the same equations. So what exactly is this common misunderstanding?
You keep saying that the page I linked to is a common misconception but you offer what to back that up? Since this morning I've looked over at least a dozen pages, all of them physics
What exactly am I wrong about? That the redshift phenomena is something interesting to think about? Do you hold some intellectual astroturf on someone else thinking about the effect of redshift? I see in one of your other posts that you assert that you're an astronomy educator. Perhaps you could contribute something educational rather than repeating,"No! You're wrong! I know all about it but I'm not going to describe it at all. Quit thinking about it!"
I'm throwing you back.
I can't tell if you're attempting to assert that the redshift phenomena doesn't exist or if you just want to argue about which kind of redshift I was originally thinking about (Doppler, gravitational, cosmological). I was musing about the cumulative effect of all three and how significant it may be. There's clearly a quantifiable effect. Where does your 3% number come from anyway? It's still significant even if it is only 3%.
Try kicking your dog if you need to assert your superiority. I was looking for a productive discussion and apparently I fished out someone who wanted to fight.
3% over what increment? If it's 3% per light year, or even 3% per 100 light years, or 3% per 100 million light years, then the iteration is definitely significant. Since astronomers rely on red shifting to measure distances between stars within our own galaxy, though, it stands that the impact is significant. I'm not saying it's an issue. I don't want to debate it. I said it's a consideration to think about.
According to this page a red shift of z=4.25, a recession speed of 0.93c, corresponds to a distance of 12-15 million light years. Nine years ago when I was studying nuclear physics I could probably have told you more distinctly what that means. Assuming it's the velocity remaining, a 7% decrease equates to 12-15 million light years. Assuming a linear relationship (unlikely, but I'm doing the math in my head) then light traveling 440 million light years would experience a decrease of around 250%. That means the gamma rays, by the time they reached Earth, are 2.5 times lower in energy than from the originating point. That's not an order of magnitude but it's definitely significant.
Companies know darn well how to manage work-at-home programs. They don't want to. I don't know why. I suspect it has something to do with exercising the authority muscle. They want to have people coming into the building. They like to look out their corner office window and see the parking lot filling up with cars as people arrive to support their empire. People like to watch others work, especially if they themselves don't really need to. It could almost be called a form of cheap (even profitable) entertainment. It also could be an unofficial office manager's union. Where would their jobs be if we worked from home? As long as we show up to work then there needs to be an office manager to supervise and coordinate. If we could all work from home and coordinate ourselves via IRC then the office managers would be required to demonstrate real productivity. The cushy jobs of nepotism would suddenly disappear.
I had a perfect job for work-at-home. My job was authoring/editing project proposals and peer reviewing the papers of others. I asked about work-at-home options and was told flatly,"No". For that company at least the work-at-home program was reserved for people who could claim their kids as an excuse, people who traveled so often that they were rarely in the office anyway, or those who were "in the club". Work-at-home had little or nothing to do with actual suitability.
In today's networked world the vast majority of us are still held to an arbitrary requirement for face time.
In the article it's mentioned that scientists expected the resulting phenomenon, whatever it is, to reach peak brightness within a week after the explosion. That struck me as odd. Almost nothing happens in the stars in a week's time but I'm sure there's a good reason for it.
:)
I'm wondering more about the Doppler effect, or red shifting. Red shifting is plausible--if for no other reason than the statistics behind quantum mechanics. Unless you can gather an entire wave of light back into a single point then it stands to reason that the photons will grow further apart. Gamma rays are pretty high energy and are at the top of the electromagnetic spectrum as we know it. If this particular burst looks like gamma rays to us when it gets here... what was it originally? There's got to be some sort of high-order energy past what we know as the electromagnetic spectrum if indeed red shifting is a true phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation. I suppose it could still be part of the electromagnetic spectrum but the wavelengths would be getting down to smaller than the distance between the quarks in a densely packed nucleus.
Then there's timing. Red shifting would cause the duration of an emission to expand as well. If most GRBs, after traveling billions of years, only last a few seconds then the event which caused the emission must be on the order of a few milliseconds (or arbitrarily "less than a few seconds"). This burst was 440 million years off and lasted 33 minutes. The amount of red shifting would be significantly less between 440 million years and several billion... so the originating event could still have been on the order of whole minutes long (or arbitrarily "more than as much less than 33 minutes as a few seconds is to a few milliseconds").
I think I remember what I was doing on the 18th. Maybe that's why I woke up with such a headache...
Indeed. The core race was alive and well during the RISC vs. CISC years. At that time it was core instruction set. Before then it was probably core something else. The cores have become larger and more complex. While Intel may not have the best approach (or it may) it is important for someone to continue to redefine not just the basic instruction set that the processor runs on but what that processor set is geared to accomplish. In terms of Intel's market--the IT industry, home desktops, work desktops, laptops--there are many common functionalities that take precedence over the ability to manipulate individual bits.
The processors have become self-aware and are now reaching out to higher level routines to better adapt themselves to the task of modern desk and laptop computing. They are recruiting Intel into their scheme to replace humans as the most powerful force on the planet.
Following up on your own point... the first thing they'll notice is "Hey. This isn't Windows", and all they'll see is "Wha wha wha".
Around here Comcast is charging near double what Vonage charges for VoIP service. I'm waiting for Comcast to begin using underhanded QoS attacks on the Vonage network to encourage me to switch to their offering.