Superluminal motion actually happens around black holes due to frame dragging. Essentially, as a black hole rotates, spacetime is dragged with it...objects moving close to light speed (say,.8c) on spacetime that relative to us is moving.3c appear to be going 1.1c; GR only states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light *relative to the local spacetime*. It's sort of like a moving sidewalk -- you might have a top speed of 15 mph, but get on a moving walkway going 5mph (and move in the same direction) and to me, you're going 20.
Not really. deltaL = FL/EA, where F is the applied force, L is the initial length, A is the cross sectional area, and E is Young's Modulus. This of course assumes that the force is perfectly on the center and perfectly orthogonal to the face. That said, there's nothing weird about materials being compresses as you push on them. It simply seems small because the materials we deal with are usually very short.
because you still make the same and you don't have to work in the summer
Well, depends on the district. Many will pay you the standard hourly rate but only for 9 months -- so you're making 75% what you would if your job lasted for 12 months per year. Some districts do pay during the summer however, and it really does depend on the county's financial situation.
I would argue that this is true the first year. It's not rocket science to keep material year on year to reuse the next time around. And if you're not already prepared for anything the class can throw at you, why are you teaching the subject?
Many times, the curriculum changes any time a new school board gets elected. Suddenly half your work needs to be repeated.
At many schools, the teachers don't actually get paid during the summer months. These teachers then pick up additional "temp" jobs during the summer which don't give them time off. So then, we're back to around 4 weeks per year. Now subtract time where the schools hold training time (when the students have break) and you're down to 3 weeks. Less pay, same vacation -- would you trade it now?
Sort of a weird concept to understand, but -- look up the FRW metric on Wikipedia. Essentially, the expansion of the universe is really a changing metric of space time. As a previous poster noted, the big bang wasn't an explosion per se (except the pressures and temperatures were very high...) and it turns out that the big bang happened everywhere (from FRW). This means that we actually can see back to the big bang -- if we can get to wavelengths small enough. We can't see the very beginning simply because the universe was many orders of magnitude smaller than now and we don't have that sort of resolving power.
Also, note that the particle horizon -- how far we can actually see -- is 45 billion light years! Seems kind of weird, but comes out of FRW again.
Galileo also has one of the weirdest funding models that I've ever seen...I'd imagine that a spy sat looking for.1m resolution would get a significantly larger -- and more sustained -- chunk of the budget.
Oh of course, MAD did prevent such a war from breaking out...I'm not disputing that. I'm simply making note that in a true nuclear war, both sides nuke each other (and likely at the same rate). Would there be a winner in a situation where two countries knowing full well about MAD went in anyways? Probably not -- that was my point.
NK does have a "reliable" delivery system, if by reliable you really only care about hitting Japan somewhere (recall the missile launch that had a ground track over Japan). We're not talking pinpoint accuracy, but when you've got a big nuke and a big missile, a few miles is good enough. Aero controls is difficult, yes, but there's been enough work done and published in the last few decades that it's not impossible to imagine. Iran -- they have a new breed of rockets coming up (check out the Aviation Week/Space Tech from a few weeks back...I don't have it on me right now, but it was a pretty big story) that have the potential for long range.
That would be very cool. Unfortunately, these objects are so far away that there is very little parallax (measurable by instruments using various points on the Earth's orbit as the locations of the two pictures) and thus can't be seen by the human eye.
A nuclear war is not simply one side dropping a pair of nuclear weapons on the other side. Quite the contrary, actually -- it's the other side sending back nukes at a similar rate. Would you still say we won if Japan had nuclear capability and nuked the American mainland? What if we had gotten into a nuclear war with the USSR? They certainly had the capability and the stockpile to fight back; hard to see a winner in that case.
Oh of course, and if the student was claiming that the "teacher followed [her] in to the bathroom" etc., then obviously that falls into the slander category. There are other more subtle - but clearly slanderous - such phrases that would fall in the same way. However, this posting was against a principal's policies, with some offensive but not slanderous (calling someone stupid doesn't really cross that line) phrases about the principal himself.
Considering the amount of respect Myspace postings actually get, I'd be surprised if the girl's rant on her page actually "substantially disrupt[ed] school operations" -- beyond what the principal initiated, of course.
A few papers speculating and calling for more data -- but not drawing a conclusion -- does not equal "concern over an impending ice age". Read the actual papers and then try and claim the authors were predicting an oncoming ice age.
No. The data is just that -- data. How you PROCESS it, on the other hand, could (but does not necessarily) depend on assumptions. Also, as your computing or simulation power increases, the necessarily simplifying assumptions (which is really where errors come in) can be reduced.
You see, science doesn't work by first generating a model and fitting data to the curve. Quite the contrary, data is gathered, and then analyzed for trends. The assumption then, is that the data is accurate. In this case, there has been so much data gathered from various sources and through different methods all leading to the same models that the validity of the data (and thus, the model) is quite sound.
The data is quite sound (and "trivial" to gather as alluded by earlier responses). Even more important, however, is the ability to measure parameters coupled with temperature (CO2 concentration affecting temperature) from thousands of years back using ice core data.
Just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it's wrong. Simply put, you should read some actual journal articles (and not summaries in various Times and Chronicles) and look at the methodology and error analysis, then try to look for drawbacks. Then, look for papers that examine said drawbacks...
My engineering professors do something very similar. They take problems out of various texts written in foreign languages (many of which they or their colleagues have written) and translate the problems themselves. This obscures both the source, so that we can't go looking for the solution manual, and the original problem, so we can't Google for that either.
Of course, they mention that the problems aren't their own work, so it's not really plagiarism on their part...
>>Bullshit. Everyone I know except for a handful of exceptions are apartment/condo dwellers with no yard and many without cars. Whats next? Everyone likes to drive a 10mpg car and shoot buffalo?
Yes, but if the majority of people that you know are in their 20's, this makes sense. Wait about 10 or 15 years and watch those condo/apartment dwellers get married, have kids, and move to the suburbs with their minivans!
A falsehood "becoming the truth" doesn't mean that the actual facts or data change. However, it DOES mean that what's accepted as the truth changes when the falsehood is perpetuated for long enough. So no, the earth didn't compress into a plane -- but people certainly believed that it did and based their actions on that belief. Likewise, the longer and more pervasive this "anti-evolution" movement becomes, the more likely it becomes that someone trying to "choose" between the two will see creationism/ID as the truth...even if it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you want to touch that iPod after it's been in a teenager's booty. =p
Superluminal motion actually happens around black holes due to frame dragging. Essentially, as a black hole rotates, spacetime is dragged with it...objects moving close to light speed (say, .8c) on spacetime that relative to us is moving .3c appear to be going 1.1c; GR only states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light *relative to the local spacetime*. It's sort of like a moving sidewalk -- you might have a top speed of 15 mph, but get on a moving walkway going 5mph (and move in the same direction) and to me, you're going 20.
Not really. deltaL = FL/EA, where F is the applied force, L is the initial length, A is the cross sectional area, and E is Young's Modulus. This of course assumes that the force is perfectly on the center and perfectly orthogonal to the face. That said, there's nothing weird about materials being compresses as you push on them. It simply seems small because the materials we deal with are usually very short.
Satellites weren't around until 1957 with Sputnik, but there are aerial images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nagasaki_1945_- _Before_and_after_(adjusted).jpg
Many times, the curriculum changes any time a new school board gets elected. Suddenly half your work needs to be repeated.
At many schools, the teachers don't actually get paid during the summer months. These teachers then pick up additional "temp" jobs during the summer which don't give them time off. So then, we're back to around 4 weeks per year. Now subtract time where the schools hold training time (when the students have break) and you're down to 3 weeks. Less pay, same vacation -- would you trade it now?
If they're SMSing to pass notes, I'm not sure they're of the mindset to intercept said messages. =)
Sort of a weird concept to understand, but -- look up the FRW metric on Wikipedia. Essentially, the expansion of the universe is really a changing metric of space time. As a previous poster noted, the big bang wasn't an explosion per se (except the pressures and temperatures were very high...) and it turns out that the big bang happened everywhere (from FRW). This means that we actually can see back to the big bang -- if we can get to wavelengths small enough. We can't see the very beginning simply because the universe was many orders of magnitude smaller than now and we don't have that sort of resolving power.
Also, note that the particle horizon -- how far we can actually see -- is 45 billion light years! Seems kind of weird, but comes out of FRW again.
Galileo also has one of the weirdest funding models that I've ever seen...I'd imagine that a spy sat looking for .1m resolution would get a significantly larger -- and more sustained -- chunk of the budget.
Well, they do have to pay for their own service -- through tuition and taxes (although the latter is paid a few years down the road).
Oh of course, MAD did prevent such a war from breaking out...I'm not disputing that. I'm simply making note that in a true nuclear war, both sides nuke each other (and likely at the same rate). Would there be a winner in a situation where two countries knowing full well about MAD went in anyways? Probably not -- that was my point.
NK does have a "reliable" delivery system, if by reliable you really only care about hitting Japan somewhere (recall the missile launch that had a ground track over Japan). We're not talking pinpoint accuracy, but when you've got a big nuke and a big missile, a few miles is good enough. Aero controls is difficult, yes, but there's been enough work done and published in the last few decades that it's not impossible to imagine. Iran -- they have a new breed of rockets coming up (check out the Aviation Week/Space Tech from a few weeks back...I don't have it on me right now, but it was a pretty big story) that have the potential for long range.
That would be very cool. Unfortunately, these objects are so far away that there is very little parallax (measurable by instruments using various points on the Earth's orbit as the locations of the two pictures) and thus can't be seen by the human eye.
A nuclear war is not simply one side dropping a pair of nuclear weapons on the other side. Quite the contrary, actually -- it's the other side sending back nukes at a similar rate. Would you still say we won if Japan had nuclear capability and nuked the American mainland? What if we had gotten into a nuclear war with the USSR? They certainly had the capability and the stockpile to fight back; hard to see a winner in that case.
Hello, Mr. AC!
For those who didn't get the references in the above post, the on-campus shake table at UCSD has neon signs what flash the vices and virtues late into the night: http://stuartcollection.ucsd.edu/StuartCollection/ nauman/49530049.jpg
No wonder you got away with it -- you had tenure!
=p
Oh of course, and if the student was claiming that the "teacher followed [her] in to the bathroom" etc., then obviously that falls into the slander category. There are other more subtle - but clearly slanderous - such phrases that would fall in the same way. However, this posting was against a principal's policies, with some offensive but not slanderous (calling someone stupid doesn't really cross that line) phrases about the principal himself.
Considering the amount of respect Myspace postings actually get, I'd be surprised if the girl's rant on her page actually "substantially disrupt[ed] school operations" -- beyond what the principal initiated, of course.
A few papers speculating and calling for more data -- but not drawing a conclusion -- does not equal "concern over an impending ice age". Read the actual papers and then try and claim the authors were predicting an oncoming ice age.
No. The data is just that -- data. How you PROCESS it, on the other hand, could (but does not necessarily) depend on assumptions. Also, as your computing or simulation power increases, the necessarily simplifying assumptions (which is really where errors come in) can be reduced. You see, science doesn't work by first generating a model and fitting data to the curve. Quite the contrary, data is gathered, and then analyzed for trends. The assumption then, is that the data is accurate. In this case, there has been so much data gathered from various sources and through different methods all leading to the same models that the validity of the data (and thus, the model) is quite sound.
The data is quite sound (and "trivial" to gather as alluded by earlier responses). Even more important, however, is the ability to measure parameters coupled with temperature (CO2 concentration affecting temperature) from thousands of years back using ice core data. Just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it's wrong. Simply put, you should read some actual journal articles (and not summaries in various Times and Chronicles) and look at the methodology and error analysis, then try to look for drawbacks. Then, look for papers that examine said drawbacks...
My engineering professors do something very similar. They take problems out of various texts written in foreign languages (many of which they or their colleagues have written) and translate the problems themselves. This obscures both the source, so that we can't go looking for the solution manual, and the original problem, so we can't Google for that either. Of course, they mention that the problems aren't their own work, so it's not really plagiarism on their part...
>>Bullshit. Everyone I know except for a handful of exceptions are apartment/condo dwellers with no yard and many without cars. Whats next? Everyone likes to drive a 10mpg car and shoot buffalo? Yes, but if the majority of people that you know are in their 20's, this makes sense. Wait about 10 or 15 years and watch those condo/apartment dwellers get married, have kids, and move to the suburbs with their minivans!
A falsehood "becoming the truth" doesn't mean that the actual facts or data change. However, it DOES mean that what's accepted as the truth changes when the falsehood is perpetuated for long enough. So no, the earth didn't compress into a plane -- but people certainly believed that it did and based their actions on that belief. Likewise, the longer and more pervasive this "anti-evolution" movement becomes, the more likely it becomes that someone trying to "choose" between the two will see creationism/ID as the truth...even if it's not.