huh. so the notion is that there is/was an off-surface flow of dark material around the moon, being occasionally deposited on [more or less] prominences ? i dunno. it's the dramatically sharp boundaries between the regions which leave me agog. thanks for the links.
of course it shows hills and everything. have you used google earth ? imnsfho (keepin it retro) GE is one of the most significant application of computers since internet searching, and layering a flight-simulator on top of it is [just] a great extension of an awesome core technology.
i love kensington's physical devices - they're generally very well-built, satisfying to use, sturdy, etc, etc. however after six years of consistently crap drivers which hose the normal operation of my my machine i've sworn off installing their software, which means not using their devices. it's a pity.
do math or physics with a minor in either CS or IT. you can pick up whatever computer skills (and theory) you need in the marketplace, but the harder sciences really benefit from being learned at school.
but if you follow the link above leads us to a link to this page,
which contains this text:
"If you're looking for the FanLib brochure, it has been removed.
Published in 2004, the brochure contained outdated information for special collaborative events."
so saying that this is the face they present to publishers may not be w/o controversy.
good question.
well even if it's tidally locked,
the sucker is still orbiting the star once every what, 53 hours ?
that's still pretty rapid rotation around the polar vector,
which i could see giving rise to equatorial winds.
the article posits that the far side is still pretty hot for the same reason the big Hot Spot is not exactly facing the star: 6000 MPH (9656 KPH) winds are pushing everything around.
I'm not clear from the articles if by "coolest spot" they mean the coolest spot on the equator, or they're including the poles.
in some countries there's also the option of being mulched, which makes a lot of sense to me. fwiw, i had a brief email exchange a couple years ago w/ Susanne, mulching's Swedish flag-bearer, bemoaning the unavailability of mulching in the U.S., and she was very nice.
i agree there's some disturbing mobbish mentality to this thread, however it seems pretty apparent that the thunderbolts folks aren't producing rigourous work.
as someone else mentioned, the paper contains hordes of unsupported assertions, photographs which don't really prove anything and in some cases look plain doctored, writing which seems juvenile, etc.
when a paper makes an assertion like "It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst.", i really like to see a source, and not seeing one makes me less inclined to believe in the rigour of the author.
until they can present their work more professionally, i suspect that derision will be the continued response.
a tube that is invisble from the side but allows light to shine down the center.
wouldn't a tube-shaped region of empty space fit the same description ?
also it seems weird that the article makes no reference at all to the size of the proposed tube. are we talking like a millimeter ? ten feet ? the wavelength of red light ?
why is this modded 4/interesting ?
you don't even have to read the article. right there in the summary it says "a tube that is invisible from the sides but allows light to shine down the center."
(not that the article actually says much more than the summary)
so while i'm sure the military will have an application for this, as they seem to have applications for anything which my money can be spent on, the only things which can be moved thru the tunnel are photons.
like many on/., i'm a moderately avid amateur follower of physics, and regularly read popular science books around these issues, and i've come to the conclusion that to get any significant understanding of this stuff, you have to actually be a real physicist. that is, the interesting details are too embroiled in the rest of the theory to be summarizable to a lay person like me. or possibly you. no offense.
i suspect the best lay-people can do is to appreciate that the argument over whether the universe keeps ticking even when we're not looking at it is still pretty hot, even after some 70 years of debate.
fair enough. i guess my point is that we should be aware that violent elements at Protest-For-Cause-X have in the past often been planted by the opponents of Cause X.
i didn't know about Gough Whitlam, thanks.
how does a cop tell actual violent elements from planted ones ? good q. one step might be raising hell when the plants come to light.
Slashdot Mirror
flywheels are an interesting method of energy storage undergoing contemporary research.
in my book they're cool because they're clean and simple.
there was a good article in science news a few months back, but it's subscriber-only.
here's another.
.. oops ! not funny.
huh. so the notion is that there is/was an off-surface flow of dark material around the moon, being occasionally deposited on [more or less] prominences ? i dunno. it's the dramatically sharp boundaries between the regions which leave me agog. thanks for the links.
i'm at a loss to explain those inky black patches.
wonderful photos.
of course it shows hills and everything. have you used google earth ?
imnsfho (keepin it retro) GE is one of the most significant application of computers since internet searching,
and layering a flight-simulator on top of it is [just] a great extension of an awesome core technology.
mod up !
one of the very few posts with actual physics thinking in this whole tawdry discussion.
Iä, Iä, Shub-Niggurath !
it's not *being* stumped that's so great,
what the parent is lauding is *admitting* when you're stumped.
i'm not even an operations guy but even i know enough to say "when it occurs in the future", not "should it occur in the future".
except a light year is a unit of distance, not of time.
i love kensington's physical devices - they're generally very well-built, satisfying to use, sturdy, etc, etc. however after six years of consistently crap drivers which hose the normal operation of my my machine i've sworn off installing their software, which means not using their devices. it's a pity.
do math or physics with a minor in either CS or IT.
you can pick up whatever computer skills (and theory) you need in the marketplace,
but the harder sciences really benefit from being learned at school.
HAH !
but if you follow the link above leads us to a link to this page,
which contains this text:
"If you're looking for the FanLib brochure, it has been removed.
Published in 2004, the brochure contained outdated information for special collaborative events."
so saying that this is the face they present to publishers may not be w/o controversy.
good question. well even if it's tidally locked, the sucker is still orbiting the star once every what, 53 hours ? that's still pretty rapid rotation around the polar vector, which i could see giving rise to equatorial winds.
if the surface is whipping around at 6000 MPH, how do they determine it's tidally locked ?
or maybe it's just probable in view of its proximity to the body it's orbiting.
the article posits that the far side is still pretty hot for the same reason the big Hot Spot is not exactly facing the star: 6000 MPH (9656 KPH) winds are pushing everything around.
I'm not clear from the articles if by "coolest spot" they mean the coolest spot on the equator, or they're including the poles.
as subject.
in some countries there's also the option of being mulched, which makes a lot of sense to me. fwiw, i had a brief email exchange a couple years ago w/ Susanne, mulching's Swedish flag-bearer, bemoaning the unavailability of mulching in the U.S., and she was very nice.
hm, i'm missing the article actually saying the tunnel can contain objects, but i think you're right.
i agree there's some disturbing mobbish mentality to this thread,
however it seems pretty apparent that the thunderbolts folks aren't producing rigourous work.
as someone else mentioned, the paper contains hordes of unsupported assertions,
photographs which don't really prove anything and in some cases look plain doctored,
writing which seems juvenile, etc.
when a paper makes an assertion like "It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst.", i really like to see a source, and not seeing one makes me less inclined to believe in the rigour of the author.
until they can present their work more professionally, i suspect that derision will be the continued response.
a tube that is invisble from the side but allows light to shine down the center.
wouldn't a tube-shaped region of empty space fit the same description ?
also it seems weird that the article makes no reference at all to the size of the proposed tube. are we talking like a millimeter ? ten feet ? the wavelength of red light ?
why is this modded 4/interesting ?
you don't even have to read the article. right there in the summary it says "a tube that is invisible from the sides but allows light to shine down the center." (not that the article actually says much more than the summary)
so while i'm sure the military will have an application for this, as they seem to have applications for anything which my money can be spent on, the only things which can be moved thru the tunnel are photons.
like many on /., i'm a moderately avid amateur follower of physics,
and regularly read popular science books around these issues,
and i've come to the conclusion that to get any significant understanding of this stuff,
you have to actually be a real physicist. that is, the interesting details are too embroiled
in the rest of the theory to be summarizable to a lay person like me. or possibly you. no offense.
i suspect the best lay-people can do is to appreciate that the argument over whether
the universe keeps ticking even when we're not looking at it is still pretty hot,
even after some 70 years of debate.
otoh, i may just be dense.
fair enough. i guess my point is that we should be aware that violent elements at Protest-For-Cause-X have in the past often been planted by the opponents of Cause X.
i didn't know about Gough Whitlam, thanks.
how does a cop tell actual violent elements from planted ones ?
good q. one step might be raising hell when the plants come to light.