Nah, not from the earthbound observer's point of view.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
huh? The difference is of course relative, and I assume the statement is from Sergei's view. The earth orbits the sun at over 65kmph. So I assume in Sergei's case they compounded the earth's speed around the sun with his earth oribital speed.Spark wrote:
Nah, not from the earthbound observer's point of view.
Also, isn't isn't time dilation something GPS satellite's must deal with?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://www.space.com/11188-alien-earths … utm_medium
New Estimate for Alien Earths: 2 Billion in Our Galaxy Alone
New Estimate for Alien Earths: 2 Billion in Our Galaxy Alone
Holy hell!.. 2 billion x's 50 billion if that estimate is accurate.Roughly one out of every 37 to one out of every 70 sunlike stars in the sky might harbor an alien Earth, a new study reveals.
These findings hint that billions of Earthlike planets might exist in our galaxy, researchers added.
These new calculations are based in data from the Kepler space telescope, which in February wowed the globe by revealing more than 1,200 possible alien worlds, including 68 potentially Earth-size planets. The spacecraft does so by looking for the dimming that occurs when a world transits or moves in front of a star.
Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., focused on roughly Earth-size planets within the habitable zones of their stars — that is, orbits where liquid water can exist on the surfaces of those worlds. [The Strangest Alien Planets]
After the researchers analyzed the four months of data in this initial batch of readings from Kepler, they determined that 1.4 to 2.7 percent of all sunlike stars are expected to have Earthlike planets — ones that are between 0.8 and two times Earth's diameter and within the habitable zones of their stars.
"This means there are a lot of Earth analogs out there — two billion in the Milky Way galaxy," researcher Joseph Catanzarite, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told SPACE.com. "With that large a number, there's a good chance life and maybe even intelligent life might exist on some of those planets. And that's just our galaxy alone — there are 50 billion other galaxies."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Unlikely, since the 'observer' in this case would be on earth, who would also be orbiting the sun at that speed. They said Sergei travelled at 17,000 mph, which is ~7.6 km/s, and that is definitely within the orbital velocity range for LEO....so that's accurate anyway.Kmar wrote:
huh? The difference is of course relative, and I assume the statement is from Sergei's view. The earth orbits the sun at over 65kmph. So I assume in Sergei's case they compounded the earth's speed around the sun with his earth oribital speed.Spark wrote:
Nah, not from the earthbound observer's point of view.
And yes, GPS needs to take special and general relativity into account. They function on timing accuracy in the range of 10-8 seconds...so their velocity can certainly have an effect.Kmar wrote:
Also, isn't isn't time dilation something GPS satellite's must deal with?
Photo of the sun taken by Alan Friedman with a camera rig he calls "Little Big Man."
Either intelligent life is incredibly scarce or we're being avoided.Kmar wrote:
Holy hell!.. 2 billion x's 50 billion if that estimate is accurate.
D:
inane little opines
...or it's just really really sparse.Shocking wrote:
Either intelligent life is incredibly scarce or we're being avoided.Kmar wrote:
Holy hell!.. 2 billion x's 50 billion if that estimate is accurate.
D:
Or that... sigh.SenorToenails wrote:
...or it's just really really sparse.
inane little opines
Go to sleep man :p
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Maybe I'll have to lay off the "time itself began with the big bang" ,
"We Can See Through the Big Bang to the Universe That Existed in the Aeon Before Ours"
..more
"We Can See Through the Big Bang to the Universe That Existed in the Aeon Before Ours"
..more
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hmmm ITSTL. Any argument would have to be one that supersedes a quantum argument and so it would have to be thermodynamic, so I'm not discounting that completely. Skeptical though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
This showed up on one of the science blogs I frequent..
I'm not even kidding..
http://www.universetoday.com/84330/iran … ng-saucer/
Edit: I found an actual picture.. how is this a flying saucer?
http://zhelezyaka.com/news.php?id=5161
I'm not even kidding..
http://www.universetoday.com/84330/iran … ng-saucer/
Edit: I found an actual picture.. how is this a flying saucer?
http://zhelezyaka.com/news.php?id=5161
Xbone Stormsurgezz
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/scien … .html?_r=1
Hardcore cosmology + thermodynamics = brain(ho ho)fuck
Hardcore cosmology + thermodynamics = brain(ho ho)fuck
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lolsKmar wrote:
This showed up on one of the science blogs I frequent..
http://i.imgur.com/kVrm1.jpg
I'm not even kidding..
http://www.universetoday.com/84330/iran … ng-saucer/
Edit: I found an actual picture.. how is this a flying saucer?
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2421/zohal.jpg
http://zhelezyaka.com/news.php?id=5161
Reminds me of that pic of an Iranian F-14 they put up on one of their government websites to show their airpower. What they left out was that the pic was from a modelling website, and the Tomcat was a 1/72 kit.
jesusSpark wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1
Hardcore cosmology + thermodynamics = brain(ho ho)fuck
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I guess it makes more sense to me than just the bing bang theory actuallyKmar wrote:
jesusSpark wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1
Hardcore cosmology + thermodynamics = brain(ho ho)fuck
http://www.bing.com/Adams_BJ wrote:
I guess it makes more sense to me than just the bing bang theory actuallyKmar wrote:
jesusSpark wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1
Hardcore cosmology + thermodynamics = brain(ho ho)fuck
u guise
thermodynamics has always made my head spin. qm i can handle easily, quantum field theory is fine, currently chugging through condensed matter theory, stat mech and bose-einstein condensate, all fine. but try to get me to get full-scale thermodynamics + cosmology and my brain just says "what?"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
oh, this discussion in the other thread about the speed of light reminds me. anyone who is really into the really deep end of theoretical mathematical physics will know about loop-quantum gravity, the main challenger to string theory for quantum gravity.
one of the main predictions of quantum loop gravity is that the "spin foam" of little bits and pieces of tiny gravitational quantum fluctuations should disturb light in an extremely miniscule, in almost all circumstances negligible manner. but over a very long period - such as twelve billion years - these little pertubations can build up to a very slight variation in the speed of light. it's one of the only predictions, i believe, of any quantum gravitational theory that is actually testable right now.
well the word is - and this is very anecdotal, just from word of mouth - that they've performed those observations and thus far their observed fluctuation in the speed of light across vast distances (such as 12 billion light years) is, well, zero.
so not looking very rosy for lqg.
one of the main predictions of quantum loop gravity is that the "spin foam" of little bits and pieces of tiny gravitational quantum fluctuations should disturb light in an extremely miniscule, in almost all circumstances negligible manner. but over a very long period - such as twelve billion years - these little pertubations can build up to a very slight variation in the speed of light. it's one of the only predictions, i believe, of any quantum gravitational theory that is actually testable right now.
well the word is - and this is very anecdotal, just from word of mouth - that they've performed those observations and thus far their observed fluctuation in the speed of light across vast distances (such as 12 billion light years) is, well, zero.
so not looking very rosy for lqg.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's the first picture taken of Mercury from a spacecraft in orbit.The MESSENGER spacecraft settled into orbit around Mercury earlier this month, and engineers have been busy making sure it’s functioning well. Now, the first pictures are coming in from the solar system’s innermost world, and as expected, wow!
The picture is dominated by the crater Debussy (named after the composer, who wrote "Clair de Lune", apropos of nothing, I suppose*), an impact crater about 80 kilometers (50 miles) across. It’s a rayed crater, with plumes of ejecta leaving those long, linear features across the planet.
This image is the first ever returned from a spacecraft orbiting Mercury, but MESSENGER has already taken hundreds more, and thousands are planned during this commissioning phase (when the various instruments and spacecraft are checked out). The real science observations begin April 4.
Tomorrow, NASA will have a press conference and more images.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
an addendum to my previous post: it looks as if a lot of the lqg scientists (after all we are talking scientists and not politicians here) are looking at causal dynamical triangulation as a successor theory. philosophically it's built on similar lines to lqg, but from what i can tell cdt is simpler, more elegant and more natural. a lot of promise imo.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I loved the one thermo class I took in college. Granted, it was essentially intro--one of the handful of courses all engineers had to take--but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Concepts came much more naturally to me than a lot of the EE stuff that followed for the next 4 years...unfortunately.Spark wrote:
thermodynamics has always made my head spin. qm i can handle easily, quantum field theory is fine, currently chugging through condensed matter theory, stat mech and bose-einstein condensate, all fine. but try to get me to get full-scale thermodynamics + cosmology and my brain just says "what?"
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Oh, your engineer's thermo is fine, don't get me wrong. It's when it starts to get used on a really big scale (which is really what it is intended for nowadays, as small-scale stuff has been more or less superseded by stat mech now). Stuff like there being an upper limit on entropy if the cosmological constant is positive (which it almost certainly is)... just wtf.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman