Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/03/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I'm still not clear what law of physics that would violate. Current engineering technology couldn't achieve that, but I still fail to see which physical laws are violated. The apparent absence of a supersonic shock wave would be surprising, but perhaps there is an engineering workaround. So, I ask again, can anyone suggest what laws of physics are actually violated? It just seems that this is an all to common claim with UFO sightings, that the objects did things "that just aren't physically possible". That appears more like a lack of knowledge or imagination on the part of the observer. I'm quite ready to accept an assertion that it is a violation of physical law because . . . reason, complete with detailed justification, including the maths. But those never seem forthcoming. And, of course, your alternative explanation is highly plausible and negates the need to go for ephemeral violations of unamed physical laws.
  2. 1 point
    Just for the record, the Wikipedia article on the beast. It has a neat animation constructed from the radar observations by Arecibo.
  3. 1 point
    Just when you thought you could sleep at night... An asteroid more than a mile wide will pass by Earth on Wednesday while travelling at a speed of about 19,000 miles (30,578km) an hour. The space rock, known as (52768) 1998 OR2, is expected to make its closest approach at 10.56am BST, when it will be just 3.9m miles (6.3m km) away – about 16 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Although the asteroid is classified as a potentially hazardous object (PHO), scientists have said it will not pose a danger to the planet. Dr Brad Tucker, an astrophysicist at the Australian National University, said: “This asteroid poses no danger to the Earth and will not hit – it is one catastrophe we won’t have. While it is big, it is still smaller than the asteroid that impacted the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/29/asteroid-passing-earth-1998-or2-wednesday-near-4m-miles-face-mask-fly-by
  4. 1 point
    @dimreepr I answer your question here because of moderation warning in other thread, I said MAYBE, I'm sure there ARE living humans on this earth that have a vast amount of knowledge on these craft, extra-terrestrial or not, the propulsion systems in these vehicles would revolutionize the energy industry. I believe this technology is intentionally being kept from us by the "mega-elite".
  5. 1 point
    You should watch them. The rise they cause in blood pressure and vigorous exercise, thumping the wall with ones fists and kicking the furniture to pieces, obviate the need for regular exercise.
  6. 1 point
    I am troubled when an obsevation is combined with an interpretation based upon that observation. It is a form of equivocation and that, either intentionally, or accidentally may mislead. The observers saw a suite of manouvres. Given the status and training of the observers we may find their description of what they believe they saw moderately reliable. However, they then interpret those manouvres to "defy the known laws of physics". That interpretation seems both exaggerated and questionable. What laws of physics does it defy?
  7. 1 point
    I think I may be misunderstanding, so apologies if I am missing the mark, but: in humans, each TSEN enzyme/subunit cuts one strand, and they don't seem to be directly complementary of each other. Also, a lot of mRNA is 'double-stranded' or forms hairpins/secondary structures, non coding RNA even more (I think). Important to note that mRNA normally binds to many mRNA-binding proteins, and therefore predicted structures (minimum free energy calculations) will often not actually form inside the cell (or be different from the predictions). The 5'UTR (Untranslated region) and 3'UTR of mRNA contains many structures as well. About 190 human genes (I think) contain an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) within their 5'UTR, which can modulate ribosomal activity, these generally have the shape of hairpins as well. A viral enzyme of herpes virus, SOX, cuts at a single point, but recognises specific sequences in hairpins, so both structure and sequence is important. I don't really understand what you mean? https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000307 https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003517.g004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin-like_growth_factor_II_IRES (couldn't find an article with eukaryotic IRES that shows it nicely)
  8. 1 point
    If you 'reverse' time and approach t=0, at the Planck era t = 10^-43 sec, Some of our physical laws, such as GR, cease making meaningful predictions; Some others don't. Quantum Mechanics, and all its effects, still work to some degree. Even the isotropic, homogenous, hot, dense state, that was present when the Big Bang began, was subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And anything subject to the HUP, by necessity, experiences quantum fluctuations. These quantum fluctuations would have experienced exponential inflation ( possibly ), and expansion, since that era. And they would have 'seeded' the large scale structures of the present day universe. ( which is still isotropic and homogenous on large enough scales )
  9. 1 point
    I do not know where formula comes from. In reality there are more factors to consider. It seems like you provided the answer: Some reasoning: If each process is waiting for I/O 30% of the time and during that time not consuming CPU* then the maximum CPU usage of a single process is 70%. When many processes are started they will not only wait for I/O, they will also have to wait for the CPU. Each process will utilise the CPU less than the maximum 70% of the time that the process could run. So 0.9975 is not correct. 0.3 (30%) is the probability of a process waiting for I/O. (0.3)^5 is the probability of having all five processes waiting for I/O. So 1-(0.3)^5 then is the probability having at least one process in a running state and not waiting, hence able to consume CPU. Not sure how you wish to define CPU utilisation for a single process, maybe [math] \frac{1-p^{n}}{n} [/math] ? *) I assume a process waiting for I/O is not in a running state or performing some busy-wait
  10. 1 point
    If my fellow citizens had simply taken the smart path and stood up in support of Elizabeth Warren like I did in the first of the nation caucus, then we’d have none of these moral quandaries.
  11. 1 point
    Obama isn’t going to be the blame talking point. You watch. These next weeks and months... ANY time ANY republican gets challenged on the pandemic response... the IMMEDIATE pivot will be China. They will be the scapegoat du jour now through the election... with a sprinkle of immigration hate and talk of border walls. China, not Obama. Ask not what you can do for your country, ask who you can blame for grifting so hard and failing it so miserably.
  12. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.