Jump to content

Spyman

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spyman

  1. Yes and that's probably why the image says: "hazmat incident" and not something else. Dangerous goods are solids, liquids, or gases that can harm people, other living organisms, property, or the environment. They are often subject to chemical regulations. In the United States and sometimes in Canada, dangerous goods are more commonly known as hazardous materials, (abbreviated as HAZMAT or HazMat). "HazMat teams" are personnel specially trained to handle dangerous goods. Dangerous goods include materials that are radioactive, flammable, explosive, corrosive, oxidizing, asphyxiating, biohazardous, toxic, pathogenic, or allergenic. Also included are physical conditions such as compressed gases and liquids or hot materials, including all goods containing such materials or chemicals, or may have other characteristics that render them hazardous in specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_goods If the smoke is unhealthy and the wind suddenly turns then he better have a very fast car ready.
  2. I hope it's nothing serious and wish you good luck with the next two months, maybe you can break your past record and continue to live free.
  3. Since the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was for the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the Universe, I don't think you can claim that gravity are able to hold the whole Universe together, gravity seems to have lost the battle against the expansion of space. The Great Cosmic Battle The expansion of the Universe itself provides an intensely dramatic example of the ubiquitous struggle between the force of gravity and entropy. As the Universe expands and becomes more spread out, gravity resists this trend and tries to pull the expanding Universe back together. The particular fate which our future holds depends on whether gravity wins or loses this cosmic battle, whose outcome depends on the total amount of mass and energy contained within the Universe. Current astronomical data strongly suggest that gravity has already lost this critical conflict and our fate will be determined by a continued and unending expansion. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/0001/cosmic.html
  4. Would you or would you not take a probing if it could help to save the planet?
  5. Correct. We don't know what the future holds for us, but if anything it's far from sure that there could be a usable loophole, more likely constraints against FTL will be harder. Yes, but if it could be done then you could also in principle send a message back in time to before you sent it, which could cause problems. If one were able to move information or matter from one point to another faster than light, then according to the theory of relativity, there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backward in time. This is a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity in special relativity, which says that in some cases different reference frames will disagree on whether two events at different locations happened "at the same time" or not, and they can also disagree on the order of the two events (technically, these disagreements occur when the spacetime interval between the events is 'space-like', meaning that neither event lies in the future light cone of the other). If one of the two events represents the sending of a signal from one location and the second event represents the reception of the same signal at another location, then as long as the signal is moving at the speed of light or slower, the mathematics of simultaneity ensures that all reference frames agree that the transmission-event happened before the reception-event. However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-light_.28FTL.29_travel
  6. Well, it's easy to talk about sacrifice when you yourself don't have to take part in it. But I don't think you have to be a cow, we can likely extract a little methane from humans too, so please go ahead and help save the planet. (And remember that it would be more acceptable if you use the probing method.)
  7. Although they may live under primitive conditions they are not stupid. Clearly hunters using spears and bows must have good knowledge of the wildlife, both to survive from the threat of predators and succed in capturing prey. As such, while they can't know what a helicopter is, they for sure know that it's not just another strange animal. The child in the middle of the picture is holding a steel machete, so they are not totally unfamiliar with our technology. Depending on type of helicopter and how close it flew it's very possible that the they even could see people inside and understand that it was a vehicle. Helicopter pilots and our technology might seem as gods and magic to them or maybe similar to our view of advanced aliens, but certainly not as the natural wildlife, so I think the sighting of the helicopter was obvious evidence of "outsiders" as swansont says. They have tools left by us as gifts to examine, in addition to observations made by the whole village. We on the other hand, currently don't have any confirmed sighting of similar magnitude, we don't even have a verifiable indication of any "outsiders". Situation is not equal. In regard of asking them if they are there, I think they would let us know without us asking, if they wanted us to know about them. Otherwise they will not reveal themselves by answering any questions at all.
  8. Current understanding of physics is ruled by the theory of relativity which states that nothing can pass through space faster than light, AFAIK there is no new understanding or possible concept that could change this in the next twenty or even fifty years. However I think most common people wrongly believes that faster than light communication using quantum entanglement could work, so unless you have decided that everything must be scientific accurate, you could use some kind of syncronized quantum devices. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently - instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole. /snip/ According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly. It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds (see Faster-than-light → Quantum mechanics). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Certain phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics
  9. Yes, you are correct, sorry if I was unclear. What I ment is that it was the only one of the suggested examples that could cause symmetric obscuring in every direction we look and even if it did, it would still not change the results of galaxy rotation. It was not my intention to make it sound as it actually does interfere or cause extra redshifts.
  10. Well, I have, countless of times. This winter has been very mild, but I would say that during a normal winter I spend one hour or more walking with my dog in the forest, at several days with temperatures below -20 degrees Celsius. During my youth I did spend several days working outside, eight hour or more in stretch, at temperatures below -20 degrees Celsius and at least half a day at my personal cold record -46 degrees Celsius. Breathing is not a problem, the air feels very fresh and oxygen rich at those temperatures.
  11. For starters, most asteroids within the asteroid belt orbits close the the plane of the solar system, so we can see distant galaxies without looking through it. The Sun is located far out from the center of the Milky Way so we can notice any difference if we look at distant galaxies through the bulk of the Milky Way or away from it. The Oort cloud could possibly cause a symmetric obscuring over our whole view, but it would also be symmetric over the measurement of galaxy rotation and can thus easily be filtered out. But maybe I misunderstood you and you want to know about cosmological redshift and not the doppler redshift from galaxy rotation? In post #5 you said: Astronomers can measure the scattering of light from "stuff" obscuring our view and have ruled out effects such as Tired Light: Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship. These models have been proposed as alternatives to the metric expansion of space of which the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies are the most famous examples. The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen. Additionally, the surface brightness of galaxies evolving with time, time dilation of cosmological sources, and a thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background have been observed - these effects that should not be present if the cosmological redshift was due to any tired light scattering mechanism. Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
  12. While you can learn to live without nicotine, a long time user will never stop missing it, you have to learn to live with that too. I smoked for many many years and now it's several years since I smoked the last time, but I still longs for a cigarette from time to time. When that feeling gets over me it can be very strong and emotional, I am strong now and can resist the urge and no longer falls for the lost feeling, but when it happens it still makes me sad, like when a close friend has passed away and you stumble on a nice memory. My best advice is to have very strong motives for quitting and always have a very very good substitute for the occasions when it gets hard.
  13. Spyman

    New pet?

    Unfortunately for this crab, it's to tasty for its own good so the species' survival is threatened: Adult coconut crabs have no known predators apart from other coconut crabs and people. Its large size and the quality of its meat mean the coconut crab is extensively hunted and is rare on islands with a human population. The coconut crab is eaten by Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders and is considered a delicacy and an aphrodisiac, and intensive hunting has threatened the species' survival in some areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_crab#Relationship_with_human_beings Maybe we should start farms and sell them both as pets and food.
  14. Yes, you are correct. The gravitational redshift from the star itself is so small that it's at the limit of detection and for galaxies it's much much smaller. As long as we are not speaking of Black Holes or Neutron Stars and such, the gravitational redshift can be neglected. A distant galaxy can be considered to be one large spinning disc, as such all effects from space expansion or intervening dark matter should affect the light from both sides of the galaxy approximately equal. The redshift from expansion of space can be much larger for very distant objects than the redshift from rotation, but the redshift from rotation is positive on one side, negative on the other and zero in the middle, so scientists can filter out redshifts from expansion and surroundings to focus on the differences from rotation. If there would be "stuff" obscuring our view then it either covers the whole view of the galaxy and can easily be filtered out or it only covers a part of the view and then astronomers would notice and examine closer why that part are rotating with different speed.
  15. Spyman

    New pet?

    The coconut crab, Birgus latro, is a species of terrestrial hermit crab, also known as the robber crab or palm thief. It is the largest land-living arthropod in the world, and is probably at the upper size limit for terrestrial animals with exoskeletons in recent Earth atmosphere, with a weight of up to 4.1 kg (9.0 lb). It can grow to up to 1 m (3 ft) in length from leg to leg. /snip/ The larvae are planktonic for 3-4 wk before settling to the sea floor and entering a gastropod shell. Sexual maturity is reached after about 5 yr, and the total lifespan may be over 60 yr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_crab
  16. When we are looking at the rotation of a galaxy, we measure the difference of redshift from stars on both sides of it, but from equal distance from its center. Stars on one side are moving away from us and on the other side towards us, which is offset by the average speed of the galaxy itself relative us. As long as the galaxy is not in a collision with another galaxy is should be enough far away from other sources of gravity that stars on both sides are in approximate the same gravity.
  17. Well in the second set of images, (chronologically from the day before), the light is behind a hill from the perspective of the left camera so it can't see that spot at all. Comparing the images from SOL 588 and 589 it seems as the locations of spots are moving much more in relevance to the horizon than what the movement of the rover should cause, so I think they are at different locations, but the perspective feels tricky so I could be wrong. Here are the raw images from Curiosity at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory: SOL 588 Navcam: Left B 2014-04-02 09:04:28 UTC Full Resolution SOL 588 Navcam: Right B 2014-04-02 09:04:28 UTC Full Resolution SOL 589 Navcam: Left B 2014-04-03 10:00:03 UTC Full Resolution SOL 589 Navcam: Right B 2014-04-03 10:00:03 UTC Full Resolution
  18. We can't currently determine if we are in a simulation or not, unless we find that the simulation have some errors pointing to our reality being a simulation or the "programmer" wants us to know and we find clues left for us on purpose. The facts are that we don't have any evidence at all, in either way. However even IF we live in a simulation, we are still subjected to the laws of nature in this program and should therefore also continue to follow our moral and ethical code as if our world was real. If someone cause you to suffer, you will still experience suffering equally much even if you are a part of a program in a simulation or a brain in a vat subjected to false stimulation.
  19. While I agree that we don't have any indication of a cyber attack and that it's a very unlikely scenario, I still think that technically there exists a possibility to influence airplane systems and cause them to crash. However "flying (radar transparent) unicorns" doesn't even have any evidence of existance, so these two guesses are far from equally good. (IF we had evidence of "flying (radar transparent) unicorns" then the guesses would have been equally good and baseless.) The Federal Aviation Administration has special condition rules for Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, which shows that there is real concern about vulnerabilities, so it's not some random conspiracy theory: The integrated network configurations in the Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes may enable increased connectivity with external network sources and will have more interconnected networks and systems, such as passenger entertainment and information services than previous airplane models. This may enable the exploitation of network security vulnerabilities and increased risks potentially resulting in unsafe conditions for the airplanes and occupants. This potential exploitation of security vulnerabilities may result in intentional or unintentional destruction, disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are being issued to ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections between the airplane information services domain, aircraft control domain, and the passenger entertainment services. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/18/2013-27343/special-conditions-boeing-model-777-200--300-and--300er-series-airplanes-aircraft-electronic-system
  20. I don't see these two statements as necessarily in opposition to each others: If two markers are placed in space at a shorter distance apart than the length of a spaceship, then if the spaceship passes those markers with high enough speed, it will fit inside between the markers from the view of an observer at rest with them. This is not an illusion in that sense that the markers could be synchronized beacons with encoded light signals so that the observer can verify that when the spaceship was located between them, he recieved simultaneous signals with identical time stamps from both of them. Thus the from the view of the observer the spaceship was shorter than the distance between the markers and not only looked such. But there is still only one thing happening, the spaceship doesn't get physically "deformed" by someone with a relative speed looking at it. There is only one spaceship and it only has one size that don't change, however this size is measured with different scaling depending on the relative speed of the observer doing the measurement, so it is the observer's view of the spaceship that is changing. Consider the example with the stick that Schneibster brought up, if the spaceship is rotated slightly away from the observer without changing direction of travel, then it would appear to become shorter and fit between the markers, from the view of the observer. In this case we could see from above how an "illusion" is made, but if the spaceship is instead rotated into the time dimension then due to that we can't see time directly, we aren't able to see how the spaceship is turned. Spatially it is still pointing towards the direction of travel but from our view it is shorter and the clocks on the spaceship ticks equally slower. (Note: I am not an expert on Relativity so this is my personal uneducated opinion.)
  21. Worth to mention in a discussion of Planet X is the history around the subject and the original search for Planet X, Nemesis and Tyche: Following the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there was considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. The search began in the mid-19th century and culminated at the start of the 20th with Percival Lowell's quest for Planet X. Lowell proposed the Planet X hypothesis to explain apparent discrepancies in the orbits of the gas giants, particularly Uranus and Neptune, speculating that the gravity of a large unseen ninth planet could have perturbed Uranus enough to account for the irregularities. Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto in 1930 appeared to validate Lowell's hypothesis, and Pluto was officially considered the ninth planet until 2006. In 1978, Pluto was found to be too small for its gravity to affect the gas giants, resulting in a brief search for a tenth planet. The search was largely abandoned in the early 1990s, when a study of measurements made by the Voyager 2 spacecraft found that the irregularities observed in Uranus's orbit were due to a slight overestimation of Neptune's mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune Nemesis is a hypothetical red dwarf star or brown dwarf,originally postulated in 1984 to be orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 95,000 AU (1.5 light-years), somewhat beyond the Oort cloud, to explain a perceived cycle of mass extinctions in the geological record, which seem to occur more often at intervals of 26 million years. As of 2012, over 1800 brown dwarfs have been identified and none of them are inside the Solar System. There are actually fewer brown dwarfs in our cosmic neighborhood than previously thought. Rather than one star for every brown dwarf, there may be as many as six stars for every brown dwarf. More recent theories suggest that other forces, like close passings of other stars, or the angular effect of the galactic gravity plane working against the outer solar orbital plane, may be the cause of orbital perturbations of some outer Solar System objects. In 2011, Coryn Bailer-Jones did an analysis of craters on the surface of the Earth and reached the conclusion that the earlier findings of simple periodic patterns (implying periodic comet showers dislodged by a hypothetical Nemesis star) to be statistical artifacts, and found that the crater record shows no evidence for Nemesis. However, in 2010, A.L. Melott and R.K. Bambach found evidence in the fossil record confirming the extinction event periodicity originally claimed by Raup & Sepkoski in 1984, but at a higher confidence level and over a time period nearly twice as long. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) failed to discover Nemesis in the 1980s. The 2MASS astronomical survey, which ran from 1997 to 2001, failed to detect an additional star or brown dwarf in the Solar System. Using newer and more powerful infrared telescope technology, able to detect brown dwarfs as cool as 150 kelvins out to a distance of 10 light-years from the Sun, results from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE survey) have not detected Nemesis. In 2011, David Morrison, a senior scientist at NASA known for his work in risk assessment of near Earth objects, has written that there is no confidence in the existence of an object like Nemesis, since it should have been detected in infrared sky surveys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(hypothetical_star) Tyche /ˈtaɪki/ is the nickname given to a hypothetical gas giant located in the Solar System's Oort cloud, first proposed in 1999 by astrophysicists John Matese, Patrick Whitman and Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. They argue that evidence of Tyche's existence can be seen in a supposed bias in the points of origin for long-period comets. More recently Matese and Whitmire re-evaluated the comet data and noted that Tyche, if it exists, would be detectable in the archive of data that was collected by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope. However, in 2014, NASA announced that the WISE survey had ruled out any object as they had defined it, and several astronomers have voiced skepticism of this object's existence. The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) space telescope has completed an all-sky infrared survey that includes areas where Whitmire and Matese anticipate that Tyche may be found. On March 14, 2012, the first-pass all-sky survey catalog of the WISE mission was released. The co-added (AllWISE) post-cryo second survey of the sky should be released by the end of 2013. On 7 March 2014, NASA reported that the WISE telescope had ruled out the possibility of a Saturn-sized object at 10,000 AU, and a Jupiter-sized or larger object out to 26,000 AU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_(hypothetical_planet) Here is an article from Penn State University from which the original picture comes from: WISE Satellite Finds No Evidence for Planet X in Survey of the Sky 07 March 2014 - After searching hundreds of millions of objects across the sky, NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) has turned up no evidence of the hypothesized celestial body in our solar system commonly called "Planet X," according to published scientific papers including a new study in The Astrophysical Journal authored by Kevin Luhman of the Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds at Penn State University. "The outer solar system probably does not contain a large gas-giant planet, or a small companion star," said Luhman, who is an associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State. http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2014-news/Luhman3-2014 The chart was created by Janella Williams of Penn State University, University Park, Pa. http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2014-news/Luhman3-2014_2 And an article with a slightly more optimistic view of a possible Planet X on Space.com: Search for Potential 'Planet X' Far From Over The hunt for the hypothetical "Planet X" has been fruitless so far, but that doesn't mean astronomers are calling it off. A new analysis of data collected by NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) spacecraft revealed no sign of the mysterious Planet X hypothesized to exist in the outer solar system. But scientists are keeping up the search for a planet or dim star far from the sun. http://www.space.com/25234-planet-x-search-solar-system.html
  22. A scientist standing inside anyone of the cabins will not be able to measure any difference in the springs, because in his frame of reference the cabin is not moving and thus the mass of the object hanging at the spring don't increase. If the moving cabin has transparent walls so a scientist in a different frame of reference can make the measurements then it is also important to take into consideration all other effects, like for instance that the spring will be subjected to lenght contraction.
  23. You have to show that one observer is in a frame of reference in which the laws of physics are identifiably different than for other observers.
  24. Malaysia: Route: Kuala Lumpur - Beijing. Inserted: initial search areas and known path near a navigational waypoint called Igari, Vampi, and Igrex. Small red squares: radar contacts. Small circles: claimed spotting of debris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mh370#Disappearance Estimated route On 11 March, it was reported that military radar indicated the aircraft had turned west and continued flying for 70 minutes before disappearing off the Malaysian radar near Pulau Perak, and that it was tracked flying at a lower altitude across Malaysia to the Malacca Strait. This location was approximately 500 kilometres (310 mi) from its last contact with civilian radar. The next day, the Royal Malaysian Air Force chief denied the report. A Vietnamese transport minister said Malaysia was informed on the day that they "noticed the flight turned back west but Malaysia did not respond." US experts, assigned to assist with the investigation in a low-key manner consistent with conventions of responsibilities, analysed the radar data and subsequently reported that the radar data did indeed indicate that the aircraft had headed west back across the Malay Peninsula, with Reuters and The New York Times saying that the route changes suggested that the aircraft remained under a trained pilot's control. The New York Times also said the aircraft experienced significant changes in altitude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mh370#Estimated_route
  25. But you can have two masses moving with different velocities relative each others and the observer, which frame will be the preferred one, the one where object A has the minimum mass or where object B has its minimum? Inside a Universe with multiple objects moving with individual speeds and each of them have their own "very special" FOR that differs from the others, then none of them can be said to be a preferred frame of reference. In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame
×
×
  • 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.