alt_f13

Truth by whose definition, someone who studies actual data to create theories that can be tested by creating observable predictions or experiments, or someone that would believe in something, merely because that something calls itself true? If it's that latter that you are referring to, you can keep it, and I wouldn't be afraid of that... I'd be afraid of those that believe it, because those are the ones willing to kill and die for their "truth."

Damn - no money, no woman... Guess I'd better strike it off the list of Possible Career Directions. Thing is, I know a few stoners, and even they aren't this irrational. These guys are dedicated to delusion. There are plenty ofexamples of such behavior on the net, and I actually find it quite deperessing. Thankfully most people can see this garbage for what it is. A couple hundred years ago, though, we might have been singing a different song. Back on the dinosaurs... one of the most interesting arguments for incorporating dinosaurs into the Bilbical universe is how they and Adam and Eve coexisted, but were killed off in the Great Flood. I find it so interesting that the bible can't stand on its own, so propogators incorporate evidence of actual events as found by scientists, and then refute other evidence from the exact same sources, claiming it's not true because it doesn't coincide with scripture. They can twist words of the bible to suit their needs, and people believe it... Something the Taliban did fairly well...

You have to wonder about the motivation behind the spreading of their BS...

Music has nothing to do with 'the soul'; it merely exercises the part of our brain associated with speech in a way similar to how math problems, movies and playing football exercise other parts of our brain and give us pleasure. Yes, music appeals to emotion, but so do fractal images (flowers, trees...) and those are the product of math. Music is nothing more than math and statistics translated into tonality. There's nothing metaphysical about it. [edit] And the first person that mentions God in the making of the flowers and the trees.... I swear....

An interesting visual to be sure, almost anthropomorphic. Must have been ejected during a galaxie collision...?

Wow mooey, you managed to pick and praise the three of my most hated sci-fi movies in one post! I find that quite interesting. I'm surprised Donnie Darko wasn't tossed in there as well. I would have picked 2001 aSO, Solaris, Aliens and - despite the heckling and ridicule I risk by saying so - the Matrix. I'm a huge fan of futuristic-looking art. That said, Look at the entire Star Trek franchise: being almost complete BS, the "science" is still quite interesting, and has been suggested in online and broadcast fora for some time to have influenced the development of a few key modern technologies' functional and aesthetic attributes (FRS flip phone anyone?). Better yet, Star Wars. They never really went into much detail about how any of the technology worked, and they were 3 of the best sci-fi movies ever! (Just in case you're wondering... Episodes 1-3 weren't Star Wars; they were the interminable, vomit-inducing afterbirth of a beautiful and awe-inspiring masterpiece. Nothing more. I mean, I'm in it for the art, but how can you even enjoy landscapes when so much of it is destroyed by the seven-foot CG abomination that is Jar-Jar repeatedly spouting idiotic clicé phrases made famous by Full House?)

I found a site about shuttle rebroadcasts, where radio clubs re-transmit shuttle comms on other frequencies! Hopefully this turns out to be what you're looking for. Google "nasa shuttle hf" for a few more sites. Most of them list the exact same things, though.

Here are some frequencies. Now you just need a radio and some shuttle launch times. From what I've read, you cannot listen into actual shuttle comms. Google it m'dear.

Ever wonder why dinosaurs weren't in the bible? They were! Watch this video to find out where. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2528412371399195162 !??! At seven minutes he claims Noah only brought two of every sort of animal onto the arc - he brought the ancestor to the horse, donkey and zebra onto the arc... So how exactly did the epihippus magically turn into the horse, zebra and donkey? Through millions of years of evolution? Nooooo.... couldn't be that. FSM did it.

The problem is how the example uses gravity (alowing the small ball to fall towards the big ball on the trampoline) to explain the curvature of spacetime, which causes gravity. A warped 3D grid would be a vastly superior substitute as it would show the effect in 3D, not 2D as with the trampoline, and gravity is not used as part of the demonstration of gravity (where on the trampoline, the balls are drawn together because of the force pulling down, towards the ground, rather than the force pulling the two together). As a visualization, a computer model of what I described would be far more helpful. I will admit, though, it's rather hard to explain vs telling people "spacetime curvature is like the warped surface of a trampoline," but pictures and movies are much more appropriate anyway. And how exactly would you explain that to someone who needs a visual to explain spacetime curvature? Besides, that doesn't eliminate the problem of the extra dimension, when in real life, that dimension is already in use.

I find that intruducing a new dimension (the trampoline) is problematic: from the time that someone visualises cause of gravity using the effect of gravity as an example, they are stuck visualising gravity as being an effect of gravity, which is rather useless. There is a curve in spacetime - so what? What does that actually mean? All I'm saying is the analogy describes the effect of gravity, when it purports to describe the cause - it sounds a bit circular. Anyway, the other issue - I found the lecture/talk on the Perimeter Instutute site: http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/mediasite/viewer/ in the Grand Opening Gala section, though I cannot remember which speaker it was. I'll post again when I find the video. Basically he described how gravity acting on an object is, in concept, less a force than a force used to escape gravity.(Sorry for the poor paraphrase. I'll post back when I find the video.) I'm looking for help coming up with an analogy to describe this.

Whenever somebody tries to explain curvature in spacetime, they always bring up the ol' "bowling ball on a trampoline" analogy. I'm wondering, isn't this a little like using a word in the sentence that is defining it? I saw a lecture where gravity was explained as not accellerating matter towards matter, but rather that matter "moving" in our 3 dimentions of common experience was actually at rest, and the act of resisting gravity was more like moving. I was wondering if there might be a scenario analogous to this way of thinking that doesn't involve gravity in the explanaiton. Perhaps with our medium expanding away or compressing towards our pieces of matter?

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of how women like to use alcohol as an excuse to do things "out of the ordinary" for them. I've had more women come on to me when they were drunk than the other way around (in general as well, but that's just due to good jeans. Levi Strauss has yet to let me down. Wordplay and bad puns on the other hand...)

To make yourself "available;" a way to pick up a guy. I wasn't being serious... well, not really, really serious. It's really complicated, like that Nelly song. Perhaps you should call it "The DaVince Code 2" and make a few mill off of it.

Can't imagine it's all that pretty to look at either... What kind of depths are you talking about here?

I wonder if the mouse pointer itself will become obsolete, as we may one day be able to 'will' windows to close, songs to play, files to download and so on without the need for a pointing device. I have no doubt the mouse will become obsolete, in terms of its use as a pointing device, but I wonder what impact this technology will have on video games, and the fate of the console controller, more specifically. Now brain to brain radio communication... that's a field to look into.

You said "No it's not," implying that you disagree with my sentence that said:"This part of the spectrum is reserved for cymbol highs, triangles highs and the like, as well as the upper harmonics of other sharp waveforms," which is in no way un-true. The upper audible octaves (which actually disclude 20-22Khz) are "reserved for cymbol highs, triangles highs and the like, as well as the upper harmonics of other sharp waveforms." I never specifically mentioned a range. I'd call that vague, not erroneous. If you were referring to "they can only produce sounds up to 22050hz in frequency (with great difficulty)," well, yes they can. Redbook is not applied to CD audio automatically (although some CD burning applications do have settings to, such as the "CD At Once" settings on Nero et al., or so I have read.) And I would love to see where you read that the Red Book standard implements a cutoff, as I could find you dozens of definitions of the Red Book standard that don't mention it, and none that expressly do (though one or two seem to hint at it, which is strange for technical documents). Most just list the dimensions of the physical disk, details on the track data info and the sample and bit rate specifics I detailed earlier. I'm not doubting you here, but I have never read the IEC 908 standards document. At present it costs $200 US to download the PDF, so I don't think I'll be doing that any time soon . However, if you have a copy... *wink wink, nudge nudge*

Isn't it the frequency of the AC current, ie 50~60hz?

That has nothing to do with sample rate, except that sample rates are determined by weighing the highest frequency desired with space available on the medium you are writing to. The CD sample rate is 44.1 Khz, at 16 bits per sample, whether the sound is lowpassed or not. Sample rate does not mean highest frequency possibly recorded, it means samples per second.

Yah, a sub-par system trying to play 22.05Khz+ (or anything above what it's specs say it should play, based on the outline I gave above) would create audible artifacts, and it sounds like people are confusing those for what they think they should be hearing. FYI, standard audio CDs have a sample rate of 44.1Khz. They can only produce sounds up to 22050hz in frequency (with great difficulty). This part of the spectrum is reserved for cymbol highs, triangles highs and the like, as well as the upper harmonics of other sharp waveforms. Like Stu said, chances are great that you won't hear it, which is why the mosquito buzzer is at ~16Khz. I thought hearing loss was due to degredation of the cilia in the cochlea...? That would be the reason old people can't hear above the highest frequencies that youngins can hear.

It doesn't show the rolloff on the graph, but it doesn't show any signs of dropping, so it could go up to 30Khz+, who knows. I still think it is your soundcard. Whether it's "passing through" or not, it is being processed digitally. I checked the samples out on my computer. My amp is connected by optical cable so it's a digital signal. My output is set at too low a sample rate because the amp is old and can only receive up to 48Khz. The signal was dumbed down to what sounded like 800Hz! I snapped my headphones in to the analog outs of my soundcard, and it was perfect... I didn't hear boo at 25Khz, but at least I know it works properly (and I'm really impressed with my Soundblaster(!?!)). I can hear up to ~17000 with the volume CRANKED, 16000 at high levels, and 15000 at normal levels. Whether the sharp curve was caused by my headphones or ears, I'm not sure, but I'd hazard a guess at it being my headphones. Your ears tend to roll off into sound you can still "feel," in both upper and lower ends of the audible sound spectrum. This rolloff was rather unnatural, and fairly linear. Use an amp you know to work at a 96Khz sample rate, and be sure your cards digital outs are set to 96Khz. That, or use headphones right from your soundcard. Personally, I've found bitstream technology to be extremely flaky. Check the specs for your soundcard too. [edit] The sample rate of your soundcard should be more than twice what you are trying to hear, frequency wise. In reality, this would still produce a VERY inaccurate wave... but twice is what most people say :S. 96Khz+ is the only rate suited to these samples, as the next option down is usually 48Khz, which is only good for up to 24Khz in sound reproduction, and really poorly at that... I don't know what the standard is these days, but I doubt it's at 96Khz for regular consumer-grade cards.

Then they should put reruns of "All My Children" or "Days of our Lives" on 24/7. You've obviously never heard one of these things. And the writer of the article probably hasn't either, considering that they are most likely in their 30s or 40s, and even if they have heard one of these things... that was 20 years ago. There is one of these things around where I live, and I can't walk by the area without going into a rage, because the sound is more than annoying; it is painfully loud, AND AT 16KHZ! The telletubbies got progressively irritating...Hitler got progrssively irritating... Mosquito buzzers are like lemon juice to the eyes... for the ears; repeated punches to the spine while some fat kid in the corner scrapes his nails down the chalkboard. It's the kind of thing that makes you see red, and hear leprechauns. And, yes, I cross the street when I need to venture past the buzzer in question. It's less like sound, and more like having your eardrums pierced. Imagine someone screaming in your ear at 80dB. Just because it's at 16Khz, doesn't mean it's any less irritating... it makes it moreso. It's a dog whistle for people with good hearing. Still, I don't think any of us can judge the situation properly without being there and seeing (and hearing) the full situation for ourselves. If the shoppes are all golf attire thrift stores... so much the better. You teenieboppers can cry to your mums that the sound hurts your ears, and you won't have to sit around for an hour while your grandpa gets fitted for his woolens! Now if it was outside my local concert hall... then there would be cause for complaint. And an ass woopin'. The triangle just isn't as effective when the upper harmonics are drowned out by a piezo buzzer.