npts2020

When he was talking about empty space energy, I thought of an interesting opinion I heard (IIRC it was Richard Muller). He said that maybe vacuum repells itself somehow, and as this repulsion takes place, mroe vacuum is 'created' hence the repulsion increases and it goes on.

 

btw: accepting for a moment that cosmological constant changes, why is it then called a constant?

 

thanks for sharing

The cosmological constant only changes relative to our present time. Relative to the cosmos it is constant, it is the cosmos that changes.

Trouble is, I seriously doubt more than a few members of Congress ever read the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (as with most legislation) and would bet even fewer had/have any clue of its implications. The fact that it even passed is as strong proof as I have ever seen that America is run by a single "Business Party" with any differences about being Democrat or Republican being mostly cosmetic. Why would any "traditional" Democrat be in favor of giving money to the richest corporations in the world? Yet the Congressional puppet jumped when the executive from the "other" party pulled the strings.

I personally don't understand why there are not more prosecutions happening as a result of the credit crunch. The entire problem essentially came about because of the repackaging of sub-prime mortgages using derivatives. It is quite clear to me that products were sold with misleading information as to their risk. If a car salesman sells you a car that explodes when you hit 50mph, he will be prosecuted, independently of any regulation in the automobile industry (and derivatives have hardly any regulation at all).

 

Likewise, with the bonuses issue. Were the loans given with no formal and contractual conditions? If they weren't, shame on the government. If they were, people should be punished for violating their contract.

Unfortunately The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 Places almost no conditions on the recipients of the money or the Treasury Secretary, who hands the money out. The only "concessions" made between the bill that was turned down and the one that passed, was more spending not more regulation or oversight. Currently the only oversight is we can complain, if we can figure out exactly where all of the money went. I don't think anyone can be prosecuted for this seemingly legal looting of the U.S. Traesury, our elected representitives have gone for it hook, line, and sinker.

Is that how long it's going to take to get the LHC fired up to do the job? And here I was being told next year.

IMHO The only way humans will ever fly with their own wings is if somebody figures out a way of grafting a nerve and muscle system onto a carbon fiber infratructure, this *might* make you light enough to fly. It would still require a tremendous amount of energy for even a short flight (how many of us can run as far as 100 meters without pretty severe shortness of breath by the end?). Of course this is after figuring out how to graft your vitals into the infrastructure. I think I will be not attempting any of this ever.

I have nothing to back this up but I would think the strongest field would either be at the edge of where the core becomes molten or halfway from there to the center, not in the exact center. Where is the strongest field in a bar magnet? If the core is what causes our magnetosphere could it not be modelled like a spherical bar magnet?

snp; You should definitely put forward any ideas you have. There are people here who can either show you where your ideas are in error or help refine them into coherence. I have found the review process to be typically fair, if sometimes harsh. Be prepared for a lively discussion if you are proposing anything novel to current understanding.

Good luck to you, sir. IMO advancement of knowledge is a worthwhile pursuit for anyone not struggling with basic survival.

I don't see why anyone would be surprised by this, after all it was the same profligate greed and disregard for consequences that got us here to begin with. IMO most of the current consternation is a result of the derivative market more than just real estate troubles, although the two are very interrelated, especially since credit default options (CDO's) make up a significant part of the derivative market. Essentially, a derivative allows you (usually a large corporation) to borrow money against assets, frequently being leveraged to 90% or more. Now you have asset values, especially real estate, being depressed, making the degree of leveraging even greater. Everything is still ok as long as the vast majority of derivatives are not being cashed in. The kicker comes when the companies backing the derivatives go into default themselves. A typical derivative is backed by anywhere from about 30 to 100 companies but if a certain number of those companies (as few as 12 on many) go into default the derivative is considered to be in default. Only a little over 100 companies underwrite virtually all of the derivatives worldwide. Some of the ones already in default, WaMu, Lehman Bros., Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae. Additionally, there are up to 35 more of those companies in financial trouble enough to be considering bankruptcy, mergers, downsizing or other drastic restructuring. A few of these companies are GMAC, Ford Credit, AIG, Citicorp, Goldman Sachs. If as few as about 20 of these companies end up defaulting for any reason, as much as $500 trillion in wealth could be basically flushed down the drain. One could say that that wealth never really existed to begin with but the fact of the matter is that it will have to be accounted for in some manner IMO deflation and devaluing of the dollar being the ultimate accountant. Now, if you want a concrete definition or "too big to fail", check out what companies are underwriting this market and are in trouble, those are the ones too much in debt to be able to afford to let fail. BTW the derivative market is one of the least regulated financial markets in the world......hmmm.

I would take issue with the notion that the atmosphere or ocean are the *primary* cause of the lag. In order to have net warming you have to recieve a certain amount of sunlight each day. That means that after the winter solstice (I will use Canada as my reference for seasons) the Earth is still cooling, until it reaches a point where there is net warming each day. Read carefully iNow's second reference.

well, if you've opened the bottle and only have a little left, recorking will still result in oxidation of the wine. enough to destroy the flavour, freezing whats left will significantly lower the oxidation rate preserving the flavour for longer and you don't need to pour anything down the sink because its gone off.

What? Open a bottle of wine and not drink it all! Why that's sacrilege.

Just curious. Why would one want to freeze wine when it keeps so well in the bottle?

I just dug up the following two links:

 

Survival of 15% from a 59 meter fall off a bridge (however, subjects were suicidal, so may not have tried things like adopting a good posture).

 

Survival of high-velocity free-falls into the water - notes that 116 ft/sec is survivable, equivalent to a 186 foot fall. Apparently, feet first entries are the only people to ever survive without injuries, and cliff divers regularly dive 100-135 feet.

 

Mokele

Feet first with arms and legs crossed and toes pointed downward. I have done this from at least 25 meters (once). Finishing the plunge was rather exhilirating but I wouldn't recommend doing it for entertainment.

I'd say it's more like sacrificing our way of life to safeguard our way of life. (Torture, patriot act, wiretaps etc)

I think he (GWB) was only referring to profligate consumption. That way of life requires no other freedom or ethics than to be able to consume.

The auto manufacturers would be ok if the economy made a u-turn fairly soon and oil stayed cheap. What are the chances of both those things happening? IMO about the same as the flying spaghetti monster showing up and taking over the world. Firstly, I see no reason why an economy, leveraged to the point ours is, will suddenly turn around when the underlying reasons for the problem have not been addressed. Secondly, if it does turn around, the price of energy (especially oil) will go right back up to where it was a couple of months ago and beyond.

Carbon sequestration is barely out of the "proof of concept" phase and has never been used on any scale for a long period of time to actually see if it works the way we think it should. If coal is going to be used over the long term it may be necessary to use it. I just think there are far better options insofar as they are cleaner, more sustainable, and close to the same price (maybe even cheaper if you don't count carbon emissions as zero cost).

Does anyone know for sure how or why the ballots get "challenged" to begin with?

Carbon sequestration is the best hope for the coal industry but it is similar to radioactive waste disposal for nuclear plants in that the harmful product will be around for many years and require constant monitoring. If there were no other options, this might be an acceptable situation but there are literally dozens of less environmentally destructive options: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, piezoelectric to name just a few. This is the direction we need to be looking, IMO.

So failed we are only going to give them $17.4 billion. I hope if my company ever fails I can get a few billion $$$$ from Uncle Sam too.

Changing to wind power can happen much faster than most people think, especially if you can put a soon to be unemployed auto sector to work on it. I have recently read (I will try to find the source) that grids the size of Australia, U.S., or E.U. may not even require storage for backup. The same authors say that a grid the size of the British Isles is approaching minimum area required for no backup but probably would not be 100% dependable. I wonder where tidal generation rates on their scale, I didn't see it mentioned?

No reason.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, try this answer out for all why-type questions. It works.

Or you could take the parents' line......'cause I said so.

Originally Posted by johan01

everything exists because I EXIST. because IF I DID NOT EXIST, everything around me would not exist for me.

That's quite the claim.

 

Originally Posted by johan01

Is this not The " secret" ?.

Well you should know, I thought everything existed, because you exist.

12-10-2008 05:07 AM

 

 

the point here is , it does not only hold for me , but for all concious beings

if you do not exist , you are nothing.

So consciousness=existance? If I am sedated for an operation, does that mean I cease to exist for a period of time?

okay im beginning to get the picture, but why axiom (iii) is axiom (iv) not the same thing?

My mathematics prowess is abyssmal but I will take a stab at this. Axiom iii only states that "a" will appear at the beginning of any string of numbers it is in. Axiom iv further implies there are no strings of numbers without an "a" in them by stating "a" is always at the beginning of any string.

QUESTION

how can one see beams moving ?

if i shine avery powerful beam into direction x ( deep space) .

and an observer perpendicular to me is at point y .

would he see the beam propergating outward to x .

I dont see how this is possible, unless there where atoms in the beams path reflecting them my way.

 

But what if there were no atoms to reflect the beam? You would not see it , correct?

 

Has there been any experiment done , where the propergating , beam

has been captured . Say on video , like a beam reflecting back from the moon for instance?

Bouncing lasers off of the moon and measuring time to do so is how we get the most accurate measurements of the moon and its orbit.

I`m thinking:

HOLLYWOOD. Bah humbug.

(It was a pretty good movie though)

Penury, calorie?