 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Ramo, by extension, should we expect a negative correlation between athletecism and IQ within the human race? |
Probably not. If a person is athletic, he could just eat more. He doesn't need a less powerful brain to insure that he'll get enough energy. In hunter-gatherer societies, extraordinarily high strength probably would've been selected out of the population. Of course, minor variations in genetic diversity among the genes determining strength is kept within a population to insure adaptibility.
And I don't think there is significant diversity in energy needs for the brain among humans.
quote:
Until there was broze, most spears were constructed pretty much the same. Of course, after awhile, bows and arrows replaced spears as ranged weapons. |
Right. I was speaking metaphorically. A greater capacity to think had been much more important to human survival than strength.
quote:
If I travel at 0.99c in a certain direction and a lightwave travels at c in the same direction I will measure it's speed as c, right? But why? |
That's simply a postulate of Relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same according to any inertial observer.
Einstein's logic went like this: Say, you've got a straight road and a huge magnet such that its poles are on the sides of the road at some point. And then you have a car, with a circular wire in it, travelling down this road at a constant velocity. According to you, there will be this magnetic field is affecting the moving charges in your wire loop, causing an EMF along the loop, the negative change in magnetic flux through the moving loop. Now, some guy sitting on the magnet could interpret the situation as a stationary car and the magnet travelling past it. He thinks that now the magnetic field is changing, causing an EMF along the loop, the negative change in magnetic flux through the loop. So, you get the same EMF regardless of which observer is watching the loop even if the physical interpretation, ostensibly, is different between the two situations. And if the prediction is the same, either observers are correct. So, the idea of absolute rest is bollocks, and physical laws are applicable in any inertial reference system.
And experimental evidence, Michelson-Morely, fit within this idea.
But according to Maxwell's equations, light travels at c in a vacuum. If there's no absolute rest - no ether, then light travels at c in a vacuum according to any observer.
quote:
I've always wondered:
Our entire galaxy is moving. wouldn't that mean that that inside the solar system, light would go slower one way than the other?
( I can't wait to get to Relativity in uni, finally, it will all be explained. ) |
Light won't go slower as it always goes the same speed according to any inertial reference system, but the frequency of the light would be shifted depending upon the direction the light is going.
quote:
Just to note that if someone is traveling at 0.99c there is no time dialation, this only occurs during times of acceleration. Thus, compared to someone else, at a different relative we could be traveling 0.99c right now! |
There is time dilation according to the observer that he's going .99c with respect to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Starchild
|
 |
a raving alcoholic drama queen with a penchant for the biosciences
Jan 1970
time: 00:28
|
|
Regarding Environmentalism and Nuclear power:
Some greens are just nutjobs that want to see people eating granola on communes while some vague, environmentally friendly process lets them have electricity. These are the people that ***** about fossil fuels then go and complain about wind or tidal plants cause they also disrupt the natural environment. We ignore these people and wait for them to choke on their granola.
Personally, I consider myself a rational green and I dislike nuclear power on the following grounds:
It's unviable. British nuclear just got a huge state payout to keep them in business since nuclear power just isn't profitable. We're in the **** with the European Commission rules on state aid now and it's just been wasted money. (sink or swim by the energy market honey, don't come whining to the taxpayer.)
It's short term. Fissionable material isn't an unlimited resource that will last for the next 5 billion years (unlike any process such as winds, solar, or tides generated by the sun/moon).
The waste products are dangerous, no one wants them, it's a headache to get rid of them, and they'll last for quite a while.
Breeder reacters, ones that generate their own fissionable material, are expensive and attractive targets for anyone wanting to get their hands on weapons grade stuff. Maybe not a problem in the First World, but the gods know it's a bit frightening to see some countries build these things.
Personally I want us to decentralise power supply and move a lot of it off world. Easiest way to avoid polluting the Earth? Remove it from the Earth. A mix of space based solar energy collectors beaming energy to powernetworks supplemented by local wind/tide/hydro plants would be ideal. Most energy would of course go into the electrolysis of water to provide hydrogen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
"What is the definition of equations which can only be solved numerically? Or is it arbitrary?"
Now what do you mean by what their definition is? Do you mean what their name is?
Well, I know the opposite of solving numerically (that is, solving exactly, if you want) is called solving algebraicaly.
In general it's a bit more complicated. Very few families of equations have been proved to be unsolvable and even then it is always by very specific means. For example the general quintic is unsolvable by radicals.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2003 20:34
|