This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - yor_on
1
« on: 18/06/2013 17:23:56 »
Oh yes, gravity is indeed the 'metric' of space. And also the thing defining it three dimensionally (in reality four dimensionally though), as I think too. Or maybe one should consider it a symbiosis? As mass (energy) is what defines that metric of gravity. A pure vacuum, without gravity, could be described as one single coherent 'frame of reference' I think, both from a time dilation and a Lorentz contraction.
2
« on: 18/06/2013 17:03:39 »
Don't you find this interesting :) "In his doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of Zurich in 1905, Einstein developed a statistical molecular theory of liquids. Then, in a separate paper, he applied the molecular theory of heat to liquids in obtaining an explanation of what had been, unknown to Einstein, a decades-old puzzle. Observing microscopic bits of plant pollen suspended in still water, English botanist Robert Brown had noticed in 1828 that even tinier particles mixed in with the pollen exhibited an incessant, irregular "swarming" motion — since called "Brownian motion." Although atoms and molecules were still open to objection in 1905, Einstein predicted that the random motions of molecules in a liquid impacting on larger suspended particles would result in irregular, random motions of the particles, which could be directly observed under a microscope. The predicted motion corresponded precisely with the puzzling Brownian motion! From this motion Einstein accurately determined the dimensions of the hypothetical molecules.3
By 1908 the molecules could no longer be considered hypothetical. The evidence gleaned from Brownian motion on the basis of Einstein's work was so compelling that Mach, Ostwald, and their followers were thrown into retreat, and material atoms soon became a permanent fixture of our knowledge of the physical world. Today, with the advent of scanning tunneling microscopes, scientists are nearly able to see and even to manipulate actual, individual atoms for the first time—a circumstance that would satisfy even the most entrenched Machian skeptic......
Experimentalists had found that when solid bodies were cooled, the amount of heat they lost failed to fit a simple formula that followed from Newtonian mechanics. Einstein showed that the experiments could be explained only on the assumption that the oscillating atoms of the solid lattice can have only certain, specific energies, and nothing in between. In other words, even the motions of atoms—which are continuous in Newtonian mechanics—exhibit a quantum structure. Mechanics and electrodynamics both required radical revision, Einstein now concluded: neither could yet account for the existence of electrons or energy quanta. " from David Cassidy's book, "Einstein and Our World."
Let us assume a frame of reference to be a physically meaningful object, definable to Planck scale. At its very least consisting of 'c', and a equivalently 'constant' local arrow. What would such a reasoning make of those 'discrete energies'?
3
« on: 18/06/2013 16:03:03 »
:)
locally it is a constant.
It's only when you compare over frames of reference you find it to give you a time dilation. Using gravitational time dilations your body can be defined to belong to different 'time zones' if you like. But from each position (loosely speaking) in SpaceTime its clock has a 'constant rate', definable as locally invariant, just as 'c' will be so for each of those 'frames of reference'. That as a 'gravity' can be translated, according to the equivalence principle, into a uniform constant acceleration. So you can consider all those 'points' of your body as 'differently gravitationally accelerating', although each one of them must present you with 'c' locally, as a 'constant', just as they must with that 'arrow'.
And that is a local definition.
Defining time 'globally', you have to measure over 'frames of reference'. Doing so you compare far away clocks relative your 'local clock', macroscopically defined as being 'at rest' with you (although still subject to microscopic gravitational time dilations). As you in your observatory, measuring, using the clock on the wall as your local reference. Then 'a far away arrow' becomes subject to Lorentz transformation, to fit your local one.
It's a very tricky subject, for example, where is a consciousness situated? Does it have a specific location, or is it a synthesis, undefinable to any single location, over a brain? If it is a synthesis and we assume that it should be able to define a 'frame of reference' as something meaningful in itself (physically). Then choosing Planck scale as the 'smallest common nominator' for both 'c' and that local arrow. Then your brain, and subsequent thoughts, must handle 'time dilations' as well as 'Lorentz contractions', assuming that those two are complementary.
=
corrected a question mark :)
da*n.
=
As I already destroyed the unspoiled beauty of my post, if you're considering presenting a new theory, TNS have a lovely spot for those in 'New Theories'.
And a simple proof for a arrow, as being a local 'constant', is the fact that wherever you go that 'local clock' follows you. And your lifetime, relative that clock, is a set one.
4
« on: 18/06/2013 10:43:37 »
Better correct that. It's not as much that it is impossible to prove. A statistically significant correlation is a proof. But it will be easy to confuse the subject, by demanding a proof for what specific 'cause' did 'what'. It reminds me of 'proving' a global warming in fact :)
5
« on: 18/06/2013 10:16:57 »
Difficult that one. We need energy, and we have those molten salt reactors (thorium) that I think China are planning to build? thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor. And it seems a good choice if you want a nuclear future, harder to make bombs from, although not impossible, and the ability to close itself down naturally in case of a disaster, well, as I get it. But I think one need to be careful in telling people that the background radiation won't matter. If you look at the medical professions it do matter for what they expect as cancer related. But it is also a matter of statistics, as there are no simple ways to correlate a cancer to some nuclear testing. You have this graph for example http://www.antique-wine.com/windows/authentication/caesium.aspx relating Cesium 137 to nuclear testing, but to define a risk from that? We also have a big, largely unknown to us Westerners, problem in East Europe (formerly soviet union) related to nuclear and other waste. Cheyla. as well as the Russian research on the aftermath of Chernobyl http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf"Cesium's danger as an environmental hazard, damaging when ingested, is made worse by it's mimicking of potassium's chemical properties. This ensures that cesium as a contaminant will be ingested, because potassium is needed by all living things. . .Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells." From Physics.org. (It's inhalation/ingestion and recycling that's the main problem as I gather it. it becomes a part of the natural cycle of life and so come back to haunt generation after generation.) But don't read me wrong here. We will still need (nuclear) energy as a guess, shortsightedly at least. Until we find something better. But I would prefer if we first tried to develop 'green' alternatives, as water, thermal energy, wind, sun etc. as that would be a saner approach to me. But this type of decentralized concept also create problems for those wanting centralized solutions, owned and controlled by a few competitors, or possibly a state. Also, a lot of thorium reactors will make a lot of waste, on a continuous basis. And relating the background radiation, natural or not, to cancer for example, can only be done statistically, and makes it easy to argue that there can be other relations too. So making it impossible to prove, as you will have argument standing against argument.
6
« on: 17/06/2013 23:17:56 »
There are two types of black holes. The Schwarzschild solution describing a non rotating black hole. That type we haven't found yet, as far as I know. The other type is rotating black holes, some of them spinning close to the speed of light. Those we have found, indirectly evidenced. And Soulsurfers explanation to why they spin so fast, is a analogue to what you can see when a skater spin, pulling in her arms to rotate faster. As the mass 'shrinks' into a black hole, its angular momentum must increase. = http://library.thinkquest.org/10148/faq2.shtml is nice.
7
« on: 17/06/2013 23:08:30 »
Then again, I'm not sure about that :) that the inflation in itself is applicable as a explanation, even if I assume it to be isotropic and homogeneous, meaning that it had a perfectly even (uniform) spread of 'dust', the same concentration everywhere. Maybe the universe 'rotates'? Maybe that would have something to do with it? Or maybe we should stop looking at it as a 'common universe' :) which then would be my hobby horse.
8
« on: 17/06/2013 22:49:59 »
Not so Pr :) You wrote "the present one seems a little odd. First the Universe was created out of nothing or by collision of branes or something. Then it expanded faster than light. Finally it did not collapse into a black hole when matter was created, as it should have done according to the laws of gravity." The last link makes a very readable presentation of inflation, and the Big Bang, as well as 'new ideas' in physics as a whole. And I have a feeling that some readers might want it too, to compare ideas. As for why matter inside this universe didn't collapse into some black hole, I guess I would refer that to the 'inflation' being ftl myself? The dust 'coagulating' into first generation suns. When it comes to Einstein the writer isn't as acknowledging as I would prefer though :) Although all physics build on others works, I still think Einstein did some pretty remarkable thinking. Not only SR and GR, but being one of those defining entanglements, laying a primary ground for quantum mechanics, in his work on Brownian motion, and the photoelectric effect. http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htmhttp://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
9
« on: 17/06/2013 15:01:53 »
You're quite right :) It's pretty weird to me too actually, and you described it very nicely. You could think of it as a lot of plum puddings treaded into each other, constantly 'at work', fermenting (if this now is the right words for it). All of them 'expanding' as you look back into the universe.
10
« on: 17/06/2013 12:21:30 »
I think this is the current definition. Inflation.
11
« on: 17/06/2013 08:45:53 »
It's pretty weird, and yeah. Haven't used that one in a while though :)
12
« on: 17/06/2013 08:42:08 »
They would see a a 'speeded up' SpaceTime, relative anyone defining it from Earth. They should also see some weird relativistic effects by incoming light 'bending', and blue shifting, as a guess. But they would not find themselves moving any faster locally, relative a own (local) wrist watch. You can refer those effects to the fact that lights speed in a vacuum is a 'constant', wherever you measure. And there are no set values for a arrow, except lights constant in a vacuum. The arrow and that constant 'c' will both be invariants locally measured.
And that's the only way you can measure it.
13
« on: 17/06/2013 07:22:46 »
As long as it happens outside a event horizon there is nothing stopping radiation from leaving a black hole. If Earth became a black hole today it would do nothing to the stability of the solar system. They would generally speaking move as usual. The compression that creates a black hole doesn't change its mass (ignoring what gets lost before it becomes a black hole),
14
« on: 17/06/2013 07:15:37 »
"I might be coming to the wrong conclusion here, but if both mass and space can move, wouldn't that make faster than light travel possible? For example, if I'm moving at 99.99% the speed of light and I warp the space behind me by dragging and stretching it, that would increase the distance I've traveled meaning I actually traveled faster than light. However, it doesn't seem you would be able to use this to move to a destination faster than light, simply further away from one."
You have a Lorentz contraction at relativistic speeds, acting in the direction you travel. That one can be seen as traveling ftl, ignoring that lights speed in a vacuum won't change for you, so your rocket do 'warp' the space in front of you. But it is complementary to the time dilation your origin find you to have. According to their measurements it's your clock that have slowed down instead. None of those definitions are wrong though, both come from measuring, using ones local clock and ruler.
15
« on: 17/06/2013 03:29:33 »
What astronomy and physics has done is to extrapolate from astronomical evidence, as luminosity and stars spectra. And so far it seems to fit, with how stars come to be the first generation, to the generation of star the sun is, as well as a inflation and expansion. It's like a very complicated puzzle where you use all you know, and can find out, to put the pieces together. "The only elements that would have been formed from the big bang are hydrogen, helium, and perhaps trace amounts of lithium. Elements up to iron can be produced in a star by nuclear fusion. (Heavier elements require more energy to start the fusion than is released in the fusion reaction--i.e. energy is LOST. Therefore, only elements up to iron are formed by nuclear fusion.) In a star like our sun, there is not enough mass to create the pressure and heat needed for even the fusion into iron. Our sun will produce metals only up to carbon and oxygen. Any metals heaver than iron could only be produced in a supernova. (Just a note, astronomers and astrophysics use the term "metal" to mean any element heaver than hydrogen or helium). The fact that our sun contains trace amounts of iron and heavier metals means it must have been there when it formed, since these cannot be formed by the nuclear fusion within our sun. Since first generation stars would only contain hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium from the big bang, our sun is not a first generation. This makes sense since our sun is only around 5 billion years old and the universe is about 16 billion (opinion varies from 11 to 20 billion, but 16 is right in there and generally accepted). That leaves at least 10 billion year for things to have happen before our sun formed: That is a lot of years for other stars to have formed and died, recycling some of its mass back into the universe and our sun. Since the life cycle of very large stars could be as little as 100 million years to supernova stage, the sun could conceivably be many generations along." At the beginning you used earths relative motion to see how stars, apparently, 'moved' with earths position relative the sun, called parallax, to define a distance. To define those you first have to know the distance from Earth to the Sun, called one astronomical unit (one AU). then you use trigonometry to find a distance to the closest stars. As soon as we could send up probes in space we started to use them too to get those distances better defined, as you won't have a atmosphere distorting in space. "Some of the best data on stellar positions in the sky come from Hipparcos, a spacecraft launched in 1989 by the European Space Agency. Hipparcos has measured the trigonometric parallaxes of about 10,000 stars to an accuracy of better than 10 percent, out to a distance of about 300 light-years. But our galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across, so parallax measurements become useless long before we approach the distances to other galaxies." from How do astronomers measure the distances...To get further out, we make some assumptions, as you can read in that article too. The assumptions are about Cepheid stars being stable objects, presenting themselves astronomically the same way no matter the distance. "Early in this century Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered that the longer the period of variation of a Cepheid variable, the greater its luminosity. Another American astronomer, Harlow Shapley, then was able to correlate the brightnesses of Cepheids with those of known types of ordinary stars, tying Leavitt's relative distance scale to an absolute one. " Here is more about determining astronomical distances. Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects by Björn Feuerbacher.Einstein wanted a static balanced universe and got rather upset when Fridman showed that there were other possibilities 1922. The Theory of the expanding universe as originated by A. A. Fridman. Fridman was a Russian mathematician who worked it out from Einsteins equations. Some years after his, too early death, another guy Lemaitre, a French cosmologist this time, came and developed a independent theory which went further than Fridman's three models. I think he was the guy that first presented the idea of a universe starting in a very compact area, to then 'explode' outwards. He studied mathematics under Eddington, and a brilliant mathematician. And one has to remember that it all fits so far, the whole idea of creating 'star dust' from light (energy), becoming first generation stars, becoming later generations, to the way we measure distances. Whatever ideas that might replace it must also fit all of this, and do it even better.
16
« on: 17/06/2013 01:24:59 »
That depends on ones level of trust, wouldn't you say? The problem I see is the one where no one regulates, neither knows, what information those agencies handle. And there my own trust level ain't that high :) There can be all kinds of reasons why a agency avoids discussing what type of information it use naturally, but in a democracy trust should be regulated by restrictions made by, and for, its citizen. And keeping that personal integrity is what we all need, I think, and some privacy too :)
17
« on: 15/06/2013 14:27:18 »
If it's only two locations I think it will work out. That is if you're doing normal things, what might happen is that the computer will complain and close some program you're working on, but that can happen because of badly written memory handling too. I would just use it, maybe not using those memory cards, crunching numbers, to send a shuttle to mars though.
18
« on: 15/06/2013 13:11:08 »
Hmm, let's take it again. When you go up on Facebook to share your, and others, life with friends and stuff, then that's a innocent activity, mostly. What a intelligence agency makes of it may not be so. Using efficient storage and good search algorithms they can sift through Facebook fairly quick, quicker if they know what they are looking for. to them Facebook is a 'open book' in my eyes, and a information godsend. A real life village would be much harder to sift through, getting information, but that 'digital village' is just as closed as its, and yours, security makes it. And even if you consider yourself to be 'a little fish amongst fishes', expecting yourself to go unnoticed, you should still think twice before sharing friends information, without their consent.
Now, someone wanting to sift through Facebook, would either need a access to the physical machines, or passwords etc for them, or, as in this case, access to the nodes used to direct all flow of digital traffic, in and out. The last one is the simplest one, and is the one used here if I got it right.
Because as a intelligence gatherer it's not the machines you're interested in, it's the information. And if you can get that by 'social engineering', as in fooling or socially forcing someone, then that's easier than hacking or cracking a good system. In the case of a Government it comes down to 'plausible geniality' for it, when it comes to the general public, and the same I would guess goes for those allowing a government access to those nodes. Which in fact makes it possible that Google is as unknowing as they say, although a few still should be involved. It all depends on how you get that physical access to the nodes, and from where. You can use 'National Security' as a excuse for getting to them if you're a government naturally, but a government should, in a democracy, be the servants of the public, not their masters.
And as we all use those nodes, more or less, leaving our own country digitally, we're all getting compromised and used by those agencies activities. so even if this had been happening solely on American soil the problem still wouldn't be a purely domestic one. It's about what you think a democracy should be, and about what you think personal integrity and privacy should mean.
19
« on: 15/06/2013 00:34:56 »
But there is a difference between espionage, and taking control over citizens private lives, as emails and other digital information. One is the old school, the other, to me, becoming a form of dictatorship. Dictatorships have always used people informing on their neighbors, as Stalins Russia and Hitlers Nazism, at least as I've read. This is the exact same to me, although 'not used'. Face book, and the way people hang out themselves, and friends, is also a perfect example of it, to me, called 'social networks'. Knowing someone read everything I put on the Internet (probably also storing, at least parts, of all global information they gather) makes me rather annoyed.
What gives anyone this right?
=
One might think of it this way, why not DNA mark up every citizen, as it is born? If I accept this behavior, controlling the free flow of information, and reading and keeping it, then DNA mark ups and cameras, everywhere, is just one small step away. Then the police won't be needed to ordinary police work any more. We will just need good lab technicians. and from that we can take it one step further and operate in microchips marking out what we do and go. Because, if you're 'honest' you should have noting to fear, from that information, right?
=
In a way those micro chips already are there, in our cell phones, as long as it is on :) And possibly in some types of credit and ID cards, and also whatever else we will use containing a live connection. Everything should in the future, according to some hi tech dreams, go 'live' via WiFi, from ones refrigerator to ??
20
« on: 15/06/2013 00:14:48 »
Beautifully written Cheryl, and good words too. Although sometimes I see something different. I see people that think that they have enough arranging their own lives, without having to have to bother with things, as what 'democracy' mean. "thats why we have a government, isn't it? To let us go about in our own way, them taking care of 'business'?" Or to some similar tune. Then again, I hope I'm wrong. I do like your ideas better, and it may well be so that when the writing is on the wall people will start to ask themselves what a democracy should mean.
=
and i agree Evan, it is sort of funny :)
But it is true, in this modern world we believe us to be able to 'own' things, even the human genome, by law and patent rights. In the end it may be so that we pay royalties for what words we use :) on a daily basis, and those thoughts we have might also be patentable?
21
« on: 13/06/2013 14:12:43 »
22
« on: 13/06/2013 13:54:43 »
time dilations exist, and they can be described from two points of view. Globally, as assuming a 'whole common universe' same for us all, the 'place' in where we live. From that point of view a 'time dilation' is observer dependent, related to mass, 'energy' and (relative) motion, as well as accelerations/decelerations. So they measurably 'exist', but related to you measuring. If all objects in a universe only had (relative) uniform motion accessible, they would still exist, and using Damocles definition, also being 'real', not a illusion. From that point of view the other definition, using 'locality' makes sense too. That as you from that point of view do have a unchanging arrow locally, related to your life span. Nothing you do will change that measurably and locally, as I think. But from that point of view 'frames of reference' becomes something 'real' in themselves, and the commonality of a 'same universe' questionable.
But it is still the simplest approach I've found. And it defines a arrow that points one way, not ticking backwards. You can't even find a arrow tick backwards astronomically, comparing your clock to a event horizon. The best you will find is a definition of some other frame 'stopping to tick' relative your own clock. Mathematically you labor with time reversibility, and treat a arrow by itself. Einsteins definition though, is one in where the arrow is one of four 'real' dimensions called SpaceTime, all dimensions 'fused/joined' together. You tweaking one parameter by mass or motion should then have a effect on the other, which it has, although when it comes to 'length, width and height' they all goes together. You can separate a 'space' theoretically into three dimensions, but you can't do it practically. Using 'degrees of freedom' instead of dimension you can define a two dimensional lattice, the atoms losing one (direction) degree of freedom, but in reality all such 'systems' still are embedded in a four dimensional reality called SpaceTime. Using such a definition ('fused together' dimensions) and also imagining a arrow to tick backwards, what result would that have on the other three dimensions?
Degrees of freedom are the better concept to me, though. Dimensions becoming weird in my thoughts.
=
It would be good if you got five, ten minutes (real local time:) to correct spelling etc, before getting your post 'fixed' by eternity :) I think TNS, or rather the developers, tested it locally, not really considering locations outside. and slow connections, because the time estimate I see after correcting is not the same as mine. A 'time dilation' possibly :)
23
« on: 13/06/2013 10:49:45 »
CO2 emissions from coal sector rise in 2013. "China’s crude steel production for April 2013 was 65.7 Mt, up by 6.8% compared to April 2012. Elsewhere in Asia, Japan produced 9.2 Mt of crude steel in April 2013, up by 1.0% over April 2012. South Korea’s crude steel production was 5.5 Mt in April 2013, down by -6.3% compared to the same month last year." April 2013 Crude Steel Production. "Physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford in England and colleagues estimated that the world could afford to put one trillion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere by 2050 to have any chance of restraining global warming below 2 degrees C. To date, fossil fuel burning, deforestation and other actions have put nearly 570 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere—and Allen estimates the trillionth metric ton of carbon will be emitted around the summer of 2041 at present rates. " How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? I expect that to be too optimistic myself, unless we get a world wide recession. World's Dirtiest Energy Projects. Now, IAEA isn't as unbiased as they want themselves to be perceived. They are pushing for nuclear power, it's written in, in their agenda, that energy type having its own inherent dangers. Still, IEA have this to say. " “The drive to clean up the world’s energy system has stalled,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven told the CEM, which brings together ministers representing countries responsible for four-fifths of global greenhouse-gas emissions. “Despite much talk by world leaders, and despite a boom in renewable energy over the last decade, the average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago.” " Progress towards clean energy has stalled, IEA says. And the energy company BP commented on it 2012. "Data published by the energy company BP on Wednesday showed that such carbon intensity in OECD countries reached a record low last year, in data going back to 1965. That reflected a vigorous trend toward deployment of renewable energy and gas, both less carbon-emitting than coal, against the backdrop of falling energy demand. By contrast, in non-OECD countries, carbon intensity reached a 28-year high, following a leap in coal consumption, continuing an upward trend which started in 2000. You now have to go back to 1984 for a time when non-OECD countries had a dirtier energy mix. That matters because it is also these countries which are growing their energy consumption. " But it's not perfectly correct, is it? :) What about Western natural gas (Methane) and Fracking. It's opinion builders that point fingers on other countries, ignoring their own responsibility, or 'smart' if you like :) maybe, from some idiotic political point of view. They forget that it doesn't matter 'what Country does what', global warming reach us all, anyway. Another stupid thing I read recently was the opinion that USA should share its 'expertise' in fracking with China, because they do it so 'environmentally'? Hopes for 'safe' temperature increase within 2C fade as Hawaii station documents second-greatest emissions increase. = Sorry, mixed IEA with IAEA there. IEA is a acronym for The International Energy Agency, not the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "The International Energy Agency (IEA; French: Agence internationale de l'énergie) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization established in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors." from International Energy Agency (wiki) But they seem to go together in some ways. IEA: Stupid, Manipulative or Corrupt? And when it comes to IAEA. "In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring." After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry." It's hard to decide who to trust those days, isn't it :)
24
« on: 13/06/2013 09:38:45 »
Ahh, fair enough Damocles :)
25
« on: 13/06/2013 03:00:42 »
Apropos Clocks :) This one EinsteinClocks. is rather nice. A little pearl I think, everything laid out logically, with the mathematics explained too.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.
The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists®
2000-2013. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science™ are registered
trademarks.
|
Show Posts
