-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Strange
-
That is ridiculous. We can barely measure occasional gravitational waves with a specially built apparatus which is 4km on a side. It certainly isn't going to affect any lab experiments that take place over hours. And yet that "11% too small" value works for tennis balls, gunfire, satellites, comets, moons, planets and stars. Suggesting it is actually the correct value.
-
Somehow the OS had failed to recognise the type of the monitor. Plugging it back in / power cycling it forced it to recheck the monitor type.
-
Ah. I was thinking it was just the background image, not the whole screen. When you go to the Display Settings, does it correctly identify the type of the monitor? Is the resolution it displays the same as the resolution of the monitor?
-
You could try: Right click on Desktop and select Personalise (this allows you to select the background) Scroll down to the "Choose a fit" box Select Fill (or Fit or Tile or one of the others, if that doesn't do what you want)
-
What evidence do you have that the phone has a virus?
-
because of course you do.
-
If we are talking about the surface of the Earth, then we are talking about a 2D model. Therefore the line is not curved (because the curvature you are seeing is in a third dimension which does not exist in the analogy). The equivalent of a straight line on the curved surface of the Earth or in curved space-time is called a geodesic. You can think of it as the shortest distance between two points in that coordinate system.
-
On the surface of the Earth, if you travelled in straight line you would end up where you started.
-
One of the technical challenges of measuring the background is accurately removing the foreground (stars, galaxies, dust, etc).
-
Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect so the speed with which two pints move apart depends how far apart they are. The current rate of expansion is about 70 km/s per megaparsec. https://www.space.com/25179-hubble-constant.html the most distant light took about 13.8 billion years to get here. The source was about 4.5 billion light years then but because space was expanding it had to travel an increasing distance, hence the travel time was so long. Now, that source is about 47 billion light years away. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size
-
Like this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
-
Macroevolution and Microevolution
Strange replied to Area54's topic in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
That is one definition of species, but not the only one. And it can work the other round: reproductive isolation can lead to speciation. -
Having done some work on (early versions of) Android, I do not have a very high opinion of the software produced by Google. It seems to be thrown together by a large number of different people with no overall plan. I don't know if that is just Android, but (based on my experience of a large number of different software teams) I see no reason to think that the rest of their software would be any better.
-
Both of these are Unix derived (or Unix-like) operating systems. Mac OS is used in servers, to a limited extent.
-
This article has a good introduction to the concept of virtual particles: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
-
An absolute lungs protection?
Strange replied to Moreno's topic in Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience
Yes, I meant to mention that but then forgot! -
I don't see how something you have made up (but can't define) can be considered evidence for something else you have made up (and can't define). That is like me saying the existence of floobles is evidence that unicorns exist.
-
You just quoted from an article called "BEYOND the standard model". That is about extensions to the standard model. The standard model can't be about extensions to the standard model. That makes no sense. (Note that I referenced that article before.) I keep quoting it because it shows that the pentaquark has always been part of the standard model. Despite your claims to the contrary. It is pretty silly to keep denying it. It is only filling in gaps of what has been observed, not what is in the model. It is not an extension to the standard model It has been part of the model for more than 4 decades. (As shown by that thing I keep quoting.) The detection of the Higgs boson was not an extension to the standard model, either. Also just confirmation of part of it. (Which took a similar amount of time.)
-
Nothing is "required". Many things are possible; including the pentaquark. That is why its existence was predicted by the standard model. I'm not quite sure what that means. But of course it only uses things that are required in the theory. And those things allow pentaquarks (and all the other exotic hadrons). Why would it be considered "beyond" the standard model when it was predicted IN the standard model? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. And is clearly untrue. I was hoping you would tell me something new that I didn't know. But it seems you have nothing useful to say. Apart from repeating the false statement that the pentaquark is not part of the standard model. I will leave others to judge who is being dishonest: So clearly it was always part of the standard model. And its non-existence would have required new physics beyond the standard model.