E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > General Off-Topic

General Off-Topic
Everything not about BMWs. Posts must be "primetime" safe and in good taste. You must be logged in to see sub-forums.
Click here to browse all new posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 06-20-2012, 02:50 PM   #1261
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,529
My Ride: Trek 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
You call that artistic? Looks done by a 6 year old.
That's the biggest I've seen so far.
What if one (or all) of those dots aren't to scale?
The guy behind it has a degree in physics and has worked with Langley and NASA. I'd be willing to bet it's pretty accurate. Going out on a limb here, but my guess is that there are only a few sizes because we're only able to detect planets of certain sizes, depending on the instrument used.
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?
cowmoo32 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 03:45 PM   #1262
Rif Raf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: utah
Posts: 332
My Ride: 2001 330i w/ Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
You call that artistic? Looks done by a 6 year old.
That's the biggest I've seen so far.
What if one (or all) of those dots aren't to scale?
I was thinking more like this. Not the pic cowmoo posted.

__________________
Rif Raf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 05:55 PM   #1263
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,529
My Ride: Trek 1.2
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?
cowmoo32 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 11:41 PM   #1264
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 358
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowmoo32 View Post
The guy behind it has a degree in physics and has worked with Langley and NASA. I'd be willing to bet it's pretty accurate. Going out on a limb here, but my guess is that there are only a few sizes because we're only able to detect planets of certain sizes, depending on the instrument used.
The waiter that served me tonight had a degree in physics.

Far from it, my friend.
You said it yourself... there's only a few sizes. It stands to reason that planets don't come in discrete sizes, let alone only a few sizes like the ones he used... S, M, L.
Therefore, by definition it cannot be accurate so not "to scale".

Don't believe everything you see.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about faking data or dishonesty.
I'm talking about making up stuff using theories. What you hear may be the best explanation we have today, but it's definitely not the final, nor the truth.
Proof? Science revise and correct old theories all the time. Chances are today's theories will be revised/corrected.
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 06-20-2012 at 11:43 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 07:14 AM   #1265
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,529
My Ride: Trek 1.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
The waiter that served me tonight had a degree in physics.

Far from it, my friend.
You said it yourself... there's only a few sizes. It stands to reason that planets don't come in discrete sizes, let alone only a few sizes like the ones he used... S, M, L.
Therefore, by definition it cannot be accurate so not "to scale".

Don't believe everything you see.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about faking data or dishonesty.
I'm talking about making up stuff using theories. What you hear may be the best explanation we have today, but it's definitely not the final, nor the truth.
Proof? Science revise and correct old theories all the time. Chances are today's theories will be revised/corrected.
I realize that, but what I was saying is that we can only measure planets in those discreet sizes. Instrument 1 measures planets at X mass, instrument 2 measure planets at Y mass, and so on. The author/artist has a few comics where "to scale" comes into play and from what I can gather they're all accurate. I guess the real question here is what would be gained from lying about it?

Click the small ones for the full sized


__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?

Last edited by cowmoo32; 06-21-2012 at 07:16 AM.
cowmoo32 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 09:07 AM   #1266
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,529
My Ride: Trek 1.2
Good reason to earn a good living: Replacement parts


Scientists Can Now Grow Functioning Liver From Stem Cells
http://gizmodo.com/5920147/scientist...ls?tag=science
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?
cowmoo32 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2012, 09:11 AM   #1267
mistrzmiasta
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,011
My Ride: GLK350,ML63
i'll be buying a liver after each weekend. this is good news.
mistrzmiasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 05:49 PM   #1268
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 358
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowmoo32 View Post
I realize that, but what I was saying is that we can only measure planets in those discreet sizes. Instrument 1 measures planets at X mass, instrument 2 measure planets at Y mass, and so on. The author/artist has a few comics where "to scale" comes into play and from what I can gather they're all accurate. I guess the real question here is what would be gained from lying about it?

Click the small ones for the full sized
The real question is... lying about what? He didn't name any planet. He just drew a bunch of circles "to scale".
Wait... click? That picture is click-able? It doesn't work for me.
__________________
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 06:31 PM   #1269
k2pilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 340
My Ride: Z4MC & B8 S4
Master Po You're being a bit of a Debbie Downer right now, I had a good science buzz going.
__________________
Quote:
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams
k2pilot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 10:11 PM   #1270
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 358
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2pilot View Post
Master Po You're being a bit of a Debbie Downer right now, I had a good science buzz going.
that's a clear sign that you were not witnessing science.
Science is deeply rooted in facts, or what we perceive and accept as facts. Immutable.
If you need artistic rendering du jour dramatized to entice your mood, it's not science.

A bit akin to calling CSI: Miami forensic science.
Any forensic scientist will tell you that's bogus and their work is not nearly as glamorous.
You'd call that scientist a Debbie Downer?
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 06-22-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 11:48 PM   #1271
benjamin1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 594
My Ride: 350z track edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
that's a clear sign that you were not witnessing science.
Science is deeply rooted in facts, or what we perceive and accept as facts. Immutable.
If you need artistic rendering du jour dramatized to entice your mood, it's not science.

A bit akin to calling CSI: Miami forensic science.
Any forensic scientist will tell you that's bogus and their work is not nearly as glamorous.
You'd call that scientist a Debbie Downer?
What do you think about quantum physics? Just curious
__________________
xbox 360: ImTooNiceAtThis

benjamin1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2012, 11:51 PM   #1272
k2pilot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 340
My Ride: Z4MC & B8 S4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
that's a clear sign that you were not witnessing science.
Science is deeply rooted in facts, or what we perceive and accept as facts. Immutable.
If you need artistic rendering du jour dramatized to entice your mood, it's not science.

A bit akin to calling CSI: Miami forensic science.
Any forensic scientist will tell you that's bogus and their work is not nearly as glamorous.
You'd call that scientist a Debbie Downer?
I'm just calling you a Debbie Downer because you're being very negative for no reason.
__________________
Quote:
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams
k2pilot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 07:48 PM   #1273
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 358
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin1 View Post
What do you think about quantum physics? Just curious
While I am a scientist, I'm not a theoretical physicist (nor do I want to be).
What exactly do you want to know about Quantum that google can't give you?
__________________
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 08:06 PM   #1274
benjamin1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 594
My Ride: 350z track edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Po View Post
While I am a scientist, I'm not a theoretical physicist (nor do I want to be).
What exactly do you want to know about Quantum that google can't give you?
I'm not sure if I read your statement correctly last night, but it seemed as if you were refuting the topic because it isn't deemed as factual as you would like it. That made me believe that you only deem science as something that you can prove without a doubt, which a vast majority of quantum physics is based on theories or "best guesses", or even worse - theories that are based on theories of theories. I'm not a scientist by trade however, so I don't claim to be an expert.

I'll also ask this. How do we know protons/neutrons/electrons exist? We can't see them, it's just something that we predicted with math. A vast majority of our science is based on them, but aren't they really just a concept?
__________________
xbox 360: ImTooNiceAtThis

benjamin1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 08:14 PM   #1275
Dirkster
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: CA
Posts: 1
My Ride: BMW
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin1 View Post
I'm not sure if I read your statement correctly last night, but it seemed as if you were refuting the topic because it isn't deemed as factual as you would like it. That made me believe that you only deem science as something that you can prove without a doubt, which a vast majority of quantum physics is based on theories or "best guesses", or even worse - theories that are based on theories of theories. I'm not a scientist by trade however, so I don't claim to be an expert.

I'll also ask this. How do we know protons/neutrons/electrons exist? We can't see them, it's just something that we predicted with math. A vast majority of our science is based on them, but aren't they really just a concept?
I have the same questions in my head. I don't think we'll get the answers for a few decades.
Dirkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 08:21 PM   #1276
Saintluk2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N.J.
Posts: 467
My Ride: 2000 323i sedan
dailygalaxy.com
Saintluk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 10:15 PM   #1277
simsima325
'a certain moderator'
 
simsima325's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hyattsville, MD
Posts: 37,639
My Ride: Honda Civic
__________________
-Brendan
simsima325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2012, 11:23 PM   #1278
Master Po
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 358
My Ride: E46 no more
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin1 View Post
I'm not sure if I read your statement correctly last night, but it seemed as if you were refuting the topic because it isn't deemed as factual as you would like it. That made me believe that you only deem science as something that you can prove without a doubt, which a vast majority of quantum physics is based on theories or "best guesses", or even worse - theories that are based on theories of theories. I'm not a scientist by trade however, so I don't claim to be an expert.

I'll also ask this. How do we know protons/neutrons/electrons exist? We can't see them, it's just something that we predicted with math. A vast majority of our science is based on them, but aren't they really just a concept?
First, I'm not sure what topic you're referring to, so I can't confirm if I was refuting it.
What I did refute is calling a drawing that looks like done by a 6 year old, full of circles of several discrete sizes, supposedly representing all the planets we know, as "science". An artistic rendering, maybe, but to say that it's "to scale", without naming any of the planets, that's BS. How do we know if a ball isn't to scale? There are no names associated to any of those balls.

I definitely didn't mean to say any of what you said.
I'm fully aware that science doesn't have to be immutable. That's religion.
When a theory is proven to be "true" it becomes law. Until then, it's just a theory and it's subject to revisions and change.
What makes it science is that the theory was conceived based on verifiable facts, data and other accepted scientific concepts.
Peer review is a must. No faith required. This means the data, facts and whatever evidences used to formulate the theory must be repeatable. A miracle that only happened once is not kosher.
__________________

Last edited by Master Po; 06-23-2012 at 11:24 PM.
Master Po is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 09:24 AM   #1279
cowmoo32
drunken science
 
cowmoo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,529
My Ride: Trek 1.2
And now I'm 3 pages deep into an article on the oribal angular momentum of light...

Infinite-capacity wireless vortex beams carry 2.5 terabits per second
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...its-per-second
Quote:
American and Israeli researchers have used twisted, vortex beams to transmit data at 2.5 terabits per second. As far as we can discern, this is the fastest wireless network ever created - by some margin. This technique is likely to be used in the next few years to vastly increase the throughput of both wireless and fiber-optic networks.

These twisted signals use orbital angular momentum (OAM) to cram much more data into a single stream. In current state-of-the-art transmission protocols (WiFi, LTE, COFDM), we only modulate the spin angular momentum (SAM) of radio waves, not the OAM. If you picture the Earth, SAM is our planet spinning on its axis, while OAM is our movement around the Sun. Basically, the breakthrough here is that researchers have created a wireless network protocol that uses both OAM and SAM.

In this case, Alan Willner and fellow researchers from the University of Southern California, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Tel Aviv University, twisted together eight ~300Gbps visible light data streams using OAM. Each of the eight beams has a different level of OAM twist. The beams are bundled into two groups of four, which are passed through different polarization filters. One bundle of four is transmitted as a thin stream, like a screw thread, while the other four are transmitted around the outside, like a sheathe. The beam is then transmitted over open space (just one meter in this case), and untwisted and processed by the receiving end. 2.5 terabits per second is equivalent to 320 gigabytes per second, or around seven full Blu-ray movies per second.

This huge achievement comes just a few months after Bo Thide finally proved that OAM is actually possible. In Thide's case, his team transmitted an OAM radio signal over 442 meters (1450ft).

Spiral, OAM data beamsAccording to Thide, OAM should allow us to twist together an "infinite number" of conventional transmission protocols without using any more spectrum. In theory, we should be able to take 10 (or 100 or 1000 or***8230 WiFi or LTE signals and twist them into a single beam, increasing throughput by 10 (or 100 or 1000 or***8230 times. For fiber networks, where we still have a lot of spare capacity, this isn't all that exciting - but for wireless networks, where we've virtually run out of useful spectrum, twisted radio waves could provide an instant, future-proof solution. For the networking nerds, Willner's OAM link has a spectral efficiency of 95.7 bits per hertz; LTE maxes out at 16.32 bits/Hz; 802.11n is 2.4 bits/Hz. Digital TV (DVB-T) is just 0.55 bits/Hz.

The next task for Willner's team will be to increase the OAM network's paltry one-meter transmission distance to something a little more usable. "For situations that require high capacity... over relatively short distances of less than 1km, this approach could be appealing. Of course, there are also opportunities for long-distance satellite-to-satellite communications in space, where turbulence is not an issue," Willner tells the BBC. In reality, the main limiting factor is that we simply don't have the hardware or software to manipulate OAM. The future of wireless networking is very bright indeed, however.

Read more at Nature (paywalled)
__________________

flickher

What's this about a brownie in motion?

Last edited by cowmoo32; 06-25-2012 at 09:27 AM.
cowmoo32 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 12:30 PM   #1280
jeffro3000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 2,812
My Ride: 2000 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowmoo32 View Post
And now I'm 3 pages deep into an article on the oribal angular momentum of light...

Infinite-capacity wireless vortex beams carry 2.5 terabits per second
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...its-per-second
Looks like the "moore's law" of internet speed is in full effect here. Or maybe exceeded.

IEEE 802.16e (WiMAX) allows for 128Mbits/s, 3GPP LTE-Advanced allows 1 gigabit per second down max, and 802.11ac (WiFi) allows 6 gigabits per second i believe.

It's funny that LTE-A will be the first true 4G network standard, despite all the marketing from T-Mobile and AT&T about their HSPA+, which is not even close, and Verizon's LTE, which is at least close.
jeffro3000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use