That is one awful explanation of red shifts.
That is one awful explanation of red shifts.
"Citation needed" would be one hell of an understatement in this case.
Play the whole thing. That is all.
The original physorg.com article linked at the begining explains this much better. Yes black holes are thought to evaporate, but we've never seen it happen and this study is of how we might detect them if they don't evaporate (by their atom-like interaction with other matter).
A pitty this article saw that there may be primordial black holes still around and missed the point beyond that.
The article's not great in general, but gets rather fuzzy towards the end on whether it's worried about DNA or RNA, and seems to assume DNA can easily beget RNA outside of cells.
There's an explanation of antimatters uses in PET scans that fails to mention antimatter, and an assertion that hydrogen (not deuterium) usually contains a neutron... hmm. Not great.
Context: "Artist窶s impression of a gamma-ray burst shining through two young galaxies in the early Universe"
If the nonsense here causes me to shudder, am I at risk of increasing my "vibrational energy" and going to parallel universe heaven?
This gets stumbled over and over again on different sites, but it's always worth watching. As for the people complaining about the answer: I can't help but feel you're missing the point, which isn't "how do magnets work" but a much more interesting question the asker may not have known he was asking. The point being made is worth any annoyance caused over not immediately and singlemindedly trying to answer the original question.
As for his inability to explain it simply meaning he doesn't understand it, I'm sure he'd have been the first to agree with you. Nobody understands anything to an infinite numer of "why's", but we seem to understand magnets less well than other things because there are less analogies and things we accept than with most things, between the original question and when it gets hard.
Scaremongering backed up by dodgy reasoning and vaugue correlations, with dubious citations. On the plus side, the comment someone left saying "Isn't the risk of death always 100%?" made me laugh.
I feel really sorry for the people sat on the left of that plane.
The best bit of this was going from thinking it was an arty oddity to realising it was actually a game, and working out what to do. It's way more addictive than it should be.
The idea's not new, but it's always an interesting one to think about. Pretty good short story.
It's an interesting planet/brown dwarf, but it窶s probably not a lump of ultra heavy metals like osmium as this guy窶s implying. The affects of electron degeneracy mean that radius and mass don't scale in the way that common sense might dictate when masses get this big. Radius stays pretty much the same from Jupiter masses up to brown dwarfs. The same effect allows white dwarfs to become incredibly dense while not being made of any element much heavier than carbon.
sans the thai subtitles: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
The song is amusing by itseslf, but the fact that Stephen Fry is actually there is brilliant.
From the page: "For every force in the universe there has to be an opposite"
No, no there doesn't. The article doesn't get much better after the first line either.
Right, I've done some googling. As I understand this, sun light is directly used to pump a laser (doable, with the right crystal and a large enough Fresnel lens) which is then used to heat magnesium oxide to the high temperatures required to split it into magnesium and oxygen. That is the energy storage bit. Then the magnesium is burned in water, and the hydrogen given off is burned in air, to provide the energy to do whatever it is you want your motor to do (eg. move a car). This is solar power, done chemically rather than electrically. The magnesium shenanigans are the equivalent of the battery in more traditional solar power.
As for people here talking about needing lots of magnesium, the magnesium is (supposed to be) in a closed loop, you wouldn't need to replace it unless if you're engine leaked or something.
None of this is particularly well explained in the article.
Am I the only one annoyed that there's no scale on the brightness axis?
From the page: "Unlike the Blackhawk, we have no photographic evidences of it, but I think that their existence is somehow confirmed..." somehow? That's not the most convincing sentence I've ever read.