 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
>>> So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
>>>
>>> (I hope you get the point.)
>
>> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
>
>> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know it
>> is really orbiting the sun?
>
> Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.
No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a
new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't
easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few
million. All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood, and
technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
non-living environments.
What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
TB is evolved from earlier TB? Do you believe that seedless grapes
evolved from grapes with seeds? Do you believe that dogs evolved from
wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)? Just curious.
I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence, have no alternate
theory to propose that explains any of the evidence, and still say "I
don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
But that's OK.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:16:20 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Darren New wrote:
>> But the conductor of the eastbound train will see the westbound train
>> get onto the tracks later than he does, and vice versa.
>
> Actually, I meant to say "may see" there. And it looks like based on
> that wikipedia article that the conductor will actually see the other
> train get to its junction *before* he gets to his own. Very strange.
Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?
To quote from somewhere - a conductor stands on the platform of the train
station and sees that the railline has collapsed leaving a large hole. The
train coming towards him is travelling at near-light speed and the
shortening effect means that from the conductor's POV the train is short
enough to fit neatly into the hole, except he can see that it's travelling
so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without falling far enough
to get stuck. From the train's POV the hole is shortened to a tiny gap so
the driver expects to experience just a small jolt as he goes over it. So
both points of view match the expectations of both.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/03 21:10:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>>> There have been some evolutionary experiments that have been done.
>>>> So, how many fish have they converted into cats like this?
>>>>
>>>> (I hope you get the point.)
>>
>>> It takes a long time to convert a fish into a cat. So?
>>
>>> How many complete orbits of pluto have been observed? How do you know
>>> it is really orbiting the sun?
>>
>> Yes, both things are comparable in complexity.
>
> No, of course not. But you haven't expressed why you think creating a
> new species over the course of a few weeks or a few years couldn't
> easily lead to creating a cat out of a fish over the course of a few
> million. All the mechanisms to make it happen are understood, and
> technology makes use of the same mechanisms both in living and
> non-living environments.
>
> What would be the boundary for you? Do you believe that drug-resistant
> TB is evolved from earlier TB? Do you believe that seedless grapes
> evolved from grapes with seeds? Do you believe that dogs evolved from
> wolves (or whatever the appropriate order is)? Just curious.
>
> I just don't understand how you can be presented with boatloads of
> evidence for a theory, have no conflicting evidence, have no alternate
> theory to propose that explains any of the evidence, and still say "I
> don't think it could be right." It just sounds a bit crazy to me.
>
> But that's OK.
>
They actualy made dogs out of foxes. Over just a few generation, taking only the
more dociles and crossbreading them. The foxes went from redish fur to brown and
black fur, stoped yaping to start barking.
The goal was to ease the farm raising of foxes for the furs.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when your personal correspondence to
friends starts out with #Dear Linda =
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?
Yes, but the oncoming train will seem *more* foreshortened.
> travelling so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without falling
> far enough to get stuck.
Not ... exactly. The problem isn't that he doesn't fall far enough. The
problem is that the bottom of the train starts falling before the top
does, kind of.
And in that case, there are only two speeds involved (the track and the
train), rather than the three in Warp's original problem.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> They actualy made dogs out of foxes. Over just a few generation, taking
> only the more dociles and crossbreading them. The foxes went from redish
> fur to brown and black fur, stoped yaping to start barking.
> The goal was to ease the farm raising of foxes for the furs.
I saw that. They also got floppy ears and curly tails. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:477abc37@news.povray.org...
> Xavier Manget <NOS### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> If the trains' speeds are close enough to the speed of light,
>> because of
>> relativistic length contraction (and with correct timing) the
>> trains will
>> have enough length to pass each other on the double track?...
>
>> Did I get it? :-p
>
> Yes.
>
> (Had you heard of the thought experiment, or did you figure it
> out on
> your own?)
>
> --
> - Warp
This could only be true if the trains and the track are uncoupled.
They are not, so any contraction of trains will apply equally to
the
track. Same problem, different scale for an outside observer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pan <pan### [at] syixcom> wrote:
> This could only be true if the trains and the track are uncoupled.
> They are not, so any contraction of trains will apply equally to
> the
> track.
Nope. The trains are moving at a different speed than the track and
thus the trains compress more.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nope. The trains are moving at a different speed than the track and
> thus the trains compress more.
More specifically, from the POV of one train, the other train is moving
faster than the track is.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:19:43 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Though won't the double track also seem foreshortened?
>
> Yes, but the oncoming train will seem *more* foreshortened.
>
>> travelling so fast it'll just sail straight over the gap without
>> falling far enough to get stuck.
>
> Not ... exactly. The problem isn't that he doesn't fall far enough. The
> problem is that the bottom of the train starts falling before the top
> does, kind of.
>
> And in that case, there are only two speeds involved (the track and the
> train), rather than the three in Warp's original problem.
From an outside observer's pov both trains are shorter then the double
track so should pass without problem; I was trying to reconcile it with
the traindrivers' view. The oncoming train is shorter, but so is the
double track; so they should still collide?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> From an outside observer's pov both trains are shorter then the double
> track so should pass without problem; I was trying to reconcile it with
> the traindrivers' view. The oncoming train is shorter, but so is the
> double track; so they should still collide?
From the POV of one of the trains the other train is shortened *more*
than the track.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
