Comment So basically (Score 2) 80
Cat pictures make the best meow-monics?
Cat pictures make the best meow-monics?
Geosynchronous, and especially geostationary orbit exists. So while you're correct, there's nothing to stop us from putting an object into decaying orbit where atmospheric impact will not cause significant enough friction to burn it out.
We just choose not to.
The ISS orbits between 330 km (205 mi) and 435 km (270 mi).
Geostationary orbits are at 35,786 km above sea level. That's about 35,000 km higher, and about 1/11th of the distance to the moon.
We choose not to put stuff there because:
a. Its expensive to put stuff in such a high orbit (more powerful rockets, more fuel)
b. It's pretty far from earth, so not very convenient to get to/from, especially in emergencies.
Furthermore, an object in a decaying geostationary orbit (going at about 3 km/s) would speed up along the orbit the closer it gets to earth (basic orbital mechanics), so eventually it would still have enough speed to incinerate largely in the atmosphere.
Any stable orbit has an associated speed, which is what Deadstick was saying. You seem to imply that we choose that speed so stuff will burn up on reentry, which is nonsense. It is estimated that 25% of a large satellite will reach the ground. At best they control (speed up) the orbital decay, so that debris will splash down in an ocean.
From the Apache Flex webpage:
What happens to my projects if Adobe Discontinues the Flash Player?
It is true that current Flex projects are tied to either the Adobe Flash Player or Adobe AIR. We have been making great strides to compile projects to native JavaScript, therefore bypassing the Flash Player in the browser. Adobe has made a commitment to support the Flash Player and our current runtime for at least 5 years from the time they donated the project to Apache.
--
See for example the FlexJS project, that intends to run Flash directly on a JavaScript VM instead of the Flash Player VM.
The reason why clocks appear to slow down at high speeds is that the atoms in the clocks used for the experiments are simply decaying less (because they expend less energy at higher altitudes and higher speeds) than ones that didn't get to move so fast. Because the timing of a second is measured in the half-life decay, any changes to that decay rate will also throw off the clock itself. Mechanical clocks have numerous moving parts that get thrown off by the change in speed, and even electrical clocks still have to deal with changes in the oscillator speed and material resonance.
As I explained in a reply to the parent post, GPS clocks are actually faster than ground clocks.
Furthermore, atomic clocks don't use radioactive decay. Instead they include an atomic oscillator inside an electronic circuit so the whole oscillates at a very precisely defined frequency. The oscillation comes from Cesium/Rubidium atoms with electrons that move from ground energy levels to an excitated level and back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Mechanism
The reason why clocks appear to slow down is because time is relative, and depends on the relative speed (special relativity) or the difference in gravitational field strength (general relativity) of the observer and the observed.
Well, consider that relativity tells us that the satellites zooming up above us have slower ticking clocks.
Actually, the GPS satellite clocks run 38 microseconds faster than ground based clocks.
This is because they are not moving fast enough (special relativity: faster means slower clock) to counter the general relativistic effects (stronger gravitational field means slower ground clocks).
Both clocks seem to be slower for an observer in free space.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
In Soviet Russia, mate over-analyzes you !
That's probably chimerism. A male and female embryo fuse at an early stage and their cells end up in random places.
That's known to happen in humans too.
Once a bird/mammal starts out as a genetic male or female, it will develop into that (mostly, there are some hormonal imbalances possible).
Not so in fish/amphibians/reptiles, that start out as genetic male/female/undetermined but develop into a temperature determined gender (a higher temperature biases the male/female mix towards one of the two, usually male).
Just make sure you don't pick those frogs that can switch genders.
They all can. Gender in amphibians and reptiles is largely determined by the ambient temperature of the eggs.
This is unlike mammals and birds where mostly predetermined by genetics (sex chromosome).
Let's look at their members list: Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Csico, [...]
They're the ones that will make a GUI interface in Visual Basic to give you DRM support.
Instead they will complain about the haptics sucking the life out of their batteries...
If only we had a way to go back and keep this happening, by using some sort of "time machine"...
Oh but maybe we will go back and cause(d) it to happen...
An EU company says you only need to brush for six seconds....
Yeah, but those are metric seconds instead of US imperial seconds...
There's as much advertising space running down the sides as there is content running down the middle.
FTFY
And everyone ingests tiny arachnids all the time...
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.
