All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. J.C.MacSwell

    Dangerous politic climate

    I indicated they definitely should not be responsible to in their reporting of stated Democrat leaders...as per what you asked. I would be happy to see both sides of the media change both content and tone toward a more accurate and civil discourse. I'm not sure how this can be achieved, without placing further limits on free speech.
  3. This story might be of interest: https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
  4. Lots of scam journals around like this. Usually promising, and delivering, quick "publication", though at a hefty publication fee. A good deal for crackpots who have no other way to get their crap published. But a pretty tough deal for beginning researchers should they fall into the trap.
  5. Today
  6. dimreepr

    Shamima Begum

    a very coherent rant, plus one.
  7. CJWilli1

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    I believe (w/o evidence) that there is a ultimate underlying cause. That is the quantum flux that I have described. At this point we’re discussing philosophy. I love to discuss philosophy, but let’s not get sidetracked for now. I have one idea. We would have to develop an accurate mathematical model of the quantum flux that I have described. Then we would use that model to predict the “uncertain” position of an electron. Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I gotta head to work. I’ll be back on late tonight or tomorrow.
  8. "Promotion" means (at least to me) "advertisement". Better word would be "acceptance" IMHO. According to: https://www.scitechnol.com/instructionsforauthors-journal-physics-research-applications.php "Article Publication Charges: Publishing under Open Access mode involves a publication fee of US $919." ..and so what.. ?
  9. Can anyone comment on the provenance of this 'journal' ? It promotes this rubbish for instance (Aug 2018) https://www.scitechnol.com/peer-review/gravity-is-a-myth-CHpy.php?article_id=8027
  10. John Cuthber

    Shamima Begum

    Due process does it the other way round.The action taken (stripping her citizenship) is manifestly illegal under international law. Well, strictly speaking... While surrounded by a bunch of people who may well be sympathetic to ISIS, she still says that she supports them. However, she is asking for passage back home to the UK. Who can tell what she will say when she's no longer in among that bunch? What Process? The one which the Home Secretary has ignored? Except she's not. She's British. No Odd as it may seem, you need a trial before you have a conviction. Unless, of course, a court remembers that she was a minor when she made that decision and has not subsequently been in a position to change her mind. She's now trying to do so. But, for some reason, you seem to have decided to forbid that option. The government of Bangladesh had never heard of her. She is not, nor has she ever been a bangladeshi citizen. She has never visited the place. Imagine it was the other way round- she was born to british parents in Bangladesh and now wanted to go back there. Imagine the Bangladeshi government was trying to claim she was British. How would that play out in the UK? Because, if we decide to ignore the rule of law, we might as well invite ISIS to run the place for us. Don't you see that we have to show that we are better than them? Handing him over to the Americans, knowing what would happen, makes Canada responsible for what happened to him at their hands. They shouldn't have done it; they didn't have to. The difference is that what the Americans did was legal under US law, but what Canada did was illegal under Canadian law. Fundamentally it looks like she's a criminal. We should treat her the same as any other criminal who went abroad and is now wishing to return. Bring them back, and take them to court.
  11. Bushranger

    Metallurgy: Old fire escape tubes.

    You still do not seem to get it. Those fire escape tunnels were only used a short time...then abandoned within a year as they lost function (slipperiness)...they are not what is used in modern times. As for, "...going there and taking a sample.", I would need a time machine because the school(s) and the Aluminum (or stainless steel tubes) have been gone for about 50 years or so. "...examine in mass spectrometer..." If I had a sample, I would not need to pull a mass spectrometer out of my butt ...all I would need is a Oxyacteline torch. Aluminum melts at about 1200 degrees...way before reaching Red heat, where as steels melt at about 2700 degrees (Red heat). You knowledge of metals seems to be theoretical rather than practical. It seems the mystery remains...but, if my theory (the formation of Aluminum Oxide), holds, they were constructed of Aluminum, not stainless steel(s), and were an example of not understanding the properties or requirements when choosing a material.
  12. studiot

    Elucubrations on positve, negative & imaginary numbers

    But Michel doesn't want to do this. He want to use only imaginary numbers and that is where his problems start. Technically by themselves imaginary numbers do not form an 'algebra'. Of course, both the real numbers and the complex numbers do. This issue is so fundamental that we normally take it for granted and don't bother to mention it or state it. We just so used to cracking on with appropriate mathematical object we don't even realise we are automatically selecting them. Using only only imaginary numbers doesn't lead to mathematical nonsense, it is just a helluva lot more restrictive than the alternatives - as you rightly observe Michel is finding out.
  13. Ten oz

    Collusion with Russia

    As previously mentioned I suspect the speculation that Mueller was finished was just Barr's opening move to place pressure on Mueller. Barr can't fire Mueller outright or stop the investigation less he wants to spend the next several years embroiled in obstruction of justice charges. Signalling to the press that things are wrapping up was a good opening play. It gets people moving towards the exists and creates an sense that things are taking too long and/or that Mueller is dragging his feet.
  14. dimreepr

    Shamima Begum

    satire needs a target, and your subtext is prety clear.
  15. Ten oz

    Dangerous politic climate

    While Trump himself is an individual his office and support network is made up by many. You say Conservative leaning media definitely shouldn't change their tone yet they are the ones championing Trump whom you admit is behaving immorally. If Trump is morally responsible than so are the ones who advocate for him. Trump regularly live tweets his favorite News shows, quotes his favorite pundits, calls in to shows, and has even brought news personalities out on stage with him. Trump brought conservative media mogul Steve Bannon into the White House with him as an adviser. Media mogul Roger Alles helped Trump manage his campaign. Trump and the right wing media have a more significant relationship than have any Presidents in the past had with media. It think you are making distinctions between Trump and others which don't actually exist in practicality. Below is a real opinion piece from 2015 posted by Foxnews "bravely" (sarcasm) challenging readers to wonder if the Unabomber had been right. It is an example of the sort on irresponsible behavior in media which has been fueling White Supremacist and anti govt anarchists for years. *I cited the Unabomber piece because it predates Trump while still being recent. Also because I assume it is something we can all agree is irresponsible. It is not an attempt to go tit for tat naming extremists from throughout history. I cited to highlight the the sort of stuff being posted by mainstream conservative media even before Trump came along and not to just randomly dredge up extremists.
  16. Hi Michel, I think you should see that your way of depicting real numbers and imaginary numbers leads to mathematical nonsense. You cannot treat imaginary numbers as if they are just some additional numbers to the real numbers. If you want to combine the two in one concept, i.e. in complex numbers, you need an independent depiction, in which real numbers and imaginary numbers are two different dimensions. Imaginary numbers do not fit on the real-number line: therefore you cannot say that i is greater or smaller than 1, or even zero. So i is not negative, and it is not positive. -i is just the inverse of i under summation, meaning that -i + i = 0. So complex numbers are more like 2-dimensional vectors: one axis is the real axis, the other axis is the imaginary one. Now multiplication becomes an interesting phenomenon. If you make a drawing (real axis horizontal, imaginary axis vertical) you can see what happens if you multiply complex numbers. Example: Take the complex number sqrt(3) + 1.i and calculate the square: You get: 3 + 2.sqrt(3).i + (i.i) 3 + 2.sqrt(3).i - 1 2 + 2.sqrt(3).i What can you say about this calculation in terms of vectors? As you know vectors have a length and an angle. So e.g. the 'length' of i is 1, just as the lengths of 1, -1 or -i. Length: Pythagoras: Length of sqrt(3) + 1.i: sqr(sqrt(3)) + sqr(1) = 3 + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4 => the length is sqrt(4) = 2. Length of 2 + 2.sqrt(3).i: sqr(2) + sqr(2.sqrt(3)) = 4 + 4.3 = 4 + 12 = 16 => the length is sqrt(16) = 4. So the length of the product is the product of the lengths. And that fits consistently to numbers that lie on the real axis only! No inconcistency. Now if you would look at the angles (use goniometry) you will discover that with multiplication of 2 complex numbers, you must add the angles. So what happens when you square e.g. 1 + i? The angle is 45o, so double the angle of the square: it is 90o. The length of the 'vector' 1 + i is sqrt(2), so the length of the result will be 2. 90o means the result lies on the imaginary axis, so the answer is 2i. Calculation: sqr(1 + i) = 1 + 2.i + i.i = 1 + 2.i - 1 = 2i. That fits. This formalism is used everywhere where complex numbers are used. E.g. Richard Feynman, in his pop-science book about QED, uses rotating arrows and their vector addition and multiplication to explain QED. But of course, he really is talking complex numbers, using the vector depiction. The whole building of physics would break down, if this way of treating complex number would be wrong. Does that help a bit?
  17. MigL

    Shamima Begum

    Your terse posts are really starting to annoy, Dimreepr. Care to explain what exactly, is prejudicial about the sentence in my post which you highlighted ?
  18. dimreepr

    Shamima Begum

    The very definition of prejudice.
  19. The eco (furniture) factory described in the book is still going strong. https://grimshaw.global/projects/herman-miller-factory/
  20. Thanks, I' ll check that out. Yes. I think its possible yet to to speed things up though. By taking the actions we can as individuals we demonstrate value in taking them, and promote that direction. Play a part in changing whats expected , by what is seen.
  21. swansont

    Am I losing my mind ???

    You are an oasis.
  22. swansont

    DARK ENERGY IN A NEW LIGHT

    What evidence do you have to support this? How can it be tested?
  23. swansont

    Gravitation constant or not

    ! Moderator Note Six pages in and the OP is trotting out the same answers that don’t address the questions, and has provided no evidence of this alleged difference in values between reality and Newtonian prediction. We’re done. Do not open another thread on this topic
  24. Timo Moilanen

    Gravitation constant or not

    Ti =my equality to G Traditionally dM*G*cos a /s^2 is said to be gravity of one piece and is added up to MG/r^2 I do the same addition but divide by Ftot/Fm to" compensate" for both cosa and the s^2 average at same time . Ftot= (sigma)dM/s^2 And this give the force F/m as I write that is 2/3*Ti*M/R^2 at surface and TiM/r^2 for very far away . so summing up is from 2/3 to1 times adding
  25. I doubt that. 360nM is well within the transmission range of most glass, never mind fused quartz. My guess is that it's scattered light from the excitation light.
  26. Strange

    Gravitation constant or not

    You seem to be trying to integrate the gravitational mass of all the points in an object. As you get the wrong result you have obviously made an error somewhere. Hopefully, someone like studiot will work through it to see where you have gone wrong (I don't have the patience - or probably even the math skills any more).
  1. Load more activity