Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/09/17 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Video games are far more popular in Japan than the US. Japan had I think two total people killed by guns all last year. Probably more than that will be shot in the US between the time when I began this reply and the time when I hit submit. Likewise, Australia as a culture has the same gruff trailblazing independent strains we have in the US. They pick fights and have brawls and easily do so more than we do. Same result as Japan, though. Next to zero gun deaths. There’s no need to invent reasons here. No need for pretend explanations or unfounded speculation or any mental gymnastics. We’re not more violent than other nations. We don’t play more video games or watch more movies, violent or otherwise. We’re no more predisposed to murder than others. The US is different in only one relevant way from peer nations: Firearm availability.
  2. 2 points
    I'll answer your question: I havn't a bloody clue, OK? Now let me add some further comments....when we (the forum) suddenly has a newbie popping in asking a question with obviously a giant ego to feed, and when that newbie when requested for clarification of his questions by not one, but many reputable members, who are known as credentialed authorities in the discipline being discussed, answers with total arrogance and dismissal of those clarifications and requests, then in my mind that newbie needs to take a backward step, have a disprin, and a good lay down and start thinking as to why so many knowledgable members are making there requests. Otherwise other members observing such egotistical arrogant behavour from that newbie, will just dismiss him as another f$%#^&$# troll that science forums such as this seem to attract. I hope that helps.
  3. 2 points
  4. 1 point
    In all fairness, the OP has reached his newcomer temporary post limit and stated that he cannot answer at the moment. (We have seen this before). He also said (several times) that he would answer questions about his wording and hypothesis My only other post here was to take him at his word and ask a simple polite question about one particular aspect of this. I await the response with interest, when he is allowed to post this response.
  5. 1 point
    Ok I would like you to read this article. Apply the last section to the details in this article. Pay particular attention to how the above relates to the eugenstates and eugenvalues of the linear wave equations with regards to the Schodinger particles in a box. Pay particular attention to coherent states with regards to that box and the phenomena of reflectivity with the potential barrier and tunnelling. There is also excellent coverage of Schodinger time varying and time dependent aspects with regards to Schrodinger. " Quantum mechanics made Simple " lecture notes by Weng Cho CHEW https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://wcchew.ece.illinois.edu/chew/course/QMAll20130923.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiK19D2iOTWAhXoyFQKHQhXCRQQFgg6MAQ&usg=AOvVaw0o4yyrtoIw1Sge245aqO0i PS this article will help any other readers better understand what is going on here as well. Chapter 3 forward as operators are matrixes. Please review matrix algebra for other readers as I know the OP understands it. It will be required to understand my last two posts.
  6. 1 point
    "A slightly different version of General Relativity" So, that's slightly different from the one that gives the right answers...
  7. 1 point
    Go on then. No one is stopping you. Reported for trolling
  8. 1 point
    Please explain whast you mean by the expression
  9. 1 point
    If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post.
  10. 1 point
    Well, it is true that there were no words in your post that cannotbe found in a dictionary, the combination of some of those words is unusual in physics. Consider, as an example, your phrase " convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge". If this were a common, or even occassional physics phrase, then we might expect to find some examples on Google Scholar. But there are none. What about dropping one word: "counter-spatial centripetal charge"? No luck. Finally, when we get down to "centripetal charge" Google scholar returns three hits. That's 3 hits. In contrast, if we choose a phrase like centripetal acceleration we get 18,500 hits. That's eighteen thousand five hundred. If physicists are not using such phrases and you are discussing physics, perhaps you should try a change of terminology. If you think it is sufficient to let other terms "speak for themselves" then you haven't been paying attention to the way science has been reported for the last century or two. I thought I might try and throw you a life-line, so I looked for your phrase on DuckDuckGo. Success! Four, that's 4, hits! The trouble is they were all made by you. You might want to take the advice of swansont, a practicing physicist - use the language of the science correctly.
  11. 1 point
    Sadly, lotteries are a tax on the poor.
  12. 1 point
    Reminded me of this http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/hydrogenbeer.asp
  13. 1 point
    I've always thought of lotteries as a voluntary tax on the overly optimistic.
  14. 1 point
    Thats much better, now you have your outer products and the complex conjugates to satisfy the Born rule. Its not entirely accurate to state probability amplitude squared. Its more accurate to describe the Born rule as the amplitude times its own complex conjugate. As we are involving density matrixes. The outer product giving the tensor product of two tensors, which gives us a means to the Kronecker Delta connection. The inner product of two vectors returns a scalar quantity. This was why I wanted greater detail on the outer products. You now have that above. I will look over the above in more detail probably have time tomorrow. You have the tools for the Kronecker delta, but you will need Levi-Cevita connections for curved spacetime. [latex]|\psi_i><\psi_i|=P_m[/latex] you have the projector operator (more complete above )now use this to get your identity. The sum over all projectors of a space is your identity. Once you have the identity you under any basis you have the completeness equation [latex]\sum_i=|v_i><v_i|=\mathbb{I}[/latex] (closure relation) More correctly under QM the resolution of identity [latex]\sum_i=|i><i|=\mathbb{I}[/latex]
  15. 1 point
    scherado has been banned for multiple instances of rule-breaking in his quest to become the Troll King. We apologize that his interruption in the normal rational discourse was all noise and no signal whatsoever. Roger Dynamic Motion has been banned, NOT for incessant hijacking and almost daily irrationality, but for failing to respond to requests for clarity, EVER. Discussion requires that we express our ideas so others can understand. We wish him good luck with his ideas, whatever they were supposed to be.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Hire a small team of psychologists. Have them conduct a study of your method, then submit a report on it to your fiance that explains your method is bullshit and you are a fantasist. This should solve the problem one way or another.
  18. 1 point
    That would be a start. Citing them (directly) would be good too. If you can show that the hydrogen actually stays in the "hydrogen infused water", rather than diffusing straight out. I will be interested.
  19. 1 point
    You should raise the matter in a thread where discussion of the phrase is relevant and not pollute Silvestru's lighthearted thread. Silvestru, my apologies for adding to the pollution.
  20. 1 point
    Definitely some of my best work.
  21. 1 point
    Don't worry about it scherado. Just ignore him.
  22. 1 point
    The banned users thread has some great put downs ...
  23. 1 point
    Often people who do not understand mathematics look at a math text and it looks like non-sense. Unfortunately, a few then decide that if they write non-sense, it is mathematics!
  24. 1 point
    On this point I am with Michaeltannoury. There didn't seem to be any ambiguity in his OP about authorship.
  25. 1 point
    The original paper is available for download here.
  26. 0 points
    No one is especially interested in your riddles. If you have something as genuinely novel and interesting as you claim then lay it out for us. Contrary to your assertion your terminology obfuscates rather than clarifies. If you don't wish to accept that and don't wish to have your ideas considered then that is your choice. As far as I can see there is only one in this thread.
  27. 0 points
    I came here because science is always best. I obsessed over "the mystery method" and "the game" and "rules of the game" "the layguide" Neuro-linguistic programming, all of it. I decided I would master it all when I was 14 and by 23 I mastered it all. I taught a class on the mystery method to over 100 guys with notebooks and pencils and questions. She knows all of this and, with every new girl she hears about, she always believes that I'm cheating or that I have ulterior motives. I can't blame her, I did it to myself, but it's been years since then. I'm not a cheater. How do I settle this once and for all?
  28. -1 points
    I, personally, am well aware that Psychic phenomena exists and that there are, in fact, real psychics out there. If you do not believe then there is no need to participate in this discussion as it would be an impasse. Here is my questionnaire to see if you're qualified to be a part of this conversation. Do you believe that the mind is physical? (Are you a materialist?) If so, do you believe that the mind works just as the brain appears? (Neural networks, connections, etc.) If so, do you believe that information is reducible to changes in our environment? If so, do you believe that these changes in our environment are what determines the structure of the brain (barring the genome)? If so, do you believe that our knowledge is a subcomponent of the structure of the brain? If so, do you believe that knowledge is small, maybe even particulate? If so, do you believe that knowledge can exist outside of your, and others, heads? If so, do you believe in quantum mechanics? I believe that this is a nice qualifying questionnaire for the discussion that may be to come...
  29. -1 points
    Area 54, No need to change terminology, it is what it is and i can clarify terms if need be. The point is they do actually denote real phenomena. They may not be used in the very specific manner and order that i've written them in (hence your very scientific method of google searching came up with naught). If you know what these terms mean individually then you can easily put together what they refer to when used in the way i've presented them. They are correctly placed and used in perfect context. I'm sorry but you won't be finding answers to these questions in contemporary academia, it's fairly new at least in regards to the contemporary scientific community and hasn't been entirely assimilated into academia yet, not as a whole, but the knowledge does exist, in parts and pieces, among plenty of sources you would easily recognize such as Nikola Tesla for one example. I think the reason the order these terms have been applied perplexes some of us is because they represent a unified model and understanding of EM somewhat contradictory to what is currently accepted. Take note however when i do say that there is really nothing 'new' about it, the issue is popularity i guess. Question1 is really an exercise in due diligence, i expect nobody here to instantly grasp what is being asked much less be able to answer it. But if you hadn't guessed already it simply refers to the properties of electromagnetism on a most fundamental level. There is a very important reason i have not used other terms where i could have, such as 'electron'. Because the question is rooted within a not well known model and framework, they simply do not teach EM this way in mainstream education. It's a little bit fringe i admit, but not for long i promise you. So, perhaps you'd like to present what you DID find, and attempt to piece together what it being asked. With pedantics aside, it's very simple really. Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author. If you're all still scratching your noggins after i see some effort, i'd be happy to simplify my sentence structure, and 'water it down' as it were, but i expected better than that. Again, i'm also happy to clarify any terms that are being struggled with, but i really feel that WYSIWYG and that shouldn't be necessary for the intellectualism i expect to find here from this lovely forum. Thanks for your time so far. Good luck cracking this riddle.
  30. -1 points
    I repeat, there is nothing wrong with my terminology. Of course you'd berate me for wordplay and inventing pseudoscience instead of considering that you may be ignorant of something. How humble of you. It sounds like you want me to answer my own questions. Well what would be the point in that? If i 'tech up' the first question as you propose, using terms you are familiar with, the question wouldn't mean the same thing, it is what it is, break it up into parts, you know what these things mean you've probably just never thought to arrange them that way because you wouldn't know how they describe the attributes of the two conjugate phenomena. As i said, it's contradictory to conventional theories of atomism and relativism and more akin to grand unified field mechanics. If you don't want to investigate and try to find an answer, don't bother, but don't criticize me for correct and concise terminology because you don't know what it refers to. I love how you all are focusing on pedantics and trying to shift the burden of explanation to the questioner whilst completely ignoring my 2 legitimate questions i've prompted you to answer time and time again. Hope i'm not rattling too many egos here. It's OK not to know something, let's not cry about it or behave like butthurt know-it-alls. There's something here that's worth looking at in my opinion. Answer the questions, or don't, but let's not resort to ad hominems and false accusations. I've invented nothing here, it's merely presented from an already unified understanding of individual things you'd all be very familiar with initially. Please don't make me repeat myself yet again. I've said all that needs to be said. Thanks =) Addendum: Seeing as i'm now unable to reply to this thread, for whatever reason, i'll edit my last point here and leave it at that. " If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post." - Oh sure, because when the village idiot turns up at a Stephen Hawking lecture and says "I don't get what you mean, you have to clarify" it's because Hawking lacks eloquence and clarity in his language. Nothing at all to do with the listener's nescience. lol That quasi-axiomic statement is a farce my friend, sorry. "What does X mean in your understanding?" - Is that really so difficult? Haha, you guys are a hoot! Sooo, just to be clear. 1. Nobody understands this terminology and consider the question moot by virtue of it's "made-up" and non-scientific nature. 2. Nobody here is prepared to denote what a field is in principle. 3. Nobody here knows what a Bloch wall is denotatively, and can explain why it has no locus. That's great guys, that's all i needed to hear. Thanks for all your input.
  31. -2 points
    You could just say "No i can't answer this, i don't understand your terminology" and then ask for clarification of any terms. I'm happy to provide that and I can assure you there are all terms you can find in a physics dictionary and ones that aren't really speak for themselves and couldn't mean anything other than what they sound. Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)