Leaderboard

What are you trying to do here? Equation 1 is an unusual way of writing the standard equation of a circle x2 + y2 = r2 (note you don't need LaTex to write this, just use the sub and super script icons on the text input editor, labelled x2 and x2) your way puts you into immediate trouble since if D is the diameter D = 2r so equation 2 becomes [math]\frac{C}{2} = \sqrt {{r^2} - {{\left( {2r} \right)}^2}} = \sqrt { - 3{r^2}} [/math] So you are trying for the square root of a negative number. Furthermore if C is the length of the circumference, you can't just replace y with half of it.

That is not the equation for the circumference of a circle. That will give you the y coordinates for the (two) points on a circle (with radius r) corresponding to the given x value. You could, perhaps, integrate over a range of x values to get the circumference but it seems unnecessarily complicated because: C = 2 pi r

In the short video clip the dust(?) particles are moving so the glass pane is not stationary relative to the camera. It is not possible to tell if effects are from moving the glass or if pressure is squeezing the wd40 mix or if other effects are shown. Note that the magnet does not affect light (if that is what you suggest). I'm not sure I follow, you squeezed the magnet and the magnet got positive a charge? How? Please try to clarify and to back up your claims. Can you explain why you think that?

Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated- a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge). While we are dealing with exactly the same event, the associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game.

I read what you write. You get your digs in at every turn. Even in this bullshit apology, which is just your way equivocating around inferring I'm crazy. It was intentional and you're still doing it. Then you prove my point by spinning it back to the Democrats at the end. Say anything to avoid the substance, is all you got.

Wow. Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion. I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP. I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.

The way things are going towards cars broadcasting data, you might not need to rely on motion detection.

I'm trying to post about the real world and real people. You seem to be dreaming of a world where everyone follows your wise advice. If we had that, you wouldn't need laws or prisons. Clint Eastwood films were huge box office. You've illustrated my point. Even in movies, people get satisfaction from revenge. It's a basic human instinct.

Delusion, in your case. 😉

(1) Yes, see this extract from the latest version of 'Pharmaceutical Analysis' by Watson. Note the tolerance on the entry for the burette. As a matter of interest what tolerance would you ascribe when the buretter reads 0.00? Would you allow a negative volume?

How about almond scrimshaw?

I’m familiar with the term kiss ass. It’s the family motto so kiss ass.

you could read the thread...

yes, intelligent design has a case, it's more scientific than all the evolution nonsense.