Leaderboard

That is not what "squaring the circle" means. Given a circle of area 1, yes, there also does exist a square also of area 1. That is not a problem. The problem is that from a line segment of length equal to the radius (or equivalently the diameter) of such a circle, it is not possible only using ruler and compass to construct a line segment to make a side of a square of the same area as the circle. The claim in your old book does not make immediate sense. It is true that if you are given a line segment of unit length, then you can quite obviously construct a square of unit area. But having been additionally given a circle of unit area would not be helpful in any way to do it.

The stance here is that the effects of Relativity are real. The stance here is that the biological entity do age. Note: I disagree, but who cares?

The second link in OP (https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7237) states that the 10% claim is "bullshit". It does not support the 10% claim and gives several reasons why the number may be incorrect. Talk page of wikipedia "List of nonreligious Nobel laureates" states "The main source of this article is not reliable": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates#The_main_source_of_this_article_is_not_reliable Good points, I'll add a local example. Wikipedia lists 32 swedish laureates. During the years of Nobel Prizes Sweden have made several changes* to how church and state are related. Those reforms could impact what individuals would have answered at that time compared to more present times. It would require a lot of rigor to be able to produce reliable definitions and a usable list. This is just an example, for one single country, intended to highlight the difficulty with this kind of material. *) https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/church-and-state until year 2000 state and church was united Swedish only found: http://www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19510680.htm Until 1952 you had to belong to a religious community, you could exit stat church only if you registered at another religious community.

It may be easier to understand your point if one thinks about trying to survive in a resource constrained environment. Increased strength required increased calories. When food is scarce, that’ll lead to increased suffering and increased starvation. There are other similar examples, but Zaps point remains. The target Raider is setting is arbitrary and context/situation dependent. It is not objectively better as is being suggested.

The word "lifter" seems to suggest that some force will accelerate something so that it lifts. It may help with an overview of what the magnetic lifter is before going into the details of the calculations. Edit: Pictures above are cropped. Instead of having to go to an external site each time I'll insert the picture here:

Only 10% of Nobel prize winners being atheist wouldn't surprise me at all. Remember, even the Catholic Church promotes evolution. Not only that, but not everyone interprets religion the same, just because you believe in God doesn't mean you believe Noah's ark was real or homosexuals are going to hell.

I am not an expert, so if I say something incorrect, wtf may want to correct it. But i am pretty sure that it only works in one possible way. Namely among the infinitesimals you have to pick a standard one, say call it \(\varepsilon,\) and likewise among the infinite hyperreals you pick an \(\omega,\) and then you arrange that multiplication works so that \(\varepsilon \omega = 1,\) that is to say, they are reciprocals. And in general, if \(a\) is real and nonzero, then \(a\varepsilon\) and \(\omega /a \) would be other possible, and just as good, choices. And you do always get a real number by multiplying an infinitesimal \(a\varepsilon\) by an infinite \(b\omega\) when \(a\) and \(b\) are real. What I think is perhaps a little interesting is that once you have made your choices of \(\varepsilon\) and \(\omega,\) then because you can multiply all hyperreals, there is an even much smaller infinitesimal (it is still called that, right?) \(\varepsilon^2\) and en even larger infinite \(\omega^2\) which you could have picked in place of \(\varepsilon\) and \(\omega,\) without anything working any different. Which indicates that there are even more brutal ways of making smaller infinitesimals than just by dividing by \(2\) or any other large real. The exact converse situation would occur if we were to introduce new hyperreals \(\sqrt{\varepsilon}\) and \(\sqrt{\omega}\) which are hugely larger, respectively smaller, than \(\varepsilon\), and \(\omega\), themselves. It would mean creating an extension of our original field, vaguely similar to how we create \(\mathbb{C}\) as an extension of \(\mathbb{R}\) by adding \(\sqrt{-1}.\) Except in the case of hyperreals, it looks to me like the new extension field is pretty much the same as the one we had already.

Again: Are you discussing the moment a photon is radiated from some point. Or the photon along the path from A to B after it was radiated? It is tricky to try to write good answers since new questions and claims does not match what basic physics (observations and math) says. Again: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point? It is completely OK to say "none" and then we start from explaining and providing references from there.

That's not how it works. Consider a carbon atom. It is arranged in a specific crystal pattern, and the electrons are in specific orbitals to account for the molecular structure of graphite. And its colour is black. Take those same atoms and associated electrons, and rearrange them so that the crystal structure is different. The electrons for the new molecule bond using different orbitals, but the exact same electrons. And the colour of diamonds is clear. That's the beauty of good science ( as opposed to WAGuesses ), it fits observational evidence.

I think this is the phenomenon. There's a simulation on the page - Click link under quote:

I think the trampoline explanation is really bad because there are two types of curvature intrinsic curvature and extrinsic curvature. The curvature introduced by GR is intrinsic curvature which means that in order to detect it does not require leaving the space (manifold) the observer is in. In more mathematical terms the space does not need to be embedded in a space of higher dimensions for a radius of curvature to exist. On the other hand trampoline curvature is extrinsic curvature, which requires embedding in a space of higher dimension. This means that the trampoline is initially a plane and pulled down into a curved shape in a third dimension at right angles to the original plane.

No. Lenz's law will not result in a force larger than that of gravity. The best it can do is balance it. Otherwise you have a violation of conservation of energy. You could make two tube + platform systems and couple them with a pulley + cable, so one goes up while the other goes down. It would double the slowing effect (so you could use fewer magnets on each platform) and the empty one would rise while the other one descended. (In reality there are a number of technical issues with this system if one wanted to actually build it. Platform tipping and jamming, for example. If it's the harness as you describe, there would be the worry that the magnets get too far from the metal and decrease the retarding force, plus the practical consideration of making a jacket full of magnets without them sticking to each other as you put it on or took it off)

Yes and no. Fluids and fluid mechanics includes liquids, gases and plasmas. Magnetohydrodynamics started off studying the interaction between the mechanical properties and th electrical properties of gases and plasmas though its ambit seems to have been extended to include liquids and solutions such as copper sulphate solution. I suppose this was because there is a very marked difference between those interactions when the fluid is a plasma or gas and when it is a solution or liquid. In gases as against liquids, the fluid velocities tend to be much larger, the densities much lower so the particles have much more space to operate in. This significantly affects the interactions. In plasmas and gases (compressible fluids) the average distance between particles is large but subject to large mechanical interactions that can bring them close together. These effects include Venturi effects, Sonic effects (Alven waves) , Shockwaves. In solutions the ions are close together and interact electrostatically to produces such effects as polarisation and overpotential, effects hardly seen in gases. So yes Copper sulphate solution is electrically neutral overall and it contains ions, both positive and negative. Both ions can move and will do so selectively under the influence of an electric field, otherwise they move about randomly in solution. They do not separate but remain mixed up. With an electric field the negative ones move towards what is called the cathode and positive ones move towards the anode. This means there is an equal and opposite current of positive ions moving one way and negative ones moving in the opposite direction. But this only happens if there is an externally connected circuit. Electrons then enter the solutions at the anode and leave at the cathode via this connection. The total current is thus the sum of both ionic magnitudes. There are no free electrons in solution. @ Strange Connecting wires are also electrically neutral. Electrons enter at one end and leave at the other. The addition of an external magnetic field raises more interaction possibilities, particularly for fast moving gaseous and plasma charged particles. In summary, in solutions electrical resistance (conduuctance) dominates the electrical side of the interaction and compression density dominates the mechanical side. Whilst in plasmas and gases reactive impedance effects dominate the electrical effects and density chages the mechanical ones. Please note this is a very broad brush treatment and this is currently a rapidly developing Science.

The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not just eliminating disease. In this case the two groups will be competing for the same limited resources. University places go to those who can pay and have the grades - some smart or athletic poor people may have got through to uni on scholarships, but now they are barely average so no go. Same for jobs. The modified people will be stronger and smarter and better looking (which shouldn't impact on getting most jobs, but the reality is that is does - they even get away with more crime). Social mobility is hard enough as it is, this would erect an iron curtain through which very few poor people could ever overcome. Add to that our track record on how we treat groups different to our own. It would take an extreme optimist to think there would be no abuse of the new under class.

Evolutionarily, it's a bad idea because the more variation there is the more chance there is of overcoming any future unknown adversity. Arbitrarily selecting for certain traits may reduce reproductive fitness in a population

Hi DrP, nice to see you here! The very nature and usefulness of a forum are the contributions that don't go in the expected direction, so "isn't what you were looking for" is absolutely fine. A somewhat similar attempt was at the octo-basse, an oversized bowed string instrument made by Vuillaume. As the musician couldn't reach the top of the strings, he played the notes' height on a keyboard, and a mechanical transmission pressed the strings at the corresponding length. No electricity needed. And believe it or not, the Montreal symphonic orchestra has recently bought such an instrument. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=octo-basse

I agree. It seems like a lot of them these days get their scientific information from an episode of Star Trek which claims particles are identical being a cover-up, so it doesn't create a public Star Trek Universe scare of people actually being murdered by transporter technology. I don't believe I could have made it any more clear. If you are completely lost, then I am at a loss of what else to tell you about it. I don't even know what this forums stance is on that or what stance you expect me to take here. I made a proof almost a year ago in a thread when I first started using the forum. Then studiot was so convoluted with the idea that I had a problem with relativity, I couldn't even get to a point to rather a biological entity actually ages under the effects of SR or not. I think it was called proof of SR in Minkowski Spacetime or something like that.

Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to lights momentum before ? How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

Yes you most definite revisit aether but when considering the aether , also consider the semantics and what an aether actually is . We on earth are within the earths electromagnetic field , when we transmit a signal we are effectively transmitting EMR through the electromagnetic field . We could consider the earths EMF an aether if we consider semantics differently in relationship to aether . What is an aether ?