Leaderboard

There's a section in Forum Announcements called Banned/Suspended Users. All the banned ones are history. 😁

Ignorant <> Willfully ignorant

Reading the initial part of the source: (from https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2777 ) The above is saying that your attempt is not possible in classical mechanics (=Newton). Case closed. Also: Note that I already told you about a possible runaway effect of your claim. You waved that away as "exotic assumptions"*. Someone reading your article and finding that referenced sources effectively falsifies your claims probably will come to the same conclusions as we have done in this thread; there is no support for your claims. Thanks. (There are too many new issues added, I can't address them all, I'll try to focus one the vertical bold case and fig 1 device) *) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123261-circumventing-newtons-third-law-through-euler-inertial-forces/?do=findComment&comment=1155713

Ah, then stop worrying. Horrible article, full of misunderstandings, please don't give it another thought. It was NOT written by a Richard Dawkins type.

You missed a nice shoutout to QAnon for their selfless work against pedophilia, from the man who asked a columnist once if it was wrong to be more attracted to your 13-year old daughter than your wife.

Ok. Then we can drop the examples and start from the basic. For instance what kind of regular expression you use. There are different variants with different syntax. If you want to use your own personal syntax you need to tell us all the rules you have invented.

No, in regular expressions it does NOT mean union.... https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8020848/how-is-the-and-or-operator-represented-as-in-regular-expressions You mixed two different independent things. Regular expressions with mathematics (set theory).. If you would enter a sample regular expression with a sample text string into the online debugger, you should see that it doesn't work as you think.

No. The threads outside the bolt and inside the nut have helical shape. The centre of mass of the nut follows straight line while rotating. Same as a rotating bullet exiting a rifled* barrel of a gun. Rotating, not doing any helical movement. (1) is false *) Helical groovings that are machined into the internal (bore) surface of a gun's barrel.

Probably not. I'm of the same mind as Markus here --and I don't mean in genius, and probably he didn't mean that either. In my case it's more of an "on the shoulders of giants" kind of idea. Though to me, that doesn't mean I don't value contributions from people analyzing complicated scenarios. Quite the contrary. Some explanations I've found here are nothing short of a masterpiece. But I for one need the shortcuts that the big picture gives you (these words "big picture" have appeared on another thread recently.) If only some people saw what many of us can see thanks to these great minds. It's as if someone had given you night-vision goggles to see in the dark. Why won't Michel put on the goggles and see the vistas? That's what I ask myself. The big picture gives you power, even if you're not a powerful thinker. Mathematical tools take you farther and farther afield, and uphill. It's as if someone took you with a helicopter to the top of the mountain and you said, "oh, I see." Then you can follow the terrain downstream. It's such a pleasure! I think that this self-indulgence is both the greatest advantage and the first deadly sin of the theorist. You need to see the landscape, and you must cover a lot of ground.

Note that this is true only so long as the falling frame is small enough - the equivalence principle is a purely local statement. Once the frame becomes large enough, it will be possible to detect tidal effects, which are inherent in a gravitational field that is due to sources of energy-momentum.

Good point! Also points at the issues with the opening question. In regular expression union is represented by "|", it's not represented by the charter "U". @zak100 Maybe you could clarify if actually wish to discuss regular expressions* or something else? Its not obvious if you try to solve an issue with programming syntax or have a more general issue with sets, logic or similar. Also, just a friendly reminder; we are on a discussion forum, your short questions "please tell me", "please give examples" etc does not, in my opinion, promote fruitful discussions. They are more suitable for entering into a search engine for a quick and precise answer. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression

I want to say it should be: (bba)* ∩ (aab)* Just to be clear I'm assuming by 'U' you mean Union and by '*' negation.

Sorry, I thought you were familiar with regular expressions. I'll explain later Your answer is incorrect. You seem to assume that the cheater "U" has some special meaning. That is not correct. See my first post.

I don't believe you keep a spider as a pet. Or actually know, or ever met anyone who does. I bet you just read about the idea in a book, didn't you?

You are overreacting. I wonder why you participate in this discussion if you believe I am ignorant. Do you know which fictitious force could mimic a rectilinear real force? This is all about Fig.1-Upper and the title of the paper is to the point. Why are you still here, then?