Royston

Unfortunately, the only example I have, is the answer to an assignment question, which I can't post online. It looks, as I want it to look, that isn't the problem. The problem is, I want a simple command to seperate my equations, i.e how it looks on here if I'd press 'return'... \documentclass[10pt]{article} \begin{document} \section*{Question 1 (b)} \boldmath To determine the implicit solution of...$nothing to see here$ we proceed as follows. \begin{flushleft} For the left hand side... \begin{flushleft} $nothing to see here also$ so... \begin{flushleft} $more nothing to see here$ So the implicit solution is $no answer here, go learn some math$ \end{document} The '\begin{flushleft}' command separates the equations, but this clearly isn't the right command i.e it throws out an \end(flushleft} command through TeXnic. It's just irritating, and I want to construct some templates for my assignments. Hope that makes sense.

I'm sure this question will sound incredibly stupid to some, but until now, I've handwritten my assignments. I've started using LaTex, and I've already nearly finished an assignment, which looks fine, but... How do you insert breaks between sentences in LaTex e.g To determine the solution of <equation here>, we proceed as follows... <equation> <equation> I'm using MikTex, and the TeXnic center platform...however I keep using the \begin{flushleft} command to create a space between my equations...which isn't right. I've searched through the basic tutorials, and I can't find a basic command.

mmmm, Possum. Is Bush Baby out of the question ?

I realise this is off topic, though I haven't the foggiest what the topic really is in this thread. However, it's statements like this that make me wonder if an SR basics GUT (ground up tutorial) is needed. Although, judging by czimborbyan's posts it would fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case), but I may knock something together in the next few weeks.

Fine additions they are too...I thought the 'similar threads' idea in particular, was a master stroke. Tsk, I thought you were too smart to be baited into a response.

What other scenarios are there ? Either they have been around for a while...or they havn't. Which is kinda why I was asking, I just couldn't see anything mentioned recently under announcements. Hence, maybe I was being a bit thick, and didn't notice them before. They're good additions, are they going to be permanent? Or has somebody been fiddling around with vb recently, and not mentioned it yet...just curious, that's all.

Have I been half asleep for the last few weeks, because I never noticed when scrolling down to the bottom of the threads, that there are now 'bookmarks' and 'similar threads'. Are these new additions, or am I being incredibly non-observant.

I'm not an avid watcher of the show, but I guess it would make the field more exciting in class, and as Swansont said, it certainly shows how wide the application of maths is. It does gloss over the details, which is understandable, most of the principles are far beyond high school level (or whichever level will be considered.) However, as a tool to influence a class, and make the subject more lively I think it would work. I think it's also a case, that numb3rs is quite a unique show, and it's the best that's out there that (although it doesn't go into much detail) uses the correct principles for certain situations....AFAIK. They don't make up any old rubbish, and so at least the source of the information for the classroom is legitimate. Which is more than can be said for other programmes.

There was some discussion as to whether maths could be considered art. I was sent home from work today, due to a rather nasty infection, so I decided to plot some simple functions through mathcad, that shows you can manipulate an equation to obtain a desired shape. For anyone who uses mathcad, I've supplied the functions at the top of the pics. Not particularly special, but I hope it illustrates you can be creative with maths if you wish...I've added pretentious names, to make the images more arty Hmm, having problems uploading pics... Right...Dark Knight, and Valley of the Icey Math People. Note the functions are very simple, but plotted on a surface.

Or perhaps his genius, can't be ignored. Seems to be working fine for me...the ignore feature that is.

Pathetic mortals, You are no match for my wrath, Spammy, spam, spam spam I like the cut, of Phi's jib it's so nice, but his Haiku's they suck though My friends they insist, That such tenuous Haiku's Are so 98

When I quit previously, for roughly a year, it seemed to get much harder around two weeks to a month after quitting. Although it's quite hellish for the first week, people tend to ready themselves and compensate for how it will feel. It's sustaining it, that's the trick. I can't remember why I started again...probably down the pub. But I've been weak and pathetic and didn't even consider quitting this year, albeit I wouldn't class myself a heavy smoker. Congrats to you and Dak, I've always considered it a daft habit, but logic and cravings don't tend to mix.

Not that this addresses the OP, but the supernova debate (i.e as an origin for our solar system) has only been settled recently. Although suitable candidates i.e radioisotopes have been found that point towards a supernova, the conditions when they were formed wasn't confirmed. However this thread reminded me of an article from sciencedaily, where the debate appears to have been put to rest... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081002172445.htm From the article...

Sorry for the blunt reply npts2020, I was at work on Christmas Eve, everyone else was down the pub So I was staring at the equations scratching my head after reading your post....of course after massive time periods there's no reason to believe the value wouldn't change. I remember reading, even the fine structure constant would be subject to change if you turn the clock back enough, IIRC around 7 billion years, so I'll look for a link. In the meantime, here's a link to npr, which I believe covers WardXmodem's post. Don't have time to listen to it right now...I really should be studying. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98499894

Can you please provide a reference for this, since when does the cosmological constant change with time ? You can plug in different values to describe a vacuum e.g negative or positive pressure, but that's different from what you've stated.

That'd work. That would prompt the newcomer to actually read through, to see if something has already been covered. There will still be topics where somebody would want to sound off, as it were...e.g animal testing springs to mind. But there's nothing that can be really done about that, bar locking the thread.

I generally give comedies a chance, but I had to turn over before the episode had finished. I think it's shite.

I could be wrong, but aren't the majority of necroed threads from new users, or sometimes fly-by users, where such a thing wouldn't be noticed. For example they google a subject, the thread comes up, and they register and post they're comment, without due consideration.

I would do, but I hear most the tutors are too preoccupied with research to teach properly.

The reasoning with the course I recently finished, was to show how the Schrodinger equation imrpoved upon the Bohr model (a lesson in critical thinking I guess). However, it still devoted an entire chapter on the Bohr model, which seemed like a waste of time to me, especially as it kept pointing out it was wrong. It really should of just cut to the chase, and spent more time on the Schrodinger equation, because, frustratingly it glossed over a lot of the details...albeit the details will be covered in later courses. A wobbly Arctic giraffe ?

And to you iNow, and everyone else here on SFN. I've literally just got back from the consumerist nightmare that is Christmas shopping, which was surprisingly stress free. However I've still treated myself to a bottle of Port, and a selection of cheeses. It's the thought that counts...so done.

No, as already stated, it's irrelevant. People who are 'experts' in their field can still talk crap. My argument about what makes a 'scientist' is separate from whether an argument holds, surely you can differentiate between the two i.e if an inexperienced ten year old picks a hole in an experts argument holds, well it holds...tenure in a certain field is meaningless if their argument is flawed. Not really, science, by definition demands empirical evidence and prediction. If said person can provide that, then we're all listening. You Tom, are obligated to prove your argument, and build on already established (and experimentally proven) theories, if you fail to do that, the people on here will question it...what do you expect from a science forum ?

That's the only point I would class myself as a scientist, anything else is a student of, or a person interested in, the field of science. They certainly don't deserve the title, until they're making contributions to the field of science, as you said. For instance, I'd be either arrogant or ignorant to class myself as a physicist, until I'd discovered or proven some phenomena that was beneficial to the field...it could be something small, but until that day, I'm just a student.

Tom, as Mooey has pointed out, whatever you aspire to is irrelevant to the discussion. My education is geared towards cosmology and astrophysics, but so what. Plus, although I agree with your conclusion, parts of your reasoning, I have to say, are poorly conveyed. Also, it's not hard to provide citations and references, I really can't understand why this is an issue, for instance... Citation please. As for the OP, I took the liberty to plough through this thread and here are some model answers, (there are other good answers from other people)... Example 1 Example 2 I completely agree with Severian's point here... Yes, this has been a free-for-all for posting nonsense I have no argument with this, (though I disagree it was 'clearly said') and I doubt anyone, with a rudimentary understanding of the subject will argue with your conclusion. My contention with this thread is the abundance of hand waving, stated as fact. For passers by on this forum, they're going to walk away with some very strange ideas of astronomy and cosmology. I hope you can see why this is irritating, hence my post. There's a place for ideas that are outside the widely accepted models, and that's speculations. If they really do have something substantial (which is sadly rare) then it deserves a place here.

Because I said so.