alan2here

I mean in this one http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/yt2095/irr.jpg You've got plants to show up a different color and be identified from everything else?

Can't you just substitute hand for gloved hand or robotic arm and bath tub for lab tub?

Whats that dark shiny ferro-magnetic one?

lets put this thread in speculation and religion or whatever the section is called

In countries where this becomes the case you loose the coin. If this was the case in Great Britain then it would be very rare to ever see a 1p. I think I should start investing in pennies and a forge. I wonder if my oven will do?

If you put the red filter only and then has software in the camera to remove anything with too much saturation or too much red then you would only get plants show up. Why? How about animals?

Looked a little odd to see thorium mentioned above :¬P http://www.wowwiki.com/Thorium http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=10620 http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=12359 http://www.wowwiki.com/Thorium_Shells

Also http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8320026794801548475&ei=L87aSPFKkqyIAoedsKEL&q=meissner+effect&vt=lf&hl=en http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4365778073200188950&ei=xc7aSJKqEIqWiQKM_PiiCw&q=liquid+nitrogen&vt=lf&hl=en http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1579973/make_some_liquid_nitrogen/ :¬)

So there are some rare cases where time-reversal symmetry doesn't apply to anti-matter and anti-matter is matter going back in time? This means there are some rare cases where time-reversal symmetry doesn't apply to matter going back in time?

Standing waves were mentioned in the comments and it got me wondering what properties standing EM waves would have?

Everything didn't expand from a single point more the universe is infinitively large and the spaces between all places increased. We can't see the light from the early universe anywhere near where we are. Why don't we make a sticky for this and other mindbogglingly common questions?

The universe it infinity large. (why don't we say unfinite?)

Thanks :¬)

Is it just me or do you sometimes find solving equations simpler when you think of things like this where, a = b + c - 2c becomes (mentally even if you don't write it like this) +a = +b +c -2c so everything is signed and any existing signs become attached to the symbols on there right? I say sometimes as mostly I don't find this necessary however when I can't work out what is going on specifically with an equation with lots of negatives in I find it a useful way of thinking about the equation. Each bit then becomes septate and can be thought about more easily. example 1: b + c - 2c parts: +b +c -2c simplified: b - c example 2: [math]a^2 - 2c = b + 4(c^2 * c^3 + 8) - 2c[/math] side1: [math]+a^2[/math] -2c side2: +b [math]+4(c^2 * c^3 + 8)[/math] -2c or side2: +b [math]+(c^2 * c^3 + 8)[/math] [math]+(c^2 * c^3 + 8)[/math] [math]+(c^2 * c^3 + 8)[/math] [math]+(c^2 * c^3 + 8)[/math] -2c or side2: +b [math]+4c^5[/math] +32 -2c Of course this is an impractical way of writing it, especially if you are doing it on paper, better to write it in a line. [math]a^2 - 2c = b + 4(c^2 * c^3 + 8) - 2c[/math] [math]a^2 - 2c = b + 4c^5 + 32 - 2c[/math] [math]a^2 = b + 4c^5 + 32[/math] Getting from line 2 to line 3 of the above example for example requires for me the thoughts I demonstrated above but not for all the symbols on the line. I don't really know how others think of equations like this as I have taught myself a few weeks ago, mostly algebra but also some other mathematics. The few people I have talked to ether can't do algebra or have been doing it so long they don't know how they solve it at a sufficiently basic level. 4c + 8 - 2c +4c +8 -2c +4c -2c +8 4c - 2c + 8 It's always tempting and more natural seeming to write [math]b + 4(c^5) + 8[/math] instead of the more correct [math]b + 4c^5 + 8[/math] as this to me looks like it could be confused with [math]b + (4c)^5 + 8[/math] which of course it can't. And quadratic equations seemed to take an almost superhuman amount of thought to even only mostly understand and I still can't memorize all the rules and methods of how to solve them. But I suspect that applies to nearly everyone. Sorry if this thread doesn't live up to my other more insightful and brilliant scientific threads. I in part need some people to talk to about this stuff, even if it seems insignificant to you it seems important to me. Feel free to test me with something more challenging, include other ideas such as sequences and the such if you wish. I want to test how much I have actually manged to absorb.

Illegal, as in a punishment is imposed to deter someone from doing something. And the punishment for dieing would be? Also don't hold the tube by it's end, hold it in the middle. You might make yourself a little too tall. Probably NP but just to be safe. I should imagine there being issues with the electric field if you were able to get to close to the power lines even if you maneged not to get electrocuted directly.

I don't drink coke, but I should imagine they are quite sturdy. I wondered how a lot of this is done but specifically the coke bottle trick. Is it plausible that is having so much strength against force from the outside a coke bottle is week against force from the inside? Much like how an alligator can bite closed with enormous force but can't resist the force of a stout rubber band holding it's mouth closed when attempting to apply opening force.

A square wave can be created by finding the average of the correct set of sin waves. Therefore a square wave can be thought of as being a set of sin waves at the correct frequencies and offsets. Wave shape is another way of saying harmonics, although a square wave is a simple shape that creates complex harmonics and simple pasterns of harmonics create complex waves. Each way of looking at the wave is just as useful but different. The method of getting from a wave shape to a series of harmonics that could be used to create it or more accurately to the volumes of a set of incremental frequencies that would create that wave shape is called spectrum analysis and it (although I hope someone in about to prove me wrong) is the only sensible way of analyzing sound.

(2 * 6 * 5) / 100 = 0.6 blocks per worker per hour. This really is not enough. I can see why you may be annoyed. You should tell your workers to work more quickly or get another job.

When algebraic maths and programming code are written as examples they look very similar and confusing one for the other leads to all sorts of confusion. In programming symbols may be multiple letters long aa = ab + ghp This does not mean [math]a^2 = a*b + g*h*p[/math] but instead could be written in algebra as a = b + g In OO (object oriented) programming most of the program concerns object. An example of an object could be a "dog". If I want my dog to bark for a set length of time at a set frequency I could use the code as follows. dog.bark(4, 2) In this line there are 3 symbols, one of which is an object called "dog", the other two are literals. These are objects that require no setting up as everything that needs to be known about them can be shown in just one symbol (for example "4"). I could tell the dog to do a few things. length = 4 freq = 6 dog.sleep() dog.wake() dog.bark(length, freq) In most good programming environments the top two lines wouldn't work as in giving the numeric symbols a name they would need to be set up with a greater description of what they are, but for simplicity I am ignoring this for now. A string is another good example of an object. sound = "woof, growl ..." dog.say(sound) The most fundamental thing in the language could for example be a single character. An object of type string is a little more complicated as it probably has a length and at least a few characters. string = "testing" dog.say(string.length()) In the above example the dog would say 7. A string has a default property that it returns and is set by equals and needs to be told specifically if something different it needed, otherwise it would have had to be written. string.set("testing") dog.say(string.length()) In programming lines are always implemented in order whereas in algebra this is not always the case. n = b * y + z b = n - z - z * y Above is an example of a simultaneous equation. Given n starts at 10, b at 4 and y and z at 1 then in coding this is seen as meaning. set the value of n to b * y + z n is now 5 then set the value of b to n - z - z * y b is now 3 In this example the simultaneous equation could resolve algebraically to the same answer but it will certainly not always do so. A simultaneous equation that may give the correct answer could be represented like this. newN = oldB * y + z newB = oldN - z - z * y oldB = newB oldN = newN Take the part a - z - z * y This could be algebraically simplified to [math]a - 2z * y[/math] but in code this would be written a - (z * 2) * y additionally in code * = times 2^3 = 2 to the power of 3 2^(3 + 1) = 2 to the power of 4 2^3 + 1 = 2 to the power of 3 then add 1 and specifically in Java || = or && = and = means "set" == means "is it equal" and returns a boolean whereas in algebra [math]*[/math] or x = times [math]2^3[/math] = 2 to the power of 3 [math]2\stackrel{3 + 1}{}[/math] = 2 to the power of 4 [math]2^3 + 1[/math] = 2 to the power of 3 then add 1 [math]\wedge[/math] and [math]\vee[/math] = "and" and "or" [math]\neg[/math] = not If b starts as 2 then this b = b + 1 Is invalid in algebra, however in code the above line causes b to become 3. The real goings on are hidden less if one looks at what would need to be written if nothing was hidden though default behaviors for objects and if there were no exceptions built into the language for simplicity. a.set(maths.add(a.get(), 1)) The word "number" seems to be an appropriate name for the type of the object "a". There is nothing fundamental about the words set and get, they are simply names of methods designed to be a description of what is happening and made up by the person who designed "number". "Maths" is also an object and both these objects would have had to be designed further up, perhaps something like this although please note that the exact syntax as in many of my examples is not correct for any one specific language. new Number a new Calculator maths a.set(maths.add(a.get(), 1)) The full description of number and calculator would be elsewhere in the program. a = 0 while (a < 20) { a = a + 1 dog.bark() } The part in the middle is looped 20 times and so the dog barks 20 times while (a < dog.getEnergy()) { dog.useEnergy() dog.bark() } If the dog barking always results in him using up energy then useEngergy could be called from bark. Also there would need to be some sort of pause in this loop, probably in bark to prevent all the barks seeming to happen at once. Arrays are like sets in mathematics dog[1].sleep() dog[2].sleep() dog[1].bark() dog[2].wake() or more usefully new Player player new Boolean oops = false new Number a = 0 newArray Dog[25] dogs while (a < dogs.getSize()) { a++ dogs[a].sleep() } a = 0 while (a < dogs.getSize()) { a++ if (dogs[a].barkedRecently()) { oops = true } } a = 0 if (oops) { while (a < dogs.getSize()) { a++ dogs[a].bark() } player.loose() } In the above example I have used a++ to mean as in many languages a = a + 1 and also used indenting. If(boolean) happens if the value if true and not if the value is false. The program shows some code to simulate a game where the objective is to not wake any of the dogs up and cause them to bark or they will all bark you and you will loose. Another possibility could be new Integer counter new Integer number new Integer number2 = 1 new Integer number3 = 1 for (new counter = 1; counter < 10; counter++) { number = number2 + number3 number3 = number2 number2 = number screen.write(number) } The above code uses a for loop, they are sometimes called for next loops as they looked like this in Basic based languages. for counter = 1 to 10 [inside the loop] Next They allow you to make loops easily. The program calculates the Fibonacci series and could with a bit of tweaking be made to store it into an array and refer to the array for the last two values. Similar functions are possible with sets and series and logic in mathematics and they are of course restricted with the same sorts of rules as in algebra and a different "set" class in the above example might implement a way to ask a question like "are all the values in this set identical?" in just one line. However when you do need to understand code you will see a lot of the above sort of program. It is perfectly possible of course to make an algebraic set that doesn't contain enough details about how it is done to code it or work it out mathematically how to find all the values in the set but is still algebraically legitimate whereas a program however is little use to anyone unless it is entirely defined as otherwise it won't compile.

Thanks :¬) It's nice to know about how to do it. But I don't have voltage measuring kit and the such. I prob won't build it just yet.

Best I have is a large battery pack (containing 10 prob A batteries) makes sparks when you rub the ends of the wires coming out of it together. Why would a beer bottle capacitor be better than a spiral foil-paper-foil capacitor?

When I opened an old capacitor with scissors I noticed its internal structure was like that of a cylindrical onion. Could I presume from this that many rings of foil separated by rings paper would be better? Or that many layers of foil separated by layers of paper or if possible tracing paper would be better? Would touching the plates once they are newly charged in the above example give a small static shock or DC electric shock? If so how much power would be needed to feel anything? How long does the capacitor hold charge or alternatively at what rate would it loose charge? presumably more batteries in sequence as in the above example = more charge for longer? I could imagine three low viscosity liquids of differing weights two of which are very electrically conductive and one of which is highly electrically insulative where only a tiny amount of the middle layer was used forming a very actuate extremely small gap?

I wasn't proposing the AI had any real intelligence. How were you proposing that it design and build robots?

The particularly perplexing thing when looking into lifters seems to be filtering though the facts from the speculation and misunderstanding.

After a few new buildings had been occupied if the human lost track of one of them. This would effectively give it independence.