alan2here

Any mesurements you make would need to be exceptionally acurate to be effected by such variations.

Sugesting that there might be multiple centers from the point of view of a small ball falling in a large sphere of air in the middle of the world.

An open ended pipe would presumably due to the presure of ice expanding against ice and delay caused by not everything happening at once still result in some extra presure.

Is the variation in the earths graverty greater or lesser neer the center compaired to on the surface?

Therefore you could use freezing water to bend or destort things in industry that you want bending that are resistant to physical force. Could take a lot of energy getting things cold enough.

Re-reading this thread I can't believe how I used to be Or what a difficult problem to solve this is. Could we just do it with maths. Cylindrical feromagnetic solids that have size, weight and momentum bound by (rotation only constraints that have some friction) with some external infulence at the end.

This video shows a mechanism that appears to do a simerlar thing (I can't detemine from the video entirly how it works) to a powerball. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0&feature=channel_page When using my powerball it occured to me how efficent it was at converting human motion into rotation and I thought that it would be intresting to find out at what rate electrisity could be generated with one. The world record is to get one rotating at 16.5khz in speed. In the comments of the above video (in with all the crank comments) I saw a sugestion a bike could be made with this mechanism.

Am I right in thinking that the man moving verry fast on the train will experance space-time compression and this will strech out what is in front of him to make things consistant such that the light originating neer him apears to be behaving corectly?

One could imagine creating a perfect feromagnetic or paramagnetic solid sphere that was hollow and had a lot of space inside in proportan to it's solid outside. Attempting to magnitise it pefectly with north inside and south outside would result in no effect in the same way that getting two equally strong people to have a tug of war nomatter how strong the people would have no effect. Magnitising it inperfectly would presumably result in some valid collection of poles on the inside and outside.

EHD thrusters are crude looking devices. They are described as asymmetrical capacitors but do not follow the more intricate structure of an efficent electricity storing capacitor. I suppose that research into making them more efficient must’ve found nothing and perhaps they can't be powered more than one at a time but it all seems a bit unexplored. Same with lifters.

As I understand although I may well be wrong. About +2% flation is good. Inflation (>0%) Things you buy become more expensive over time. Your income becomes greater over time. The rich they don't stay rich for long unless they earn money. Deflation (<0%) Things you buy become cheaper over time. Your income also decreases over time. For money you emediatly spend this is the same as when in inflation but any money you save buys you more stuff. People irrationally become anoyed that they are getting payed less over time and jobs are lost when this is maneged badly. Problem The problem with deflation is that if other countries are inflating while you are deflating then things you need from abroad become intolerably expensive. Solution All countries deflate together?

http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_regarder_E.htm I recently found this amazing recource. The whole of the first series is on one subject but I like that in that it starts simply and dosn't move to quickly. It builds up to verry complex stuff.

TY for the links. Does anyone have a speaker (I don't) thats not a laptop or headphone speaker. Of the 5 speakers I have none are going to be any good. A plastic (or something less flexable?) container could store the water. It seems logical that the frequency you need for a standing wave is an integer 1/n fraction of the length of the container. I have goldwave and can probbably create a wave file for simple functions and combinations.

Thank you, and I think 3 is insuficent as it is still too rounded looking. A good spectrum analyzer such as the one with adobe audition could calcluate the harmonics for any shape. However the evidence that this is not possible is that nobody has yet done it with water and we don't yet have the stargate style block of water excecutive toy. Don't let this thread die :¬P I think it should be done.

One can (relatively) simply and cheeply synthesise standing waves in water. Presumably thease can nest\stack to create standing (non moving) waves on waves. As there are series of sin waves of varying frequancies and amplitudes which when added together result in square waves can a standing shaped (such as square) wave be made in water?

Do you mean input int n = 3; if (n == 3) { n++; } and the following is output? int, keyword n, variable integer =, keyword 3, literal integer if, keyword (, open bracket type 1 n, variable int n ==, keyword 3, literal int 3 ), close bracket type 1 {, open bracket type 2 n, variable int n ++, keyword }, close bracket type 2 or more like this? int, keyword .=, keyword ..n, variable integer ..3, literal integer ;, keyword if, keyword (), bracket set type 1 .==, keyword ..n, variable int n ..3, literal int 3 {}, bracket set type 2 .++, keyword ..n, variable int n ;, keyword

Don't supose smaller verstions are for sale?

A program to test a series against known methods would be usefull. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 analysis suficent points? yes, continuing all the same? no, continuing period: large or NA goes: always up limit: 1 to 21 found slope: 0 to 8 found polynomial level: large or NA (intrestingly chaotic), continuing fibonarchi: 100% [math]n_{p} = a^{p}[/math]: best A's found 12.5% match at 1, ... ... results type: fibonarchi I'm going back to uni soon, I might write one if there is any interest, could involve other stuff as well. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37239

Like a recreational plasma ball? Interferes big time with neerby electrical equipment. lol, you are verry 80's On a serios note though I think technoligy should progress and improve over time. Im not sugesting we should abandon all caution, just some of it. Timetes, you probbably have a nerological condition or perhaps muscle cramps, sometimes people get falling or loud noises when trying to sleep that seem to be external. I got to thinking my nightime (probbably tired induced) tinutus must be something external once but I know that it is not as there is no way it can be.

ty, coeficent and parameter sound fairly interchangeble then. I preume the last post of myne above this one is the case as it worked and I was trying to interpret what DJBruce said and I think I have done so correctly. Sorry, we seem to have wanded slightly away from the original posters question.

Does finding the degree of (1, 9), (2, 19), (3, 33), (4, 51) using the subrating method and it taking exactly in two iterations give me a confident indication that the above numbers can be represented by a quadratic equation? Is there a difference between the turms coeficent and parameter?

Sorry, it looked as if it was what was happening here at the top of the posted link http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSquaresFitting.html Following on from the post before myne, this method looks verry usefull, thanks. So you can start with an unknown series or graph and end up with the name of the function. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 4), (4, 8), (5, 16) 2 - 1 = 1 4 - 2 = 2 8 - 4 = 4 16 - 8 = 8 2 - 1 = 1 4 - 2 = 2 8 - 4 = 4 2 - 1 = 1 4 - 2 = 2 not working, however I have just realised that this could be because my equation is not a liner, quadratic or cubic equation. Lets try y = 2x^2+4x+3 y = (2*(x*x))+(4*x)+3 (1, 9), (2, 19), (3, 33), (4, 51) 19 - 9 = 10 33 - 19 = 14 51 - 33 = 18 14 - 10 = 4 18 - 14 = 4 So is this a way of proving that y = 2x^2+4x+3 is a quadratic equation?

I now understand why a virus might not be considered life and am unsure myself. Lets take another look at that list. 1. Metabolism --> *expand* --> The set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life. --> *remove circular definition* --> A set of chemical reactions that occur. --> *shorten* --> Chemical reactions. So we rule out a computer run simulation of a large group of ameba like organisms that follows physical rules simerlar to those of our reality in an enviroment simerlar to one they could be in on earth? Even if they go to that state though evolution within the simulation? (we are close to achieving this sort of simulation) 2. Response to stimuli Why? A plant that dosn't could plauably survive well. 3. Growth My first reaction was "lol, who wrote this list? Socrates? Plato?" however this should probbably be included in a definition that discards a virus as being a lifeform. 4. Reproduction Possibly we shouldn't rule out a lifeform designed by something that is alive and also didn't need to evolve however in a formal definition this should probably be included.

Is that superior to a rolling averge to achive the same result?

So this is different from some bactera that need us to survive (and therefore reproduce) or other parasites that require the recources of there host because a virus requires controll of the host where as a parasite does not? A human brain cell is an organism itself but cannot live alone in the same way a single bee cannot live away from it's colony. The brain cell cannot reproduce itself into another human body without the whole body in the same way that the bee requires the whole nest that maintains the queen to create a new colony. So the reason for virus not being classified as life is that they require other lifeforms not genetically identical to themselves to help them reproduce?