imatfaal

today? I realised it must look like that - but I couldn't see where the discrepancy was so had to dig till it came to light and then I couldn't stay schtum

I don't know what the time limit is - but if I did I would have waited till it was up

"Surface area of moon = 38 million m2" that should be km^2 - so that final figure needs to be lifted by x10^6

with respect this is how steichen worked But great post otherwise and a strange Strange autocorrect.

I would argue with your definition of meta-ethics. Ethics deals with moral principles, the way we live our lives, and the determination, formalization, and promotion of a code which allows us as individuals and communities to flourish. Meta-Ethics is the study of how those codes arise and why the human polity and individual need ethical systems of thought - ie what is morality? Most ethical systems hold within themselves the reasons for adhering to a certain set of life choices guided by an ethos in the ancient Greek usage. You are now using ethical in a different sense - a more modern and subtle sense; in the above quote you are using it to mean 'following an enlightened, caring, and wholesome system of ethics' . But that is not what ethical really means in philosophical terms. Ethical means following a system of life choices with an end in mind - it really has little to do with the morality of the decisions. I don't think anyone would argue that the Spartans lacked a compelling ethos - but they might well not be called ethical in the modern usage.

Any argument that has as little (or as much) soundness as Russell's Teapot can be dismissed without need to say it is wrong - it is not even wrong

I don't think we even have a solution for close binary star system - and it was the loss of angular momentum (via gravitational waves) in a close binary that was the first indirect evidence of a new prediction of GR

Analytic solutions of the Einstein Field Equations are pretty few and far between. We have them for the vacuum around the various sorts of black holes - which we can then use to approximate (sometimes very closely) other situations. I do not know if - for example - if the black hole merger spotted by ligo was predicted by a solution to the equations or through massive modelling; I think it was the later. So to answer your last question; yes solutions exist, but whilst we understand the tools with which to find the solution we do not yet have the skill to utilise them. Instead of solving the equations within a certain set of parameters we create models / simulations and run them a myriad of times to find out what should happen.

! Moderator Note Capiert Sorry but this is getting nowhere and, I firmly believe, causing more harm than good. Off the wall speculations can be fun and harmless - but are fairly fruitless; but when you start playing fast and loose with mathematics then you are more than likely to come up with ideas that are not even wrong - and the danger is that you and others will learn bad and incorrect methods/techniques. I am afraid your mangling and flip-flopping between Vectors and Scalars is of the latter sort described above - it is not wholesome and not helpful. I am locking this thread and at present you do not have permission to reopen a new thread on the same topic. I would heartily recommend you take your undoubted enthusiasm for this subject to the next level and spend some time at the online schools/universities/moocs - the resources available at present for free are extraordinary (Gross on Multivariable Calculus / Strang's lectures on Linear Algebra are two recent courses I have looked at). A fair dose of study will equip you to answer your own questions and perhaps provide more rigorous speculative ideas. This thread has been locked

Not really - entanglement does not really work like that. Entangled particles have a strange state of existence in that the two particles do not have two individual states - but instead they share an entangled state. When you measure one particle to find out what its properties are then the entanglement is broken and each particle immediately resolves into a normal state - the two normal states that the particles end up in are correlated or anti-correlated. What is spooky is that we can show that this happens faster than any communication could possibly happen between the two particles. And that we can also show that the state of the particles was not merely hidden till measurement - but it was this special undetermined entangled state. So entanglement is not as useful as twist one particle and the other twists in the opposite direction - but it is still damn weird and it still flies in the face of classsical physics

! Moderator Note Thread locked - and with regards to your threats about leaving I will leave you with the words of the Lord High Protector "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Please do not open any more threads to whinge

A truly great mathematician - in an age in which the competition was tough. There was such a flourishing of mathematical/scientific genius in the 30s and 40s - and it is such a tragedy that the world was forced / allowed itself to use that brilliance to develop weapons. Where would we be as a species if the incredible genius of people like Ulam and the other colossal intellects of the Manhattan project has been free to choose their own goals - yet were still granted the resources, the time, and the ambition and ability to work together.

! Moderator Note And whilst I agree with the sentiment - if we could also keep such comments to a minimum. The Moderators will try to keep discussions flowing and in line with the rules and spirit of the forum - but we are time limited - so we would ask members to report posts they feel are in breach of the rules rather than add fuel to the flames. Thanks Edit - And as always please do not respond to this moderation within the thread

! Moderator Note JohnLesser If you continue to post trollish and irrationally anti-science rubbish we will lock this thread. if you do not understand something ask a question - but subsequently dismissing the answers given because you are ignorant of the fundamentals of empirical science (upon which all possible answers must be based) will not be tolerated. Comments along the lines of show me a picture of a Higg's Boson seem to be deliberately provacative. Edit - Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

The four forces are mediated by exchange particles - gauge bosons - which kind of "go from one object to the other" and thus create the force. This is a gross and dangerous simplification. Most of the time (unless an interaction occurs) these are virtual particles (whilst the force is anything but). The interaction between the two objects which is mediated by the exchange particles is limited to the speed of light - thus the exchange particles are limited to c for the massless ones (graviton, photon, gluon) and less than c for the massive one's (W, Z). QFT can be visualized and calculated by Feynman diagrams - many of the gauge bosons in the calculations and predictions of QFT are virtual particles and I do not believe that they are constrained. These virtual particles must remain internal to the calculation, ie do not externally interact and are loops in diagrams; thus they do not really become a problem in SR in terms of FTL causality. Note - due to Colour Confinement - you do not get free gluons. So it is all a bit of a moot point

"A chromatograph picture of natural Vitamin C. Notice how much more dynamic is the pattern formed by the moving fluid" "A chromatograph picture of synthetic Vitamin C. The pure compound doesn't have the formative pattern of a natural food." http://oregonbd.org/class-5/ Damn - what a load of codswallop!

If I had to guess I would say that they ar very badly done chromatography - you know the sort you did in first year at school with a round filter paper and a drop of ink in the centre. The scalloping on the left hand samples look as if the filter paper was crumpled/pleated as if in a cone shape

I think - and this is very much guesswork - that quantum spin precession in a magnetic field follows exactly the same shape and direction path as would be expected by a classical spin precession in a magnetic field; thus nomenclature is the same. If you think about it, the direction of angular momentum vector is somewhat arbitrary - ie why we have a rule; it would strike me as strange that intrinsic angular momentum was classified differently. But, and it is a very big But, my answer is assumption rather than knowledge.

10^-35 metres cubed is about 7 orders of magnitude larger than an atomic nucleus Planck length is not the smallest conceivable measurement . I can conceive of something with a diameter of a planck length - its radius is half a planck length. The planck length is around where quantum effects and gravity must be both taken into account simultaneously - we cannot do that yet

! Moderator Note Thread locked. Basically it is unscientific rubbish which with only garner derision and may end in unsightly flaming.

I believe primes have fascinated mathematicians since the time whereof the memory of man knoweth not - they are slippery customers and every time we (even great mathematical colossi) think they have a good handle on them they squirm free. We know a huge amount about them and about factorization - but the holes in our knowledge are annoying and not insignificant. The Mathematical communities main avenue of approach is via the Riemman Zeta function - but that is really gnarly maths

! Moderator Note Details of the idea must be posted here. Members must not be forced to venture off-site to participate in the discussion. If you do not provide enough of the idea for discussion the thread will be locked

+1 Nice quote - always liked him. Although to get this thread back onto a rational logical base and away from the bat-infested belfry of the OP I would say that logically that Beefy's statement does not follow; it should be we're all coloured, or you wouldn't be able to see everyone - ie the existence of a non-zero percentage of non-coloured people would only prevent you from seeing everybody- rather than preclude you from being able to see anyone. Hopefully that piece of unimaginably obsessive pedantry will kill this thread stone dead.

Strange has definitively answered one of your questions (all numbers are either primes or multiples of primes) this is the Fundamental Theory of Arithmetic The 30 gap thing is to do with the number system - but it is not that useful or interesting. Think on this and it will become obvious: 1. A prime number must be of the form 2w+1 (it must be odd (apart from 2 itself) 2. At the same time the prime must be of the form 3y+1 or 3y+2 (it cannot be divided by 3) 3. Still at the same time the prime must be of the form 5z+1, 5z+2, 5z+3, or 5z+4 (it cannot be divided by 5) 4. This pattern continues with 7, 9 ,11 ,13 etc as the prime grows 5. 30 is 2 x 3 x 5 6. So, if you already have a prime you are adding a simple multiple of 2s, 3s, and 5s to the prime 7. As an example (2w+1) + (2 x 3 x 5) = 2w+1 + 2 x 15 = 2(w+15) + 1 (ie still cannot be divided by 2) 8. This follows for 3 and for 5 9. In short - any number not divisible by 2 ,3 or 5 will when 30 is added still not be divisible You will notice your +30 schema fails as soon as 7s start cropping up. (+210 will work too - but less often) The reason that adding 30 again often gives a prime is that 30 is NOT divisible by any prime greater than 5. So you can know that if your (failed selection) is, for example divisible by 11, then (failed selection +30) CANNOT be divisible by 11. Sooner or later adding 30 a second time will not work, but a third or fourth might. But hopefully you can see that this is not predictive of primes - or it is selectively predictive - but it is kinda obvious when you look at how numbers are made up and not useful because you still have to check