imatfaal

I am also pretty sure that the Global Consciousness Project is yet to identify a real data point. Mother Theresa's funeral, 9/11 etc all provided blips - but with no good correlation and no differentiation between blips when nothing happened. All a load of crackpottery at present til they pony up some significant data

That was me. Thanks for posting it because it saved me the trouble of going back to find that post.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103611-speed-of-light-and-action-at-a-distance-question/#entry974748

Google tells me terminal velocity is 54 m/s and height to reach terminal velocity is 450 m.

 

I dont know how you got 93.95. That is nearly double. I did not know air resistance could reduce the velocity by double like that.

This is a mechanics thought experiment - air resistance,terminal velocity, friction etc do not come into the calcs.

This cartoon perfectly sums up physicists' ideas of experiments

Just in case this is a confusion not a typo

KE = 1/2 m v^2 Not KE = 1/2 m sqrt(v)

here is new topic

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105090-what-is-energy-split-fro-can-energy-move-faster-than-light/

Similar triangles looks ok from first glance

Not going to bother looking through that dreadful proof page - just grok the distances. CF is NOT 1.866 times longer than CE.

You cannot uniquely (or even partially) determine triangles with just one angle. All you know is that angle ECF is 30 degrees - until you can bring some other constraints into your calculations you cannot determine a ratio of side lengths.

Draw a DECENT diagram - with measured angles and lengths and this would be obvious. Better still spend time at Khan Academy and learn basic maths and geometry before trying to solve one of old problems in subject

Funny that ... I had a different, though equally valid, revelation on the infinite on a training ride this afternoon; "if I am honest - how much training is enough"

And how is anti-social a bad thing.

 

And joining a community with may be easy as pie but what is not easy is joining a community that has as many people on it as Facebook.

You ask that on a science forum? This is a community; act in an anti-social way and we will kick you out. We are social agents; man is a political animal and the polis is the city, the civilization, the state of being part of a community.

Yes - Facebook is large; but how many (real) people of the untold millions (actually) read the posts of Joseph A Bloggs? It's about 26 on average if memory serves; far more people here read your posts. On some internet fora - the really busy ones - average post read is well into the hundreds. Facebook cannot be a community because it is near universal - smaller forums can be a community because there is a unity of purpose or interest

Many FB employees are hired overseas with no knowledge of human customs. ...

Cos those abroad don't have customs or aren't human??

Your argument that I should make my own Facebook is ridiculous, and would have no chance and would be wasting my time.

The argument is more complex than that - to set up a presence on the net which is not constrained by rules is not trivial, but one which is constrained to a very small degree is a piece of cake. To join such a community is easy as pie.

It would be like someone complaining about Hollywood, and then they say "make your own hollywood."

No it is like saying "make your own films" - and I think you will find an amazingly high proportion of creative beginnings are cued by someone thinking or saying "Damn - I can do better than that!" and then someone (often themselves) replying "Go On Then!" and they do.

Either work within constraints which others have set in their own domains - or branch out and experiment with your own personal ideas. But coming into someone's house/domain/website/etc and immediately moaning that the rules are wrong, that one is being oppressed, that the system is biased, or any of a host of other moans is just anti-social.

Inertia reel on the wire he is pulling so that once the distance is crossed he is pulled to a stop steadily by the wire

Similar threads merged

Even being generous and ignoring the rubbish (remainder when divided by pi?) then this line is demonstrably wrong

FC = CE/cos(30 degrees).

This would only be the case if triangle CEF were a right angled triangle. It cannot be a right angled triangle as CE is an irrational number (whole number minus Pi) and BC is a whole number; half a whole number cannot be an irrational

This too..

AEC is similar to syx.

Those triangles would only be similar if lines CE and CF were coincident. They are not by definition. This ruins your ratios.

And even though it would be a huge abuse of power - and would be immediately reversed by the other moderators - I will be tempted to suspend you with extreme prejudice if you EVER EVER say that 1 radian equals 60 degrees again. This is just arrant nonsense. 60 degrees is one sixth of a circle - 1 radian is one (two*pi)th of a circle; surely you understand that this is not the same?

But the main factor here is that you have to cut them exactly in the middle. And not one card off! So you need to do it yourself, because if you allow somebody else to cut, as is the custom in most card games and tricks, the almost certainly will not cut them evenly. And when that happens your magic will not work.

 

But if cut exactly and distributed from the top, all you are doing is equally redistributing the original set of cards.

 

With only four suits, and the same amount of people to deal to, the only possible distribution result is yo have each person get four of the same suit and face. Think of the cards being numbered from one to four and co!Or coded in four colors. Every fourth card begins a new color, so every person of four gets that same number, in all four colors.

 

When the cards are thought of in this manner....Colors and numbers...The trick seems far less magical.

As I have explained above - if you wish the first person to receive Jacks, 2nd Queen 3rd Kings 4th Aces then you need to either reverse the cut (which cutting exactly in half is just one potential way), or even merely make sure that you always cut to an ace.

However the OP has confirmed that he merely wanted everyone to receive four of the same card (no matter who got what set) so in that case any two cuts will do. No trick/sleight of hand is necessary

Yes, but that would be sleight of hand. wouldn't it? It also works with 2 random cuts , roughly in the middle, without a reverse cut. Would the answer be the same without the reverse cut?

yes - as Raider said. The reverse cut means the first person gets Jacks etc.; but now I am not sure you actually specified that. if you do not require the first person dealt to gets jacks it works with random cuts:

If you just cut (at random) you do this

jqkajqkaj//qkajqka => qkajqkajqkajqkaj

qkajqk//ajqkajqkaj => ajqkajqkajqkajqk

Notice that whatever you do the first,fifth, ninth, thirteenth cards are the same!

You have 16 cards in an order; the sequence would be continued by looping back to the beginning - ie the next card after the 4th ace would need to be a jack. So whenever you cut you do two things:

1. You add the first half of the pack to follow on from the back half - and you already know that the sequence will continue

2. The cut automatically creates a new situation where the follow on card in the sequence to the last card would be the first card

....I still don't understand how could it be that due to relativity both are correct.

Why do you spend all this time asking questions just to partly ignore the answers? You do it in thread after thread; ask a question, pick part of the answer and ask a follow-up/alternative questions which makes it quite clear you have not invested the time in actually engaging with the perfect answer already given.

Times, distances, and speeds do not behave in a way that we naive bald apes find natural when relative speeds get to a noticeable proportion of c. We have an entire ancestry who learned how to "get" speed, distance and time in an instinctive manner - and that instinct lets us down when the speeds get high. You cannot add velocity, length is not absolute, time is not absolute, simultaneity is a local construction - it is odd.

Please please please - re-read the answers. You cannot just "get" this - it requires study, hard work, and falling back to experimental data (invariance of the speed of light) to understand

You start up with JQKAJQKAJQKAJQKA , cut once to something else, reverse the cut (ie pretend to cut but actually chose the exact place to end up with the same as you started with), deal:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

player 1. j j j j

player 2. q q q q

player 3. k k k k

player 4. a a a a

Read down column one then two etc and you will see that the original order is still there.

In fact with this trick the cuts don't even have to be that clever. Just make sure that both time you always cut to an ace (last card you pick is an ace) and the order will be preserved

 

 

What career isn't supporting oppression?? Name any career where you aren't working to make the rich richer or keep their place in society.

Contract negotiator and legal support for international shipping company (me)

...

Oh .. isn't supporting oppression, my bad. (and yes I am ashamed but I also really like my job and my colleagues so I live with it)

Originally, I also had the same thinking like yours by considering it as coincident. However I replaced PI with other irrational number, such as Euler number or golden ratio, and replicated all above testing. This time these values above could not be found with up to 5 or 6 digits like the result with PI.

So I declare that this is PI's secret that needs to be investigated more

The numeric string 010271 appears at the 1,135,207th decimal digit of E

The numeric string 3141593 appears at the 7,550,758th decimal digit of E

The numeric string 667408 appears at the 1,984,196th decimal digit of E.

The numeric string 167262 appears at the 5,185,365th decimal digit of E.

I call shenanigans - my birthday, Pi, G, and M_p all in first 10,000,000 digits of Euler's

for 8 digits you need more patience

The numeric string 01021971 appears at the 32,524,228th decimal digit of the Square Root of 2

The numeric string 31415927 appears at the 22,527,250 decimal digit of the Square Root of 2.

No point in doing G as we are only sure to one (ish) part in 10thousand

The numeric string 16726219 appears at the 36,596,663rd decimal digit of the Square Root of 2.

Halley: Sir Isaac, how can someone as learned as you believe such foolishness as Astrology.

Newton: Because Sir, I have studied it, and you have not.

...

 

Misquote - this rejoinder was addressed to Halley when Newton was questioned about religion.

The Einstein quote is pruned a little - the paragraph starts with the line

 

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation

Which rather dulls the impact

So one quote was wrong and the other was so far taken out of context as to mislead

In the absence of any proof I treat it with the same amount of credence that I give the ancient Greek heroic epic sagas; I think that, bearing, in mind this was 2000 years ago in one of the most war torn parts of the world that it is very very unlikely that any incontrovertible proof will arise. On the issue of the Creator - he could easily show us that he exists but either decides not to, or does not exist. We can never prove that there was not a prime mover behind physical creation of the universe - but again in the complete absence of any proof to the contrary we will continue to believe that there was not.

cross posted with Bender. plus what he said.

 

Well, we are living in one Universe.

 

The expansion is an important section of that universe.

 

Therefore, it must be included in the formula of speed.

 

We can't just use a formula which doesn't take in account the expansion effect.

 

So let me ask again:

 

Do you agree that there are galaxies beyond D?

 

If so, why we can't see them?

 

Why we can't assume that –

 

Due to the expansion some galaxies are moving at the speed which is higher than c and therefore we can't see them?

Because it would be wrong. The space is expanding in between us and them - they are not moving through space at a relative speed greater than c