imatfaal

Firstly.

 

I write more for the lurkers than those who are likely to respond. Those are the ones who will likely think of the issues as opposed to the more literal or fundamental who will try to refute my position.

 

Seconly.

I bother because I care for my fellow man. Believe it or not, and think it evil for us not to correct poor thinking.

 

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.

 

They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

 

/youtube stuff stripped

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.

Fight them when you can.

 

If you do not, what does that say about you?

 

Regards

DL

....

 

You have noticed that most of the people who have argued with you on this forum are either agnostics/atheists or liberal fairly free-thinking religious believers (and no obvious fundamentalists or literalists) ?

If you are serious in wanting to convince fundamentalists of the error of their ways you are going about it the wrong way - your posts are aggressive, hectoring, and offer no argument merely comment. I made similar comments in Lemur's thread talking about the issue of hate and polarisation http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57593-hate/ You will win no one to your cause by mockery and contempt. And I do fight the good fight - I am an active member of both the Rationalist Association and the South Place Ethical Society both of which are dedicated to providing a reasoned humanist alternative to religion. Your posts are at the point of becoming impossible to discern from a parody of anti-fundamentalism - a sort of Reverse Poe's Law.

Good luck suing the police for pulling you over if they have a reasonable suspicion - at the moment you have the devils own job making anything stick when they push you to the ground and cause a fatal heart attack in front of the cameras. The tools can be ordinary tools btw - but then there is a burden of proof to show that you had them in order to commit a crime, if the tools have been adapted (a telescopic arm with a hook to get car keys off the table beside the front door through the letter box - ie a car aerial with a bit of coat hanger) or created (ie those clever keys that open multiple sorts of car doors) then no further evidence is required other than possession.

Oh and on the hash codes - to get a forty character message from a SHA1 hash is very difficult and processor hungry as I mentioned above. But a major use of hash codes is the encryption of password lists. this forum, for instance, might keep all our pass words in a single file in hash form. These lists are often not kept as secure as they should be (people thought they were uncrackable). But most passwords are only 5-8 characters long - so nefarious sorts used a hash generator to make tables of the hash result of every combination of 5,6,7, or 8 standard keyboard characters. these tables are enormous but if you use a very fast graphics chip with optimised programming you can use the encrypted password as a search term and find it in a short amount of time - and if it is 8 or less standard characters then it will be in your table and you have the unencrypted password. And I am sorry to say - it's already on wiki.

Famous graffiti in London Gents WC

"My mother made me a homosexual"

and written below

"If I gave her the materials would she make me one too?"

Cool - glad you have got your head round it

GIA - what do you hope to accomplish with your posts on religion? I am a firm atheist and rationalist and have been for many years so my criticism of your posts is not made with a religious perspective; in your posts you seem to be going out of your way to offend and upset those who do believe in god and are members of an established religion, is there a reason for this constant attack? I cannot believe that you are of a mind such that you think religious members of the forum will read your posts and re-examine their faith, they do not raise any interesting or new points, and they use highly inflammatory language; to me they only seem to evince an attitude of snide contempt and mockery, and I am curious why you bother.

Ok Mossy

Now we are cooking with gas. First equation

firstly put stuff in nice neat columns if I was you - its helps keep things together

secondly do your basic arithmetics more carefully

15a-15a= 0

10b-3b =??

5 - (-51) =??

do these sums and it will work out a bit nicer

edit

the captain is damn quick with his [maths] markup

Great article - though fraid I cannot help you. MduS's books are very popular though and you might be able to pick up a copy of the book he mentioned super cheap on Amazon. Suddenly humbled by the fact that Riemann did all that and so much more, yet died at 39!

Mossy

Put down what you have done to the two questions and we will push you in the right direction. There is really no difference at all - ie the fact that the constant is positive or negative makes no odds

If you have the time and effort -

- use bamboo and just slowly whittle a hole in the bamboo close to end (ie outside where wheel goes)

- I would cut a notch in each side and then poke/drill through

- cut a very slender needle of bamboo

- put wheel on

- put needle of bamboo through hole to stop wheel coming off

- if you want wheels to turn without fouling bamboo needle use thin and small radius piece of radish as washer between wheel and needle

and seriously trigonometry?

OK - there are a few pointers.

1. You can add and subtract simultaneous equations from each other.

Your equations are made up of three terms (using the first question) an 'a' term, a 'b' term, and a constant - ie it is 3 times 'a' plus 2 times 'b' equals 1. When you add or subtract a pair of equations you get the 'like terms' together. You cannot subtract 15a from 2b and get a simpler answer, but if you subtract 3a from 15a you get a simpler answer 12a.

2. An equation remains the same if you multiply all of it by a number

If you multiply each part of 3a+2b =1 by a number, say for example 4, you get the same equation but with a fixed multiple 3a+2b=1 says the same thing as 12a+8b=4

Play with these two rules and you will find that multiplying equation one (remember every single term) by a number and then taking it away from equation two (gather 'like terms') will give you a simpler equation where one of the terms (the 'a' term or the 'b' term disappear).

Try it and put up your ideas

If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->

Absolutely right, our history is full of such examples of physics motivating new mathematical discoveries. Newton and calculus is of course the classical example given.

 

And Ed Witten (amongst many others) shows that this process is still on-going

.....but it is not that hard for this particular question though...

Sam - I would be interested to see you show a nice simple solution/factorization. Note that

[math] b^2 -4ac < 0 [/math]

That means complex roots. the question was either far too difficult for students who were just starting algebra, a trap by a teacher to catch out students, or a transcription error.

Now [math] 3x^2 -6x - 9 =0 [/math] or the equiv [math]x^2 -2x -3 =0 [/math] now they are easy

I dunno if this is what Moontanman meant - but you can use a ice, salt and one container within another to make ice cream. It definitely works (although I have not tried the two tin method linked) - the salt water is able to be cooled to a lower temperature by the ice cubes, which means that it can draw the heat from the cream till the cream freezes.

Now tell me an experiment that ends up with making ice cream isn't a winner with kids

Will it soon be possible to run qualitative / comparative experiments - ie whilst sample size might be too small to get measurements that in absolute terms are useful; could you not create two identical magnetic holding volumes one with hydrogen and one with anti-hydrogen and identify differences (or lack of) between the two samples. with interferometry would you be able to notice a change in interference pattern where one route ran through a hydrogen containment and the other ran through anti-hydrogen - or would even this qualitative view be swamped out?

they are the same. If you take

[math] = \frac {-1(5x - 1)}{-1(-5x + 18)} [/math]

ie multiply top and bottom by -1 you can get two different and slightly nicer ways of expressing same fraction

[math] = \frac {1-5x}{5x - 18} [/math] this is both upstairs and downstairs multiplied by -1

or

[math] = -1 * \frac {5x - 1}{5x - 18} [/math] this is with the minus 1 taken outside bracket and downstairs of fraction multiplied by -1

Couple of things - firstly this is a help forum not an answer forum, it's preferable if you tell us first what you have attempted. secondly are you sure you haven't made a transcription error - the equation is not able to be factorised in the normal easiest sense

Water and flour makes a passable glue - it's what people used to hang wallpaper for many years. I guess the milling of wheat/corn would count as processing though. I would use knobbly twigs as the axles and hope that I could use the terminal bud as an end to stop the wheel coming off.

and did you say trigonometry?

Trip - Could you not use the same argument for palmistry, tarot cards, and astrology? Just because something cannot provide verifiable results does not mean that those with a financial/career investment in the techniques will not continue to claim they work.

Well it does work - I did it as a child, but we put the paper under the grill; it was all a bit charred but the writing was clear. The impression I got was that the paper had to be on the point of all burning - didn't realise you could do it just by warming it up (and sunlight?? seems like a bad idea for invisible ink). I believe it works with urine as well - perhaps it's an acid thing, but I am already out of my chemical depth so I won't speculate further.

wikipedia claim

Lemon, apple, orange or onion juice (organic acids and the paper forms ester under heat)

This book claims that the acids break down the cellulose into sugars which then caramelize

You are begging the question - your initial assumption is not unarguable. The rabidity (is that a word?) of the reaction against both Obama and Palin in the last few years in American politics has, I think, benefited them. Undecided voters were swayed by the vitriol and moved AWAY from those espousing it - ie not so much as "I don't want to be hated" but more along the lines of "I don't want to align myself with the haters"

You

#1, when the new empirical data does not support the knowledge in the textbook.

#2, when the logic of the new facts does not support the statment in the testbook.

Me

what basis do you claim in order to declare the textbook's shortcomings? is there an internal inconsistency or do you have empirical data?

Jeff

Great Minds think alike ...

unfortunately the second half of that aphorism is that

...idiots seldom differ

what basis do you claim in order to declare the textbook's shortcomings? is there an internal inconsistency or do you have empirical data? there is no basis for a truculent refusal to accept established learning on the basis of personal incredulity or lack of understanding.

Roget's spiral ---> coil, corkscrew, curlicue, gyration, gyre,helix, screw, whorl

Sorry - I'll get my coat and leave

the Khan Academy - has loads of on-line self testing from the most basic ideas of arithmetics to beginnings of calculus.

Thanks for clarifying and even more so for the link to Chad Orzel's blog. I hadn't realised he had covered it and his stuff is always good.