imatfaal

Yes.

 

You understand. I understand. All the non-mathematicians are scratching their heads and pointing at the crazy mathematicians, with some justification.

Yep. I just noticed that your picture and ajb's both show a face at exactly the same angle/aspect and both with teeth showing - admittedly Tom Baker is slightly less scary than the bear - you're not two avatars of the same crazy mixed-up hyper-mathematician are you?

Hello, I'm an undergraduate in biomedical engineering, physics, chemistry, and pure mathematics. As you all know, a human can travel at any velocity he/she chooses. The problem arises when the human accelerates to a high velocity in a short period of time (or in other words, accelerates too fast). I was pondering a question about how to decrease the force felt by the human body in motion and therefore increasing the rate at which that person can accelerate. Obviously, the technology is beyond our grasp, but let's say we could induce a gravitational field in any direction we pleased on an aircraft. If we induced a field in the opposite direction of force we felt when we accelerated, could we decrease the amount of force felt..or is that just a hopeful wish? At first I said it was impossible and I still stand by that. But I thought of a classical problem that I need an opinion on. In classical physics, if you take a car (a corolla) and you run it into a wall at 50 mph...it will be damaged in such a way that 25% of the car will be compressed. If that same car is traveling at 100 mph 50% of the car will be compressed in the form of damage. Now, if you run TWO corolla's into each other, both at 50 miles per hour...what is the damage of each car. It has been tested and found that each car experienced only 25% damage compression. This makes sense because the velocity of each car, respectively, does not imply a force. It's the negative acceleration of the car at an instantanious juncture of collision that determines the force. For example: the 50 mph car had an acceleration of -50 as it went from 50mph to 0mph...that multiplied by its mass provided enough force to compress the car to compress it 25% of its length. The 100mph car had an acceleration of -100 since it went from 100mph to 0 mph, and that times its mass provided enough energy to compress the car by 50% of it's original length. Now, when 2 cars of equal mass collide at 50 mph, both denote 25% damage EACH. It's because each car acts as a solid non-moving object with reference to the one colliding into it. Better put, both cars, even though their net velocity was 100mph (both going 50 mph) they only accelerated negatively from 50mph to 0 mph upon collision. But what If you only had one mass? You stand on the earth and even though you feel the constant acceleration of gravity, you are held up by the natural force (in a vague sense of that definition). Would it be possible to match the acceleration of a plane from 0 mph to 2000mph in 30 seconds (which would kill you) by inducing some kind of force in the same direction of your acceleration (or the opposite direction of the force acting upon you as you move through the atmosphere)...and thereby decrease the amount of force felt on the mass...allowing it to accelerate faster than it normally would be able to without inducing death?

A force in the direction opposing your acceleration would just make you accelerate less quickly. You accelerate in the direction of the net force. We feel a force from gravity - that is counteracted by the normal force from the ground in the opposite direction, the net force is zero and whilst we are in contact with the ground we don't accelerate. F=ma is a hard task-master and there is not a simple way to get around it.

It would be helpful to know what he was arguing against, I think. What was being claimed as "passing beyond body to a further kind?" What was the "further kind" that was postulated?

Aristotle is saying that we can envisage a line - we see that it is lacking (is defective), we can expand upon (go beyond) the line by adding another dimension to envisage a plane; in turn we can go beyond the plane by utilising the dimension it lacks to create a body. He is saying that every object can be completely determined with these three spatial dimensions; I don't believe there was a speculative higher form he was arguing against, rather he was confirming that the progression from1, to 2, to 3 dimensions stopped at three. It is the lack of breadth that allows a line to be expanded to a surface, and the lack of height which allows a surface to be expanded to a body; there is no other lack/ no defect with the generalised body that allows it to be expanded to a higher dimension, it also implies that the movement from 1-d to 2-d is similar to the movement from 2-d to 3-d, which is not obvious. Bear in mind this was written prior Euclid's Elements; the basic rules of maths were still in their infancy

"rather than just a Fermi" - by any reasonable usage of those words that phrase is nonsense.

Latest Chrome iteration is very annoying - Flash plugin just seems to die. Using Chrome Canary Build as I type this - works nicely and Flash implementation is good.

pneumonic/mnemonic ? I think I need to watch the video to understand the difference - but my flash plugin keeps dying on SFN - could you post a link to the video as well? Or tell me how to get to the underlying link.

Lemur - could you elaborate on the definition you are using are using for authoritarianism? I think some concrete examples might help. My internal working definition of authoritarianism does not include "softly-spoken" kindly and persuasive societies. I would characterise authoritarian states as those that exist through the arbitrary exercise of power by an unelected elite with an active suppression of free speech both openly through propaganda and through violence (with a varying amount of secrecy). I do not consider the UK to be an authoritarian state (although of course it has its moments which might be becoming more frequent)nor any of the states of EU12/15. I do consider the rule that Britain exercised in India and other colonies as authoritarian - and I would also include such countries as Vietnam, Kuwait, at present

He's saying that you can represent one, two or three dimensions of space: linear (i.e. x-axis), two-dimensional (x and y axis) and three-dimensional (x,y and z-axis).

 

Then he argues that since we can't represent any more than three dimensions, there must be only three. Then he concludes that since we can perceive all three of these dimensions in the real world, i.e. in existence, that the whole of existence must be perfect and complete. Then he further derives that since the whole universe is perfect, each constituent part is perfect and complete, and that the perfect parts interact with one another.

 

Essentially, it's nonsense.

For someone working before Euclid it's pretty amazing actually. It still correctly identifies the human innate understanding of dimensions - that there is nowhere else to put another dimension. I think his use and the translators of complete and defective refer to physical solidity and its lack rather than some value judgement of quality. We can go beyond the surface because it lacks height/depth ie it is defective; we cannot go beyond the body because it does not lack a dimension. He goes on to say that objects in 3d space must be themselves 3 dimensional. How is this nonsense?

Your argument relies on the fact that dissent is constant and varies only due to level and method of repression; I think this position is difficult to justify and would be harder to prove. The fact that ideology can be used to constrain thought and thus limit even the thought of dissent does not preclude the fact that some societal structures will engender less cause for dissent. Not all contentment is founded in ignorance maintained by the machinations of a hegemonic ideology - I would go as far as to say that within the societies I have lived in, the vast majority of "acceptance of one's lot" and happiness is based in awareness and knowledge.

imatfaal; It's difficult to justify self perceived injustices, but to many people in the Middle East or in fact most of Africa, they are perfectly content with life as it is, so to speak. For a couple thousand years these societies have fought each other and a good day was simply not fighting. With any sense of stability, a home of any kind, food on the table and the basic needs met (opening post) it could be equal to life in heaven, ignorance can be blissful...

imatfaal; Since I'd rather not read a 100++ page report which would read pretty much the same for any Muslim Based Sharia State, I did go far enough to see they give credit for advancements in Human Rights since 2006. "Milk and Honey" to one person is subjective and poison to the next person. I doubt it would convince me a "possible" majority wouldn't still wish to maintain Sharia Rule and/or whether it's under Qadaffi or al Qaeda, would make any difference.

Jackson - do you seriously believe that we should judge the entire Muslim world as one homogeneous entity? And moreover, that those in Africa and the Middle East only care or desire the bare minimum essential of life? And finally, that the continent/area that gave the world much of its learning, culture, religion, and science has been in wallowing for 2000 years in a blissful ignorance of everything apart from that necessary to survive?

I can see no alternative but to infer from your postings that you don't think that Africans and Arabs have the right or the will to be anything but oppressed.

This presupposes that those in "overwhelmingly popular" regimes have as many and as deeply held grievances as those in despised regimes; and yet they refrain from voicing these injustices due to fear of community opprobrium. Without firm facts to the contrary I would prefer to believe that the reason many people are happy to stay silent within the modern democracy is that they accept that their situation is not that bad. Within repressive regimes those who express dissent are punished, ostracised, and perhaps even murdered. Thus it is quite possible that the net result in terms of complaints of both an advanced, benevolent, and widely progressive democracy and a hugely repressive fascist state might approximate each other; mostly silence, but one rooted in contentment and the other in fear.

You think reading a report can acquaint anyone with any realities that they aren't living and experiencing for themselves? My question is why you are taking such a guarded stance to making whatever point it is you are trying to make? Why cite a report instead of just stating your points? You can always cite the report as backup.

Because the whole of this thread is based on peoples misconceptions and assumptions of knowledge. Another "comment" post was not needed. I hoped that the posters who were happy to make wide-scale assumptions might take time to read a little.

And frankly your point is always to question the stance of the poster and, whilst this does well in JCRs, it is fairly hackneyed and tiresome. Additionally I made my stance quite clear in another thread, in a post that you responded to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55820-popular-control-of-global-oil/

Here is a link to an Amnesty report on the Human Rights situation in Libya mid last year - perhaps some of the posters could acquaint themselves with the realities of life in Libya before painting it as the land of milk and honey

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE19/007/2010/en/65e2d9ca-3b76-4ea8-968f-5d76e1591b9c/mde190072010en.pdf

I knew someone who designed prosthetics - he was both a mecheng (to Doctoral level) AND MBChB, so he covered both bases. And per DocRock - Cambridge in the UK offer joint MbChB/PhD programmes and I am sure they are not alone

Zircaloy will steam oxidise if it becomes hot enough, producing hydrogen.

And that's the Zirconium Alloy cladding the fuel pellets - thanks Louis.

JImmy - I think you make very good points, and maybe this is an issue that might be brought more into the popular view with the very public stripping of Guttenberg's PhD in Germany and other investigations. Personally, I think a greater danger to academic integrity is the non-publishing of adverse data in the medical/pharmacological arena. I believe there are moves to address this problem but it cannot be right to carry out multiple drug trials and only allow release of data from those that suit the drug company. Back on topic - is this form of data manipulation not one of the very reasons that we have peer review? I think a very strong distinction also needs to be drawn between the dedicated researcher that over-reaches himself/herself and massages data to fit a strongly held conviction; and the more pernicious cynical manipulation of the knowing fraud who lies in order to further a career.

Could someone explain where the Hydrogen that exploded comes from? I guess something is splitting the water - but what? Is something oxidising and freeing up Hydrogen from water? The fuel is already an oxide so it's not that - and I cannot see that it could be electrolysis

But the difference between our two views is that I have a very good working knowledge of Libya having worked closely with Libya and the Libyans for many years. I repeat he is a mad dog - a charismatic revolutionary leader who has decayed into a brutal psychotic. You are making a false connexion; that questioning the motives of the forces behind the no-fly zone must entail a revision of the presented view of Qadaffi. This is not the case; Qadaffi can and is a danger to his people and security in the region AND the coalition doesn't have solely humanitarian goals

I will be interested if you can post more info once data gathering is complete

If your spoken English is half as good as your written English you will be fine. Get BBC radio 4 or BBC Worldservice on the radio or through the web to get your ear used to spoken English. The other benefit of science, IT, etc. is that a common language of maths almost exists to ease any communication problems - I presume Montenegran schools and universities all use the same systems and notations as we do in England, so you are almost half way there. BTW I am sure that the British Council will have an office in Montenegro - they might well be able to offer seminars etc by native English speakers so that you can get your first taste in a more familiar setting.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/montenegro.htm

Great post Marat. Are we getting to a point of historical imperative when the "armies of strong, healthy, but unemployed people in search of work" join together and start to ....

...sorry getting carried away there.

The problem is that everyone has settled into the economic model of increasing exports and limiting imports at the national level.

Erm how? Everyone is increasing exports and decreasing imports - so where is all this stuff going? Are they just throwing it overboard mid-ocean?

Forced population exchanges are technically war crimes under the remit of the ICC - but I guess you refer to voluntary, but what situation would lead to large groups being willing to move in both directions? One direction sure, but in both directions?

I think it is more to do with the idea that he has presided over an incredibly brutal military dictatorship for decades, actively tried to destabilize nascent democracies in Africa, funded and armed terrorist groups of almost every persuasion, and is completely looney tunes into the bargain. I would not defend many of the regimes in north-africa and the gulf states - they are dictatorial and repressive and I desire their downfall; but Qadaffi is another league of brutality and oppression.

Trip - don't panic it's not an accusation; it was once thought of as an unanswerable loaded question. Answer Yes - and you admit you were beating your wife . Answer No and you admit you are still beating your wife. Mr Skeptic was just retorting with another question that does not readily admit to an answer.

BTW modern practices mean that Farmboys very cute answer defuses the question with an answer that does not reflect badly on the respondent

Djorde - Sounds like you have a good handle on it and have your eyes wide open - that's almost all the battle.