imatfaal

I think Galileo might argue with the lightning rod argument - earliest known lightning rods in russia 1720ish / ben franklin 30 years later; Galileo put under permanent house arrest 1632.

AJB - no I can't provide examples. IIRC In an introduction to a talk by Witten the host said that whilst the maths of string/m/s.string family of theories was beautiful and ground-breaking one of the reasons that there were many theories and branches was that the underlying assumptions in the maths varied and were incompatible with each other, and this gave hints of a deeper theory within which all the competing ideas would be unified (and perhaps physical unification would be forthcoming).

My knowledge runs out far before this in practice so I have to rely on vague assertions. Sorry. Will wrack my brains to remember the lecture - it was on the net, so once I remember I will post it.

Perhaps if you put a few of the problems that you might have trouble with up on the board, the members can advise how they would approach them. For most of them itts all a bit fuzzy - a mixture of guesswork, rules of thumb etc - whatever work for you.... I think its that form of problem that the only way is graft - and suddenly you realise that your intuitions are honed and sharp. And perhaps ask for this post to be moved to the homework help section where you might get more replies

I think he is talking about M-theory, multiple higher dimensions, and an overall theory of quantum gravity; I am out of my depth here, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical coherence of m-theory is lacking. there are few greater mathematicians than the physicists of m-theory but I believe the maths is still fragmented and contradictive in places. I stand to be corrected but we can do the maths of GR - but GR cannot apply in this case; we can use Harlte-Hawking states to smooth out the singularity but then we need a complete and consistent quantum gravity theory.

I am not sure that the mathematics is there yet - wouldn't it require an entirely new description of physical laws esp gravity? GR can't predict how the universe has emerged from the big bang. In the first instants (and I guess that means the very first instant) we would need a complete theory of quantum gravity for him to be able to provide the maths

Closed shops are technically illegal - but Union Shops are acceptable in some states. A closed shop means employers can only hire Union members - a Union Shop means employees have to join the Union within a certain period if employed and only have to pay dues when covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In reality the closed shop still exists.

So to answer the tree - no you cannot refuse to join in some circumstances.

In the UK and other countries both forms are illegal - and whilst you can decide to join a union (except for very small exceptions), it is a free choice.

When America was held as the role model for other countries, back in the 1950-60's, religion was much more traditional and addendence higher.

Pioneer - I am not a stereotypical European anti-American, I really like America, I work for an American (ish) company, I spent a year working in NYC etc - but I must point out that 1950s America was not held up as a role model for most countries. The small-town family-orientated idyll of the traditional American religious right was anathema to much of Europe that was moving in entirely another direction. I realize that Europe is not the be-all and end-all, but I cannot really imagine that Asia, Africa, or South America were too enthralled either. Many countries wanted America's wealth, productivity, and growth; but I know of none that aimed for America's combination of intense religious feeling and power yet a formal separation of Church from State.

Exactly who are the atheists in power in the 1990-2008 who

were not rational enough to see cause and effect and started to bring the country into a deepening resession with massive debt

Victor to be brutal - at present no one would acknowledge your "proof" because it is impossible to truly follow. English is a dreadful language, it is irregular, informal, and difficult; but it does allow exact expression; unfortunately it is not easy to get to this level of proficiency. In order to improve your chance of getting someone to look hard at your work you must simplify.

1. For an attempt that relies on division you must learn the correct use of the verb "to divide". This will allow you to create ideas and express them in a way others can be certain to understand

2. Try and be more formal. Define ALL your variables at the beginning - if you have different bases then make it clear which is base10 and which are base_n. If you must use upper and lower of the same letter - then it is vital to be consistent. Its really confusing to mix latex with plain type.

3. Break your ideas down into smaller sentences. Include only one idea per sentence. Make it clear with each new idea the status of that idea (axiomatic, proved, to be proved, reliant on previous proof etc )

Matthew

imatfaal; Picking up on rigneys last comment "Muslims are welcome, but conflicting doctrines to our constitution such as Shari'a Law, NO!", the differences are in the legal systems of Countries and the extreme differences in Muslim ruled countries. If what you say is correct about a contract being written for an entity in England, but under French Jurisdiction, this would not be legal in the US and I seriously doubt legal under British Common Law.

Jackson - firstly there is no such thing as British Common Law - its English and Welsh; the Scots have their own common law system they are rightly proud of. And Secondly, I am absolutely certain it is legal within the English courts - it is normally discussed under the headings international private law or conflict of laws (when to do with incorporation of a foreign law) and ADR (when dealing with tribunals) - IAAL. Whether it is acceptable in the USA - I am not sure and it is not my area; it would not be a common occurrence as the US courts are reluctant to claim jurisdiction of cases in a potential conflict of forums. I can tell you that US courts do not automatically/immediately refuse jurisdiction over a dispute of a contract merely because that contract calls for non-US law. You are right to say that parties cannot agree to break the criminal law (although it can get very close to this) - but they can agree to waive certain rights and privileges that would normally be protected by the law.

This is getting very off topic - but it is too easy to follow the traditional line that both English and America common law is ageless and sacrosanct; it just isn't. It changes all the time, items of faith are watered down and quiet backwaters become fierce debates. I do not think there is any real prospect of any foreign or new religious law being used in criminal courts in the UK or USA any time soon - it is a bit of a red-rag argument. From my research in the area; when this is mentioned in the media it is normally massively exaggerated and the story stems from the use of a non-usual law within a private law tribunal (which as I have pointed out above is quite legal).

397,000 years after the big bang the universe was still hot enough to be opaque (leonard susskind likens it to trying to look through the sun) . It was like this everywhere!

As the electrons and nuclei combined to form neutral atoms the universe became transparent (the final stages of this is lyrically known as the epoch of last scattering) and the last vestiges of this burning bright universe was not scattered. There was a relatively brief period in which radiation was produced - but was not scattered. This radiation was very energetic and radiated by every point of the universe and in every direction. The area which will later contain sol and earth produced this radiation as well.

This radiation has continued to travel as the universe has expanded. The radiation that was given off by the area which will later contain sol and earth has been travelling for 13.ish billion years away from us. the radiation we can currently detect has been travelling for 13.ish billion years towards us. 1 billion years ago - an observer near sol would have seen the radiation that had travelled for 12ish billion years, it would have been less red-shifted and coming from a nearer point of the universe.

Because the universe has expanded during those 13ish bilion years the initially very energetic radiation has been red-shifted all the way down to the microwave .

We are obviously at the centre of a sphere of observance - because our observables define that sphere. But that sphere is repeated for every observation point in the universe. the sphere of observance is not some form of real result/wavefront/artifact from the big bang; it is merely that the light from 13ish billion years ago from every direction reaches us at the same time (ie now) .

the big bang happened everywhere - and thus its effects are visible everywhere; we see them in a sphere because we need to look back 13 billion years - and that creates a spherical observation

I now see Sisyphus has already done this - oh well never mind

Simpleton - I think no one is saying it can't work because it is such a fanciful idea. On the pennies side of things - No! He is not asking for funding that will be repaid, nor capital that will grow with success; he is asking for donations. As a rule of thumb any idea that can create or involves free energy is probably not based in a lot of truth

Rigney - there are actually many examples of courts and tribunals in the UK in which alternative "laws" are used, mostly in the private law domain.

Even though this is private law with non-standard rules the power of the tribunal is normally upheld by the courts. Many property, marriage, reputation cases are settled by tribunals in which the rules are agreed in advance by the disputants (whether commercial terms, roman catholic canon law, or rabbinical law). There is also of course Equity - which technically was originally church law.

You should also bear in mind that the English court is sometimes willing to use foreign law in a case where there is difficulty in simply determining the correct jurisdiction. A contract might state English jurisdiction - but quite clearly have terms that refer to French law, in some circumstances the English Court will use French Law and French interpretation.

The arena of criminal law is however not structured on either of these ideas - criminal law is the state or the crown bringing the prosecution and to avoid any possibility of mis-interpretation only one law is acceptable here and that is the law of the state.

So, in essence, you are right for criminal law - but there are many other forms of law that impact on daily life.

From a different point of view; the problems Mr S highlighted are in my opinion pretty insurmountable - and they are not alone. I am pretty sure that every decision I take has a multitude of factors - most of them unknown to my conscious mind. How do you plan to have your algorithm take account of the unconscious mind? The only way that you could do it was to have a decision process that had as its initial variable every sensation and every thought that the subject had ever had - and that is clearly not going to happen. I might posit that any machine capable of storing all the memories, sensations, thoughts of a human being and the myriad cross-relations and implications between them would be as sentient as the human being itself - and this machine might well tell you that it has more important things to do than predict another sapient machines decision.

To follow up on Timo's post - for dark matter the idea is that there is actually matter out there and we cannot see it cos it is dark; for dark energy, all we know is that rate of expansion is accelerating more than it should (and it was a very crap choice of name). The dark energy name gives the impression of similar yet opposite to dark matter - whereas this is not known/thought to be the case

As to say correctly in English:

Number 6 is divided into prime number 3?

Number 6 is divided by prime number 3?

Number 3 is a divider of number 6?

Number 6 is divided into prime number 3? DOES NOT EQUAL Number 6 is divided by prime number 3?

3 is a DIVISOR of 6 MEANS 6 is DIVIDED BY 3 with no remainder.

These are the two terms you need ie 'x is a divisor of y' and similarly 'y is divided by x with no remainder'

Victor - where or what is A1°?

To be honest even your 1st point is hard to follow.

Let us examine the numbers A, B, C, D, U in the numeration system on the base q and will multiply the number D by this number , that the number finishes by digit 1 (see A1°).

A B C D U are integers in base q. // should we presume that g and n are also base q

D=A^n + B^n - C^n // I have presumed that lower case d is same as upper case D

// Have you shown somewhere else that this equation is satisfiable? It could be - but I am rubbish at guessing.

There exists a number of the form g^n such that if we multiply D.g^n that the number gB has a unit digit of 1

// multiply both sides of D=A^n + B^n - C^n by g^n

// D(g^n) = A^n(g^n) + B^n(g^n) - C^n(g^n) to get to gB you need to take the nth root - surely you cannot mean that!

// Where is the A1° I am sure that the forum has a link facility somewhere

As a committed atheist it was a little upsetting to see the bigotry evinced by many of the posters, how badly moderated the thread was and the puerile nature of the argument. I think there is more than a little missionary zeal in Sev's insistence on stepping into the lion's den - but a site with rationalism and scepticism as its raison d'etre should be able to tackle a debate with argument and logic, and avoid falling into the trap of relying on lazy stereotypes; and they failed on both points.

No he means millions - if I have it straight (and I thank you for starting this argument because I hope I am learning) we see a sphere centred on us (see green stars reasoning) of CMBR of radius 46billion light years. When the universe was hot enough to create the gamma (?) radiation (that has now been red-shifted down to microwaves) and forms the CMBR this same sphere was 40 Million light years. But the spheres are only from OUR perspective - the big bang was everywhere, we just see it at 46 Billion light years. All observers in the universe will see the CMBR at 46 Billion LY.

Why should a description of 3 spatial & one time dimensions be reducible to a 2 dimensional sketch? Sisyphus' second comment about stars turning green gave a wonderful notion of how any universal effect will appear to use to be a spherical effect with us, the observer, at the centre.

Viktor - I love the fact that you are battling away against this problem - although I am certain it is a doomed task. I think you might get more challenges and thus learn more and be able to develop a more coherent argument if your posts were slightly less cryptic.

Your latest post seems to say talk about three numbers (A^N+B^n-C^n, n.A.B.C, and A+B-C) and whether they are divisors of a fourth number q. But then you say that q is a prime number! Prime numbers have no divisors except themselves and 1 - that's kinda the point. A^N+B^n-C^n will only divide q when A,B &C all equal 1, or when n=0, or when the expression equals q.

I think if you were more methodical and presented your argument in a more formal manner (perhaps with //comments to explain) then you would see errors and be able to hone your ideas.

What a beautiful site. Thnks

mu

see "godel escher bach"

If anyone has any proper news stories on this I would love to see it! The blog posted is a little information-lite - without even the full name of Prof Lago. Even if the figures quoted are exaggerated it would still be a huge step forward - which makes me a little sceptical

Just realised I have never put my name on the newbie list - Hello Everyone. I work in shipping in central London and wish I had continued my science education rather than defecting to the dark side.

A smoothing iron that someone got artistic with once they had bought an electric iron?

Demosthenes - I think our posts crossed, I agree that not all communication acts are spoken. I use verbal to mean communication through language - not merely oral speech, and I am pretty certain that freedom of speech laws only really deal with that. Non-verbal interactions are hard to classify, let alone legislate for! Your point on societal norms is well taken - I am unsure that we have fewer norms but perhaps the flavour is different and "our norms" bear less heavily on us than the imagined weight of the norms of previous generations.

I wish our culture was based on rationalism - it seems to me that much of our culture is as irrational as the pre-enlightenment cultures were. The unwritten laws are still there and functioning - they may not be based on the opprobrium of the elders, or religious and moral strictures - but they are very much a part of modern society.