imatfaal

Just to check is your food bought by your parents/parent most of the time; cos in most of the world junk food is not cheap, it just seems that way if you don't know how to prepare food. And we can control ourselves - it is a matter of will-power. Some people have greater self-control than others - this is just human nature; we vary hugely even though we are so similar in many other ways. There are quite a few threads on here with journals of people stopping smoking, my cycling forum has literally hundreds of threads of people losing weight (it makes those hills so much easier), and you will find every day tales of human fortitude and will-power all over the internet.

This old chesnut of they are both as bad is just plain wrong. I think in your country and in mine it is closer to be correct - but in the USA it is simply not true. BTW I think Romneycare was statute which was created by a Democrat legislature under a Republican Governor (he vetoed the left wing dirty socialist stuff). The fact that Romney had worked with Dems was a major negative against him for many of the tea-party faithful that were the ideological core of the modern GOP

! Moderator Note Tar - which bit of the above mod-note did you not understand? Do not pollute this thread with your poorly understood ideas of cosmology. You will not be warned again

There is the Kipling Poem - and most of the rest flows from that. Kipling was incredibly important - trying not to sound too pompous - in the maintenance of the zietgeist of British Imperial/Colonial rule and a major apologist for Empire in general; even though, maybe perhaps because, he was late in its period. His works were canonical and reference to something in Kipling's oeuvre guaranteed recognition and understanding (even if this was only of the Ersatz/Kipling version).

Along with Eddington one of the great explainers - but top ten overall? Sorry shouldnt have responded - reply is too offtopic even for me

Thanks. I really need another distraction like a need a hole in the head. But I went ahead and performed steam-powered © trepanning anyway Looks like a brilliant time-waster and good fun. I am reading Neal Stephenson's Seveneves at the moment so fired up with rocketry and space exploration already.

It is still just an optimized sieve of eratosthenes. It is neat - but to convince me otherwise I would have to see a breakdown showing how with n as a very large that the time taken grew at a smaller rate than n. Because sieves based on Erathosthenes with wheel portions and clever bits from Atkins can get to O(n) And this is not a potential solution to large number factorization. And infinite compression is silly

! Moderator Note Huge diversion in which Tar seemed to challenge theory without background, aim, or reason has been broken off to speculations. If we are discussing Philosophy then do so - using misrepresentations and shoddy understandings of current theory in an attempt to shed light on the philosophy of science is doomed; if you start your logical argument with an incorrect premise then all that follows is pretty worthless. Please stick to the topic - and use examples you actually understand otherwise members will, unsurprisingly, take issue with the abuse of the theory rather than the point it was meant to illustrate Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

! Moderator Note Moved to the Lounge - this is not really a topic for this forum

! Moderator Note challenge to thermodynamics moved to its own thread in speculations

Neither - both theories are correct. If you understand thermodynamics and set the system correctly you will see there is no conflict - overall entropy increases even if locally it can appear to be the opposite

! Moderator Note Seriously Disabled - you have to be able to justify and back up such claims.You don't just get to say that major theories are incorrect on the word of a guy from India

@strange excellent post and great jpeg (once I had translated it). But surely "contextually indicated deixis" is a tautology? I ask for honest reasons not as a dig - I had to look it up

It is a reduction in service for an increase in price; all to allow tax cuts / breaks for the wealthy, employers, and providers. For many poor Trump voters they will soon realise they have been complicit in the removal of a really good thing; once they understand that ACA is being gutted and ruined they might mourn its passing. And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way

I have read the same - the previous record (much shorter distance) stands because when the spotter said (paraphrased) to the sniper "it has to be luck at that range" the sniper shot the man standing next to the first victum and in doing that showed that it was not luck (or he was just on a very very lucky day) I use the word luck - but it is misplaced; the sniper with the previous record and many others have discussed the mental scarring inherent in such killing. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is death - albeit in a theatre of war - it is the loss of a life; in my book that is always to be regretted, never glorified

The idea of keeping threads simple and to the point didn't really sink in did it? Virtual particle - strange rules apply to virtuals. Actual gravitons are what you get in gravitational radiation and that can be considered as created by the specific change in spacetime curvatue outside any event horizon Theoretically it should be, and experimentally it is (as close as we can measure). The mass of the graviton has been pegged as very very small ( we expect zero but you can never measure that). Quantum foam is a completely unproven hypothesis - I am not sure how to relate it to a thermodynamic model nor qft. I would suggest getting a firmer grouding in non-cutting edge science before attempting this level. No mass is very important - you can have any sort of particle with a set energy or momentum some of these would be massless and some massive; to determine speed of particle you need to know mass (ie c or less than c). And what the hell does accelerated inertia mean - a particle has momentum without needing accleration Please lose the word salad. an "idealized idea" ? Please keep to one topic. And again - try to get the basics steady in your head before heading off into such strange territory

It is a basic sieve - in fact I fail to see any substantive difference from the sieve of eratosthenes Sieve of Eratosthenes runs with time / complexity of the Order [latex] \mathcal{O}(n\log\log{n})[/latex] Whereas more streamlined algorithms can run at [latex] \mathcal{O}(n)[/latex] or even if memory is not an issue at [latex] \mathcal{O}(\frac{n}{\log\log{n}})[/latex]

That makes sense to me - otherwise the famous muon detection on earth's surface would not work; we "see" time dilated for muons (hence they reach earth's surface during what would otherwise be their too brief lifespan) - the muons "see" distance contracted thus they can travel the otherwise too long journey in their brief lifespan)

Mass-Energy equivalence. It will have no mass as it will travel at c - but it could have a very high mass energy. Actual Gravitons ie gravitational waves will, I guess, have an energy related to the frequency just like light x-posted https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/ Prof Matt Strassler to the rescue -- he is always a good read

On the detection side - gravitons have a very low cross section of interaction with matter; they make neutrinos look interactive; they are also stable so there is no possibility of detecting specific and characteristic decay cascades. Really difficult to spot them. About 30 orders of magnitude harder to spot than photons at the energy of the LHC - this is bearing in mind that LHC detects real particles - not virtuals. and they are massless

! Moderator Note Mandlbaur - please reread the above quoted moderation and the rules of this forum before continuing to issue blanket refusals to engage with members argument; this vainglorous grandstanding is both insulting to the members trying to discuss the matter and hampering you from discovering your errors. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

Obviously not that well - because your conclusion was this "The highest amplitude waves are going out, in a equatorial disk," which is the exact opposite of what I was explaining. The highest amplitude are axial - ie at the poles not on the equator. Do you have any conception of the scales we are talking about? And we are dealing in mathematically ideals - the lowest amplitude linearly polarized radiation is on the plane of orbit; in reality you get what you get and any observations will have errors so high that plane or band are immaterial. What the hell is axial power? Could you go away and read a primer on Gravitational waves? And again with the scale thing - who cares? Mathematically it is the axial direction that matters and observationally everything is too blurred to be important one way or another. I can dig out the equation which gives you the power for a given area -ie dE / dA dt but it is complex . But no - for any given area the closer the the poles the more the energy transferred per second. IF you take a big area near the plane and a small area near the poles then yes more power at the plane - but for equal areas no. Angular momentum does apply here - gravitational waves rob the system of angular momentum as well as energy. this is what first allowed us an indirect confirmation of their existence - the taylor hulse binary . But I am not getting into discussing hokey analogies - this is heavy duty physics; Einstein can get away with homespun thought experiments because he understood the real theory - but you cannot really work in the opposite direction

Gotta luv an honest answer. Yes - that brings it all back. Robittybob questioning whether AstroKatie knew what she was talking about - seeing the female bit before the astrophysicist bit. And I was looking at that very Caltech page a few days ago - must have sunk in without me realising. Thanks Using papers nomenclature If we call [latex] A_{GW}[/latex] the maximum possible amplitude, the max amplitude at any time [latex]t[/latex] we denote as [latex] A_{GW}(t) [/latex] and we call the angle that the observers line of sight makes with the axis of rotation [latex] \iota [/latex] then we can say (ignoring the phase) that [latex] h_+ = A_{GW}(t) \cdot (1+cos^2 \iota) \cdot (phase\ angle)[/latex] [latex] h_x = A_{GW}(t) \cdot (-2 \cos{\iota}) \cdot (phase\ angle) [/latex] [latex] (1+cos^2 \iota)\ and\ (-2 \cos{\iota})[/latex] are the important bits which show how the amplitude varies with elevation. Both will be at a maximum when [latex] \cos{\iota} [/latex] is equal to 1 or -1 and that will be the case when \iota = 0 or \pi - ie when you are on the axis Because of the way the phase and magnitude are set when [latex] \iota [/latex] equals zero (ie along axis of rotation) the gravitational waves are not only most intense they are circularly polarized (along the line of propagation the peaks of the waves would trace a helical path - I guess a double helix). When [latex] \iota [/latex] equals [latex] \pi/2 [/latex] (ie in the plane of rotation) the gravitations waves are linearly polarized ( along the line of propagation the peaks would trace straight lines When [latex] \iota [/latex] is between the two values the waves would be elliptically polarized (which is kinda mixture of both)

I think maybe more Americans claim to have German heritage than any other group - but I am pretty sure that British-American would be the largest group if you actually counted carefully. The second half of your sentence is just confirmation bias (as I now see Phi has written above). And frankly the mass-immigration into America from what is now Germany should probably not be thought of as from an identifiable single ethnic group - the bulk of the numbers would have been from Prussia, Bavaria, etc. They were fleeing a revolution which sought to unify them - so I don't think they could be said to share a heritage, maintain a single culture or any of the other things which makes an ethnic grouping.

You sure about the intensity variation Strange? Going back through my memory I seem to think that h_0 (on the axis of rotation) was strongest and that anywhere else you got a varying combo of h_+ and h_x both of which were related to h_0 by being multiplied by sines and cosines of angles of inclination (ie necessairly less than 1) Unfo I cannot find any docs on this at present. My gut instinct is that you are correct - but memory is clear