bob000555

Obviously you couldn’t represent them perfectly unless you had an infinite number of digit places. Just like in base ten as the number of places increases the accuracy with which you can represent the number increases. There is really no magic to number systems, you could use absolutely anything as a base and the system will be defined as [math] \sum_{k=1}^n a_kb^k + \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}c_kb^{-k} [/math] Where a is the set of numbers before the decimal, c is the set of numbers after the decimal, b is base and n is the number of digits.

Speaking of unscientific… how would one measure intellectual potential to say that only ten percent of it is being used. So the fact that being alive is correlated with just about everything proves that the concept of life is “obviously chimerical”?

You ability to drive a car with out slamming into a wall is also correlated with g does that make the entire concept of driving racist? That’s basically exactly what I said; certain cultures value your ability to bounce a ball more highly then intelligence, others study 7 hours a day because nothing is more important to them then the ability to manipulate numbers. As for the statement that we use only 10% of our brains…that really just kills your credibility in the field of psychology evolution simply wouldn’t let us have 90% of our brains taking up valuable nutrition and space doing nothing. Granted only a small chunk of our brain is in the cerebral cortex, the part devoted to couscous thought but everything from the basal ganglia to the hypothalamus to the reticular formation has a function. Note the word “may” in my post; in the realm of rhetoric we call that appeasing the audience without conceding ground. It essentially makes it a hypothetical argument assuming the fact that we are created equally. There was absolutely no point in dragging the concept of equality of opportunity into a debate with a fanatically humanist opponent.

First g has no baring on the calculation of IQ. IQ is simply mental age divided by chronological age. Mental age is defined as the age at which fifty percent of the population would score the same or better on the test. The fact that IQ varies among races and sexes is testament to nothing more then the fact that some cultures value learning and thinking less. Stop your humanistic bullshit and get over it we are not all equal. We may be born equal but some of us chose not to develop our intellect to its highest potential.

[ Perhaps the Democratic Party will be united by this thing called the most charismatic leader in modern times…yeah there is that thing. But seriously for the sake of argument if we throw that factor out your argument is still a classic example of the false consensus effect. Because you deem the democrats’ environmentalism and quest for equality less pertinent then the republicans’ rigid ideology and absurd quest for impenetrable national security you project this value judgment on the population as a whole and extrapolate as though it rely was a universally shared judgment even when the polls show the exact opposite. Nice try though. And in regards to “McCain’s only mistake”, nice rationalization of defect and rejection. Did you ever consider the possibility that the voters thought Obama’s approach was better then McCain’s? It is after all possible that people who disagree with your values judgment aren’t voting based on whim.

When we made the jump from talking about our opinions to speculating about the future we entered the realm of policy analysis which is indeed a science, though probably not to the degree I argued in my last post. All presidents in modern history (with a certain glaring exception) have been elected by a majority which virtually necessitates a diversity of supporters. No president could have appeased all of them but this doesn’t mean they where all one term presidents. Of course if the democrats are stupid they will lose support but to argue that they will necessarily do something stupid is preposterous. By the way I have noticed that when I post twice before someone I’m debating they tend to ignore my earlier argument, please don’t do that should you chose to respond Jackson, see post 18.

This has been equally true for every president we have ever had. If you think the disappearance of Bush will do any major harm to Obama your insane. No presidential first term has been defined by the same thing that got it elected. If this sort of logic was at all true the Reagan Administration would fall apart as soon as they could no longer unite against Jimmy Carter, FDR would be destroyed by the disappearance of Hover. Ah the classic “the media said it therefore it’s wrong” argument. As if candidates directly employ publicly traded media conglomerates. Laughable. By whome? As far as I am aware the FEC report on the McCain budget still includes $150K for Palin’s substandard wardrobe. Saying allegations of stupidity are rude doesn’t make them wrong, in fact if that’s the best response the candidate can come up with it often means they’re right. Illustrating my point that the centrists of the Republican party had to bend to the will of the hyper-populist masses. The republican party is moving towards the extremes not the democrats. Your predictions are totally moot without evidence sir. Like it or not Political science is a science and when trying to predict outcomes the rules of science apply. Please site any exit pools, demographic changes, opinion pools or anything else to illustrate your point.

Your claim that the democratic patty is divided is absolutely baseless. It is undeniable that the primary was divisive but it is also true that almost every democrat (including Sen. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member) united behind the historic campaign, in fact polls show that 80% of registered democrats voted for Obama. I believe the psychological mechanism that motivates your argument is the false consensuses effect, despite all the evidence to the contrary you continue to project your dislike for the Obama administration on the general population. On the other hand I do have actual evidence of infighting in the republican camp. Apparently even McCain aids had quite enough of Palin’s hyper-populist rubbish calling her a “Wasilla Hillbilly” and saying she doesn’t know that Africa is a continent not a country. In a great show of dissatisfaction with their party thousands of supporters came to Ron Paul’s convention instead of John McCain’s. There was even controversy in the party over weather or not they would reject convicted felon Ted Stevens.

Of course the yield would be ridiculously low, some fraction of a percent, but since you cant think of a better way stop complaining. The ethylene is there to encourage the formation of unsaturated compounds like e-4-octane; including acetylene in the mix would further favor unsaturated compounds. Often when they ask questions like this professors are looking for creativity over practicality.

You misunderstand me good sir, I’m not proposing anything I’m predicting what I think will happen. I do indeed think it is likely that the split created in the last election will rip apart the parry into two if not three factions. There will be the Sarah Plain hyperpopulist religious conservative wing, the centrist wing composed of the non-campaign-mode John McCain, and possibly the Ron Paul libertarian wing. Your claim that the democratic party is divided, or at least that it is more divided then the republicans, is quite simply baseless. Any suggestion that republicans are gaining among young people is laughable particularly in sight of the exit polls from the most recent election. Speculating as to which of the republican’s “young people” will be future leaders makes about as much sense as when republicans where guaranteeing that Rudy would be the next president. I was simply drawing historical precedent when I mentioned the 1912 election. Drawing a parallel from 1912 to 2012: assume the republicans nominate another McCain like compromise candidate this person would be vary much like Taft in 1912. In this situation I would not be surprised to see a “draft Palin” movement among women and Southern whites; ending in Palin running as a third party (no amount of political idiocy is beyond the populists.) The republican vote divided, who ever the demarcates nominate(be they Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Bidden) or anyone else would easily win. And how do you arrive at 42 the Franken-Colman race is still being counted and is within one hundredth of one percent of the total vote.

The question is so vague that the fallowing would technically be correct though I doubt it is what your professor wants: Seal a mixture of simple hydrocarbons including methane, ethane and ethylene in an airtight piston absent any oxidizing agents. Compress the mixture several hundred fold, release the pressure. A small portion of the resulting compounds will be octane. If your professor values ridiculously impractical thinking it may work.

Comparing an online science forum to an actual peer reviewed journal illustrates your unwanted self importance. My argument is not against science a proper scientific discourse is great. My argument is against people who seem to think that having some science knowledge them to sit on the editorial board of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Don’t take that the wrong way most of you do know more about science then me.) Ever since I started posting on this forum I have been noticing an increasing number of people who have given themselves Nobel Prizes in their mind and are laughing at us punny obviously inferior people who disagree with them. By all means correct people when they are wrong, but do it to teach them and not to assert your (nerdy version of) primordial dominance. In short remember that people posting speculations are not submitting their thoughts for peer review, you are most likely not qualified to give peer review(though I know some people on this board are). P.s I have never started a thread in the speculations forum, largely because I have few original thoughts. It is not that I can not take criticism for my posts it is that I get aggravated when I see pretensions, people suffering from a sever inferiority parading being rude to curios people. P.p.s I spent a month at Johns Hopkins University over the summer I spoke to professors who are likely smarter then any of you they were all willing to share their knowledge and that is the true mark of an intellectual; telling people that their wrong is easy, even I can do it, actually sharing your knowledge is the mark of greatness.

The republicans are about as divided as any party since Teddy Roosevelt pulled the party apart by running as a progressive candidate in 1912. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they split into a populist party and a centrist party especially if Sarah Palin really does seek the nomination in 2012. They will never be able to get all 41 of them to vote the same way on a cloture vote.

Actual scientific discourse is quite a different thing from the disenfranchisement and lay-bashing that goes on on the speculations forum. I try to ask valid questions and tell people when they are obviously wrong but most people do it in a mean spirited way almost like getting on a forum and bashing people is their only form of entertainment.

In all honesty had someone posted on the speculations forum “It appears that the continents used to fit together and then drifted apart, their movement caused mountains and valleys etc” do you thing anyone on this forum would have done anything but laugh and whine? Granted most of what is on that sub forum is pure crap but when something makes some sense we don’t have to be quite as harsh as we are. The sciences are already having enough trouble attracting interest without us bashing everyone when they start to think about it and are ,*gasp*, wrong. We should thank the flying spaghetti monster that more people don’t decide to vet their thoughts here, we would have no more garage tinkerers, no more basement philosophers. We shouldn’t espouse the virtues of the scientific method and then crush people who’s ideas are in it’s first stages. Also D H see definitions 2-7 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Not to indulge a troll but… Real science is the process of replacing out of date theories; not the act of clinging to them. With out real science we would still think some great omnipotent juju created us out of dust. That science is ever changing is its great strength, no (respectable) scientist will claim to always be right an his quest for knowledge could change out lives. On a side note this is why I tend to hate the standard reaction when someone posts a theory in the speculations forum…that is what it’s for after all.

Might the original poster have been attempting a Modest Proposalesque satirical or even Socratic attempt to point out the stupidity of our reactions when ever someone starts a thread in Speculations and Pseudoscience?

Which would be the more likely result of passing gaseous iodine over sodium amide: NaNH2 + 2I2 -> 2HI + NaNI2 or NaNH2 + I2 -> NaI + NIH2 The first reaction would produce a much more interesting product, NaNI2, the second seems like a way a good way to inhale a poisonous explosive…

What is i to the power of infinity? As near as I can figure either the answer is the matrix [-1, 1, i , -i], or 0.

Take the child to a doctor right a way hitting his head and or face, along with the mention that he is very bright at age six, can be an indicator of autism. Its likely not anything so serious but better safe then sorry.

ginkgo biloba, caffeine and or creatine may be helpful.

Before I give my explanation of your sister’s behavior I will have to explain the Freudian theory of psychodynamics. According to Freud we all have three main players effecting our behavior, they are the id ego and superego. The id is the primeval drive to seek pleasure and fulfill the lowest level of our needs hierarchy(physiological needs like food and water). The superego is our conscience which criticizes and prohibits our id’s drives. The ego is the mediator between the two, finding the rational middle ground. The analogy that is commonly used is that of an angel and a devil on a persons shoulder giving counsel, the ego would be the person, the id the devil, and the superego the angel. Your sister’s ego is having trouble mediating between the id and superego and is defaulting to the id far to often, there are many possible reasons for this. If your sister lacked a maternal figure or had only a week maternal figure the superego could have failed to develop properly(the development of the superego is a result of an internalization of the same sex parent’s values). If your sister was at one point was functioning normally, or especially if she was functioning selflessly there is the possibility that she suffered an extreme negative consequence as a result of fallowing her superego(for example if the car crash you mentioned was a result of a selfless act) he ego then decided to stop listening to the superego. There are many other possible explanations. Then agene there is the distinct possibility the Freudianism is pure bullshit in which case you can ignore this entire post.

According to Freud morals are the result of a bazaar chain of events starting with sexual attraction to the opposite sex parent and ending in acquiring the mannerisms and value(morals) of the same sex parent. Also according to Freud we are born with only the Id the primeval pleasure seeking part of our personality. As we learn to cope with realty we devolve the Ego, the realty centered part of the personality structure , which seeks to gratify the Id’s wants in a realistic way. Then around four or five we develop the Superego, the part of personality focused on the ideal, according to Freud this is the personality structure responsible for feelings of shame and pride, it is the source of our conscience and morality. (the development of the superego is influenced by the afore mentioned bazaar chain of events.) According to Kohlberg morality develops from a consequence based system in which we seek to avoid punishment, develops into to a stage of social norms in which we do what society tells us is right and then to a post-conventional stage in which we decide from our own internal values what is right and wrong. Not everyone develops into the post-covenantal stage and simply believes that thing society deems wrong are wrong, that all laws should be blindly fallowed.

base 2i can be quite interesting any poistive negative, imagenary or negative imagenary number can be represented with out a special sign.

Does anyone know how energetic the annihilation of neutrinos and antineutrinos is? When bombarded with neutrons aluminum produces Al28 which decomposes via negative beta decay with a half life of 2.24mins. When bombarded with neutrons potassium produces K40 which decomposes via positive beta decay with a half life of 1.3 billion years, If one were to alloy aluminum with potassium(some element with a shorter half life on the beta source would probably be better) in a vacuum and bombard the alloy with a powerful neutron beam what is the probability of the neutrinos and antineutrinos produced during beta decay of the two elements colliding(not to mention the electrons and positrons produced in the same process)?