Schrödinger's hat

use the [math] and [/math] tags. Most latex is accepted. There is a tutorial in the maths section. You can also click on someone's equation and it will show you what is typed to make it (I have noticed it isn't always 100% accurate, but the mistakes I did notice were infrequent/some time ago). The reply/multiquote buttons will also get you a copy of what someone else typed (eg. for correcting someone else's post), strip out the quote tags and surrounding text and modify the eqn to suit. Almost there. Just complete the square(s). It'll probably get even messier, either live with it for a couple more lines or play around with redefining some variables.

\left and \right are handy. so is the preview button

Now look at the surface of the ball. Consider it a 2d space. Where is outside?

Yes, constant c and Lorentz transform are equivalent. I was trying to point out that 'length contraction and time dilation' is not a sufficient description of the Lorentz transform. Upon re-reading your post, I see you implied are synonymous, which I somehow missed the first time. Anyone familiar with relativity would know what you mean immediately. However, without some mention of simultanaety it is unclear and/or confusing to someone without this knowledge. TL;DR [math] \mbox{Lorentz transform}\leftrightarrow\mbox{constancy of c}\rightarrow \mbox{Time dilation+length contraction} [/math] NB: implication only runs one way on that last. Such are the perils of not using maths to talk about precise concepts.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations as the OP was inviting speculatory and unusual theories.

Time is labelled as the fourth dimension in relativity because it is in many ways interchangable with the three spatial dimensions. In SR, the spatial dimensions in one frame are a mixture of spatial+time dimensions in another. We call it the fourth, simply because we added it to the three space dimensions. You can just as easily make it 0 or 2, (0 is often used, but 2 makes little sense as you split your space dimensions) and it would be the second dimension in your 1 spatial dimension universe. The 10/11/26 dimensions from string theory come from a requirement in the mathematics to have that many degrees of freedom for any sane solutions to come out of the basic premises. The details are somewhat beyond my ability to explain, and I'm not aware of any succinct layman's explanation. Edit: Fixed typo michel pointed out.

The only ways to control the speed are to change the pitch, or change the load on the shaft. One way of doing this is with a brake of some kind. This is wasteful in terms of energy, but can be necessary to stop the turbine from falling apart in high winds. The other is to change the load produced by the generator. This is highly dependant on how your generator works. If it's a DC generator, putting a lower resistance electrical load on it will increase the current and increase the force required to turn it (requires some kind of controller/voltage conversion depending on what you're using it for). Another option might be to use a gearbox of some kind. I don't really have much domain specific knowledge in this regard. If you explain a bit more about how things are set-up (what kind of generator/stator, how it's controlled, what it's powering etc), I may be able to help further.

! Moderator Note Do try and keep things civil and on topic. Michel, take it to a PM or report it to the mods if you do not like DrRocket's behavior, arguing in the middle of a thread is bad for the discussion. DrRocket, some links to (or explanations of) said models along with a slightly friendlier attitude would probably be more effective for helping Justlookingin understand his/her misconceptions. Justlookingin, please post any speculatory or non-mainstream explanations and ideas in the speculations forum.

Not quite sure what you're getting at/asking here, but if I interpret it correctly, the answer is that they will not show the same time in the original frame. Note that I am taking the conventional definition of present (half-way between past and future in flat space) here, and assuming that 'show' includes correcting for light delay.

To be nit-picky, time dilation+length contraction (at least as they are understood by most who read those words) are not a sufficient explanation on their own. They are, however, a necessary consequence of a constant speed or of the lorentz transforms (both of which are). I suspect that the part Lowemack is missing is the idea of how simultanaety works in a relativistic universe. Not only do durations measured by one clock change between reference frames, but distant, originally synchronised clocks will not show the same time.

If that's the case...how deaf are those who will not smell?

I don't even get what point you're trying to make. Why is it fundamental? What does it do? What do you mean? Please differentiate between deism and theism. These things absolutely rule out all but the most abstract forms of theism (ie. the idea that there is some entity outside of natural law that we communicate with and/or interferes with the world). They do not rule out many forms of deism (or the idea of a non-interfering conscious entity). These ideas, however, are completely useless and do not require much faith. The existence and nature of some thing outside of the universe is completely irrelevant to my life. If it is outside of natural law and can do anything (this includes soul/afterlife/etc concepts), then it is contradictory to natural law, or natural law should be extended. If it is outside of natural law because it does not interact with the universe, then it is irrelevant. If it is within natural law, then it is just a thing and can be studied like any other thing. You keep saying this, but all I see from faith/supserstition is people misusing it for their own ends or being mislead by it into harming themselves or others. If we can't know anything about it, then it does not do anything (or does not do anything that can be differentiated from no effect) and is irrelevant. If it does something or reacts to us in any way, then we can poke it and see what happens. Science regularly contradicts superstitious and religious claims. We know where lightning comes from, we know the sun isn't carried by some guy in a chariot, we know the positions of the planets don't actually tell you how your friends are going to treat you today, and so on. When this happens, we're just left with a smaller set of superstitions (those that fit, or can be moved to the remaining gaps). What does this non-material world do?

Xitten: Gamma rays can theoretically be resolved to a much better image, but the practicalities of building a telescope for them outweigh this. You lose a large portion of your light, focusing it is hard and so on. As far as I am aware we only use gamma telescopes for observing bright astronomical phenomena. They don't have a lens in the traditional sense, but work by having the light graze along the edge of a mirror. Imatfaal and Klaynos: Interferometry. I know building things down to the wavelength at planetary distances may as well be considered impossible given our current technology, but then so is building a planet-sized individual telescope. There's also exotic things like gravitational telescopes (use the field around a sun, neutron star, or black hole as your objective lens). I don't think they're ever any good for observing things smaller than a planet though. Something to do with the way the field bends light becoming a good approximation of a lens only at extremely long distances.

The latter definition applies to the former, ie. with these definitions, faith is a subset of superstition. At least insofar as we use the word faith rather than the word knowledge. That is exactly what most of the serious responses have been contesting.

regardless, we can't tell you what you're doing wrong if we don't know what you did try posting your working

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm All seem to agree that faith is a strong belief. They either end there or specify further that it is a belief held in the absence of or opposition to reason and evidence. The last link is a little unclear, but seems to be claiming that faith is knowledge that is not justified with natural reason and evidence (which goes against the definition of knowledge I know of, but I digress) and instead attributes it to inate knowledge or revelation. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superstition http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/superstition?q=superstition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14339a.htm All seem to agree that superstition is belief that is held in the absence of or in opposition to reason and evidence. The last goes on to explain that people, in the absence of the true understanding of the natural laws of the universe, will attribute things to some agency. The only distinctions I can see is that faith is sometimes used in other contexts to mean 'belief based on evidence' (as in 'I have faith in Jim's ability') and the way in which the unsupported belief is described. Please enlighten me if I have missed anything. As we only have one potential example of something coming into being (the universe). it makes to sense to attempt an inductive argument. All other things were a transition from a previous state. Many of these transitions being governed by the circumstances (cause), some with no known correlation to any other event (like radioactive decay). Also, as has been discussed 'come into being' is a bit of a shaky term, as it implies an earlier time (something that is not true -- at least in the sense that we understand time). Maybe it's a rare occurance? Maybe they all figured out something we haven't and left? Maybe they're more different than we expected? Go read about the Drake equation if this is not completely obvious to you. Please try to talk about one thing at a time. You appear to be piling evolution (something very well understood), abiogenesis (something which is very plausible given current scientific knowledge, but the details are still very unclear), and a first event concept (something concluded logically from observations and the current best known laws of physics). If the starter gun is posited, then it is subject to the same requirements given by the previous argument. You have to either stop the argument somewhere and say 'this thing doesn't need a cause' or you still wind up with infinite regress. If you are stopping somewhere, then Occam's razor says you may as well stop before you get to the gun. Unless you have some other reason to think it exists.

Faith and superstition are hard to distinguish from one another. Experiments like Skinner's pigeons show that animals are capable of superstition. There is also a logical justification in terms of evolutionary theory as to why this trait would develop (false positives in believing many things being less important than false negatives), as well as support from psychology as to humans having a prediliction for attributing things to some sort of agency. If you want to claim that humans are special in some way, then it is up to you to support this claim (or even elaborating as to what is special about them without support would be a step up). Also, I do not understand your point about trying to link the existence of natural laws and god. To me, an immutable, logical, verifiable framework that governs the universe absolutely is the antithesis of any but the vaguest religious concepts. I cannot distinguish it from the definition of naturalism.

Look at the units. It's not mass per unit volume, it's mass per unit length. The radius is already accounted for.

There is an important distinction between see (how the light around you interacts with you) and measure (what you perceive of the world once you take that into account, or otherwise work around). You will see the clock running fast, but you will measure the clock running slow. The doppler shift is a result of you moving through the light that the clock has previously emitted (so every second you get some fraction of a second closer to the clock, so the light you see is more recent, thus the clock appears to be ticking faster). Once you acocunt for this (by calculating what time the clock showed in your frame of reference at various times after taking into account light delay) you see that it is running slow (in your frame).

Typically you have one or more buttons or knobs to adjust the sensitivity (related to the voltage across the tube). It's important not to set this too high for a variety of reasons. The first is you can damage the device by setting it too high and exposing it to radiation. The second is that it will become less accurate. Just after the counter discharges, there is a short time where it cannot discharge again. You can compensate for this somewhat by reducing the number of events detected (reduce the voltage/sensitivity). To get a really good result, you should use statistics to estimate the number of events that you missed in this dead time. Another source of error that you will have to consider is background radiation. If you know some basic calculus it will also be useful to think about this equation [math] \frac{dy}{dx} = -\alpha y[/math], how it leads to [math]y=e^{-\alpha x}[/math] and how it could come from a constant proportion of the remaining y being removed with any change in x (ie. something being absorbed as it moves through a material).

Khaled. This is not the nurse scheduling problem. At the easiest, everyone is available for every shift, and so finding a solution is very simple. At the hardest, it closely resembles the nurse scheduling problem, and so finding a solution would be roughly equivalent and take about the same amount of time.

I see what you did there.

I can construct a line that is root two metres long, and then mark its length on my ruler. Or I could define a new unit system where one flam is sqrt(2) metres, then anyone can measure any fraction or multiple of sqrt(2) flams. Or rather, I can't. Because I can't measure exactly 1 metre either.

What do YOU mean by the universe? There's only a limited region we will ever see, barring completely overturning the known laws of physics. Also clusters of galaxies still have a net angular momentum and gravitational interaction. So you can say that they are spinning, even if they will never do anything resembling a full orbit.

But his plan must also be for those people to fight God's plan. And for other people to fight those who fight God's plan. and......