DrRocket

A valid proof of a patently false assertion can only be made using an inconsistent set of axioms, in which case any assertion is both true and false. Inconsistent axiom systems are not very interesting. The only alternative was alluded to by DH, namely do something stupid and call it clever.

If that is supposed to mean that the people who wrote the books in the Bible were the people who wrote the books in the bible, then one must agree. If that is supposed to mean that the people who selected the books for inclusion in the Bible were the people who wrote the Books of the Bible then that is historically incorrect, as the authors were long dead by that time.

Oh good, a discussion of consciousness.. Much progress is to be expected.

Do what interests you. Why not both ?

Curioiusity is the primary pre-requisite. You apparently are curious. For a curious person with a willingness to work there is no better exposition of physics at a basic level than The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands. If one reads between the lines it is also very good for the more advanced student. In that book (3 volumes) you will see physics through the eyes of one of the true masters of the subject. I doesn't get any better. http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

There is nothing to prove. "=" means "is".

F - All particles of the nucleus are charged (Only neutrons are negative) This answer (F) is probably correct for your class, which appears to be an introductory chemistry class, but your reasoning is not correct. Neutrons carry a net zero electric charge, and therefore are not negative. But if my assumption about your class is incorrect and you are considering elementary particles to be the "particles" in question then the protons and neutrons in the nucleus are themselves composed of quarks and quarks do carry an electric charge.

Concepts to be used: 1) Newtonian gravity [math] F=G \frac {m_1m_2}{r^2}[/math] 2) Classical Newtonian mechanics [math]F=ma[/math] But as DH said, you need to show some work and a reasonable attempt to use these principles.

That in turn depends on the situation (relativistis vs Newtonian physics). In your case one can be reasonably confident that the answer will fit the context. In the case of a lawyer or MD I have no such confidence.

G Believe it or not that is actually one possible model for space in cosmology. It is properly called the flat torus. In Brian Greene's most recent book you will find it called "Pac Man" space. Greene's name comes from the Pac Man video game, and from the construction of the ordinry 2-torus by indentifying (gluing) opposite edges of a rectangular strip together preserving up, down, left and right. Yoou can do exactly the same thing with a cube, identifying opposite faces, to get what geometers call a 3-dimensional flat torus. But note that these structures have no real edge, just like an ordinary torus (surface of a donut) has no edge.

Spacetime is not expanding. Spacetime is static. It includes all of space and all of time. It does not change. It can't. It is space that is expanding. Even that requires explanation. If one assumes that spacetime, the universe, is homogeneous and isotropic, then spacetime can be decomposed as a one-parameter foliation by spacelike hypersurfaces. That time-like parameter serves as a surrogate for "time" and the hypersurfaces as a surrogate for "space". They inherit a true Riemannian metric from the full Lorentzian metric of spacetime. "Expansion of space" refers to the metric expansion of those space-like hypersurfaces as a function of the timelike parameter, as measured by the inherited metric.

The problem of factoring large numbers is so difficult that it is in fact computationaly intractable with current technology and is the basis for many modern codes. Your "simple technique" is only simple for small numbers, where it is trivial.

It is an anagram of OEI.

It actally explains a few open problems. The solar coronal heating problem is one of them. Unfortunately it unexplains virtually the remaider of physics and makes no sense at all.

Read. BTW I may have reproduced one argument with which you are familiar. That is not surprising as the argument is over two thousand years old -- generally attributed to Pythagorus. But I most certainly did not and have no need to copy such an elementary argument.

That depends on what happens when they get to be 14. Most of them, like the majority of the population that produces the statistics that are the subject of this thread are doomed. But they are not sufficiently aware to know that they are doomed. Some will develop the necessary fire and curiousity and save themselves. BTW I know and have known LOTS of 13-year-olds who are not only fired up or reading, writing and arithmetic, but actually quite a bit more aout those subjects than their teachers. That undoubtedly does happen, but that is hardly "teaching curiosity", and requires that the necessary curiosity be self-generated in the minds of bright kids. I know of not a single instance in which any teacher has actually taught curiosity. Encourage curiosity, yes. Teach curiosity, no. What I have seen are in cases where the natural curiosity of the student was in part satisfied by a teacher who could help the student to find the information necessary to satiate that curiosity. That is a very good thing to do, but it starts with the innate curiosity of the student. The result is someone who recognizes that once they have a question that interests them, it is possible, by investing sufficient intellectual capital, to gain some deeper understanding of, and possibly answer, that question. There is no such thing as a sincere nasty question. There are unanswered questions. There are questions to which an answer is not known. But if the question is a sincere one, it is not nasty. The hardest and deepest questions are the most interesting, and are the foundations of research. On the other hand there are questions designed to do nothing more than waste time, which are unanswerable because there is no sensible question involved. No one likes those questions. See any thread started by owl.

That is just flat wrong. A tangent to the earth's surface can have an end point arbitrarily far from the center of the earth. Unless the tangent is paralell to the axis of the earth the radial distance from the center of the earth will increase without bound as the length of the tangent segment increases. Your conclusion holds if and only if the briddge were to run perfectly north and south.

I have seen enought just from the synopsis. Why waste time with trash when there is so much available with real content ? http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

The primary ingredient is curiousity, and I doubt that curiousity can be taught.

You posted it. You called it a deficit. Now you own it.

Mathematicians handle infinity, all kinds of infinities, with regularity. There is no mystery and little difficulty. The "documentary" at that link is apparently as big a crock as the description would lead one to believe and has been removed by the user.

"Only one in 20 people was aware that humans use all of their brain capacity,..." Scary, isn't it ? What is scary is that what we often see here is allegedly 100% of the poster's capacity. Now I understand the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. There just has to be intelligent life somewhere. I think I'll call my Labrador retriever.

Atoms 4.4% Neutrinos 0.1% Dark Matter 24% Dark Energy 73% ----------------------- Total 101.5% Doesn't look like a deficit to me. Seems to be a surplus. Better check your data.

Correct. The coronal heating problem is one of the better known open problems in physics. http://solar-center....AQ/Qcorona.html It has the unfortunate distinction of being regulary cited by "electric universe" wackos as evidence for all sorts of nonsense.

Can you read ? I did prove it. Twice.