studiot

This is a science forum, not an cranks's AI playground.

From the questions I'm guessing you are just starting co-ordinate geometry ? I will add a bit to MigL's comment to help. If you do a drawing for each of your questions, showing some angled line A B and the coordinate axes and dropping perpendiculars to both x and y axes your algebra is probably good enough (I note from your previous questions that it was very neat and tidy) to work out the derivations for yourself using Pythagoras. Post your sketch and if you need more help, we will wee what we can do. This sort of work is where the French habit of working on squared paepr rather than lined paper is very helpful. Your drawing should start something like this

Thank you for that correction, your Greek is better than my memory +1 Strictly ~ology refers to the name of the subject of study coming from the Greek for the substance or pith of something. Love of comes from another Greek word Philos as a prefix, so philosophy etc.

Maybe but it looks more like a money spinner to me. However I do agree that unless one is prepared to exclude biology from the Sciences, I don't see how one can exclude the so called 'social sciences'. After all Biology includes the study of individual, groups and communities of ants and animals and their behaviours and interactions so must include the study of groups of humans. But of course Science does not mean study it refers to knowing or knowledge and comes from the Latin verb to know and noun for knowledge. ~ology comes from the Greek 'love of' In truth I don't see how one can achieve either without study.

Funny that, I was just watching a programme last night describing how Cortez thought he was spreading the word of God, but was actually spreading smallpox. This led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the collapse of a civilisation.

Not only that but large part of the world population set aside other day(s) as holy or a day of rest or whatever.

Interesting chinese optical illusion

SF has been offline for me over the last 4 days - not sure why. Anyway thanks for the reply I will look at the vid when I get time - Hopefully there are not too many adds. Meanwhile I don't know what your mechanical background is but do you know about Newton's third law and the laws of machines eg you mentioned mech advantage but do you know about velocity ratio etc? Another place where the relationship between torques and levers is vital, but maybe less apparent is in aviation. For instance the tail length of a helicopter provides a lever so the tail rotor can be much smaller than the main rotor yet supply enough force to counterbalance the torque of the main rotor. Also the torques produced but the fact that gravity, lift and thrust do not act at the same point in a winged aircraft, and the fact that they change with flight attitudes and fuel loading is rather more hidden but still vital. Perhaps @MigL might like to comment on this.

This thread is deliberately wider in scope than just AI drivers. However one point about them occurs to me The most common driving offence is speeding. Does any proposed AI driver always observe speed limits ? If not why not and who is responsible?

That list would ne very wide and very expensive I suggest trying to narrow it down a bit. You could try to get hold of The Book of Experiments The Second Book of Experiments By De Vries I particularly like the list of equipment in one experiment You will require I thunderstorm. ... More modern books with good experiments From Calculus to Chaos - Acheson The Mathematical Mechanic - Levi

The thing about Art is that it can and does say or depict things more staid folks cannot or do not because of their constraints.

Unfortunately you have yet to propose a hypothesis. So I have nothing to understand. Gravity is not caused by the interaction between electrons and protons, it is not even affected by it. In fact the mass of the proton is nearly 2000 times as great as the mass of an electron so nearly all the gravity due to atomic matter is due to the protons.

Make up your mind. Are you talking about rotating electrons or rotating atoms ?

This may well be true. But this makes no sense whatsoever.

Very nice but what does it have to do with gravity ?

Not much, the book is from different point of view and much more general picture. Your information is additive and I'm sure further work elsewhere across the globe will gradually build up a more complete picture.

Thanks +1 For those interested in a simpler yet more general discussion of the mantle for backgound material I recommend this book. Peridotite is first discussed on page 119

Some more ancient implementation of these principles are The ballista The slingshot ballista The Atlatl Anthropologists now believe tha last of these was partly responsible for the eventual ascendency of homo sapiens over other human species.

Well I haven't watched your video, but congratulations on a novel version of a well used mechanical principle, +1 I look forward to the rest of your presentation here to complete your post#2 I am not sure the ancients used anything like this to lift heavy blocks, there is a simpler way without the dificulties of making a strong enough lever. Have you heard of folding wedges or using rotation to slowly lift a block by easing up one corner at a time ? Meanwhile here are a couple of modern applications of combining levers and rotation (Tower bridge has been in operation for well over a century now) Bascule bridge. Wikipedia has some great animations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bascule_bridge Falkirk Wheel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_Wheel

Gosh engineers want gravity to keep their cars from leaving the ground. The force of friction is what allows the car to move forwards. With no friction there would be no forward motion. As you say the force of friction is generated by the normal force of gravity via the coeffficient of friction. Both the force which holds an atom together and the force which bonds one atom to another is electrostatic in nature, not magnetic as you claim.

Did you say you were an engineer ? What sort of engineer posts this sort of mechanical nonsense in classical physics ? This is not even good physics.

I think swantsont's comment is particularly relevent here. You need to read the actual paper and quote the reference in order to be able to make claims such as the one above about Einstein. I look forward to a proper reference/citation.

Thanks but what about trust in doctors? Surely we would give all the money we have (however rich) to save our own lives ?

I glad you found the quote interesting. However I'm not sure you cottoned on to its significance, perhaps due that the forum your quote came from (I has a quick look around there and found it very shallow and unimpressive) The important message was not about who said it (It was definitely Faraday) it was that no one could (or did) predict the course of (human) history subsequent to the nascent science of electricity that was represented as a baby, any more than anyone could tell whether that baby could turn out to be a Ghandi or a Hitler or a Bill Gates or just Joe Soap. Similarly all those discoveries or inventions listed had a major impact on subsequent human society, and sorry swansont, I disagree with your interpretation of the word Science. Perhaps we should all agree both what is meant by Science and what the OP means by 'reach', as several have asked. I understand Science to mean "An organised body of knowledge" without any restriction on what that knowledge is about. I understand the OP to be interested in a body of knowledge would allow us (human society) to move on from our present state and situation to an improved and improving one. By reach I understand a request, similar to the woman (who was not a dullhead) who asked Faraday about the baby, as to how far this might progress. So perhaps King Kobra would like to clarify my understanding.

We live in a country about to do away with juries. Perhaps the next step is to replace judges with AI ? This whole issue is much wider than just artists