studiot

Contrast this statement With this one If you don't/can't read responses how are you going to be able to respond (anywhere) to them ?

Short and sweet again. +1 Lack of Gravitation was the reason Einstein moved on from SR to GR.

Thanks for the reply, yeah it is beginning to look like a dodgy connection where the lead enters the back of the plug.

A funny thing happened, leaving me perplexed. A week or so ago a pair of usb powered + 3.5mm jack speakers stopped working. On removing the backs I saw that one of the leads connecting to one speaker itself had come off so this morning I soldered it back on. After testing the speakers on an older laptop where they now worked I returned the speakers to their original laptop where they also worked again. This evening the speakers had stopped working again, on firing up that laptop. Yet they started came back to life immediately on plugging them into the older laptop again. Back to their normal laptop and -- No joy no workee. Back to the older test laptop -- no problemo. Back to their original no workee. I am very puzzled. Another set of the same types works perfectly in either laptop. Final test the dead? speakers do not display the blue on light when plugged into a usb wall socket supply. Any help welcome. Is any other info needed ?

Especially relevant. +1 I stopped bothering with this thread since it left the title subject of number theory far behind.

Very quickly There have been some very good animations of the 'distortion' caused by speed. 1) Ask Janus, he posted some. Also this earlier thread, I havent had time to review it though. The university of Oz seems legit.

The point of spacetime is that the timelike and spacelike dimensions have a quadratic relationship, not a linear one so you can't separate them. 1-D space has no curvature. Space has to be at least 2 -D to have curvature. Please go back a few posts and read (the translation of) what Minkowski actually said. At the top of page 88 in my attachment. Euclidian space is the name given to space with the usual or standard metric distance function [math]dis\tan ce = \sqrt {x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2 + ......x_n^2} [/math] for n dimensions. The space can be physical or abstract.

What are you talking about ? [math]1 + n/\left( {n/2} \right) = 1 + n \times \frac{2}{n} = 1 + 2 = 3[/math]

Yes indeed, +1. However, as ever, life is more complicated than that. To the best of my knowledge Minkowski didn't write any books, only papers and died prematurely. Here is an extract from one of his papers on the subject. The first 13 pages of this paper are as Markus implies but doesn't say explicitly. They are couched in terms of the real numbers. That is all variables are are measured in real numbers. Minkowsk then introduced imaginary numbers (note not complex numbers) to the mix, near the end of the paper. I am not sure if the reference at the bottom of the left hand page to Schutz acknowledges that Schutz did this first. Some later authors formalised this by starting with the inclusion of i. The use of the 'mystic' formula from natural units is also interesting. [math]3x{10^8}kilometres = \sqrt { - 1} \sec onds[/math]

Inaccurate ? Damn perhaps that's why I never win those lotteries.

Note I wrote this earlier but obviously never got round to posting it. Sorry. I seem to be having all sorts of trouble with postings here and elsewhere just lately. Just think. We can't calculate the weather on our own planet over 10 days. I tell you what. When I win all the lotteries in the world at once I will buy lots of supercomputers from @Sensei and help you. How does that sound ? 🙂

No it would not be wrong to create a global picture, but you would have to do it as you describe in your second paragraph because GR functions are pointwise functions. You could create a standard net and calculate deviations from it, as opposed to calculate absolute (ie direct coordinate) values but you would still have to do this point by point. There is an analagous pair of approaches in fluid mechanics, respectively called Eulerian and Lagrangian.

Two neon atoms in an otherwise empty bar ?? Surely the sound is the question who is paying for the drinks ? 🙂

Indeed so. +1 I would just add to that :- The volume occupied by any wave has a time value attached since all waves expand from thier point of origin over time. So you can't just say the sound occupies 20 litres but you have to say "it occupies 169 litres after 1 second" or similar depending on when you measure it.

Rather than indulging in a non productive slanging match about mostly off topic material I suggest you go away and study Alfven and Lerner. Alfven got the 1970 Nobel Prize for his work on such theories.

You made a big argument about it being only one piece, as though that was significant in some way. How was it significant ? If one cuts a length of plank to size, the remainder of the plank is usually a short plank , not a wedge, if the whole source timber is sound. If, however, the remainder part is unsound due to say splits or shakes, the remainder will fall apart in the cutting off process. Some of these parts may well be wedge shaped, depending upon the course followed by the splits. This would then be a random process. I said the end was 'damaged'. All along I have wanted to discuss the possibility of intelligence arising randomly. And you keep trying to wriggle away from this, by introducing all sorts of extraneous subjects like machines and big words like teleology, neither of which are relevent. Your claim is that artificial intelligence is impossible. That is a two part claim the part about the 'artificial' and the part about 'intelligence'. Intelligence requires a host system, however it arises. It would be sensible in a discussion like this to lay out what exactly you mean by intelligence. Artificial also requires careful definition. My example shows how an artificial construct (my wanted length of plank) can lead to the accidental construction of a machine (the wedge). Do you consider the wedge artificial ?

The references are given automatically by the website system at the top of each quote.

I didn't make an 'argument about it. You did. Not only did you misrepresent what I actually said, you directed the attention of another member to your false representation. And you made a big thing of the offcut being a single piece (your actual words) I actually said How many pieces do you now think the offcut came in ?

I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement (and perhaps an apology) of the misrepresentation.

I'm sure you know about regenerative feedback. The output is different from what it would otherwise be in the absence of feedback. But unless you have an output you have no feedback. You can call the regenserative feedback the phenomenon or just the output to suit yourself.

Even that is not so cut and dried it is not arguable. Without the output, in regenerative feedback, the phenomenon could not occur. 🙂

What makes you think scientists are not already working on this ? One thing is certain. Nature is under no obligation to Man's artificial classification schemes into say plants and animals. Hard reality is the other way round. It is up to us to observe and update accordingly. Cyanobacteria were once classified as plants but apparently that is no longer the case (Charony ?). What are plants? What are animals? What is the difference between them? If you take an old fashioned view that plants generate oxygen (through photosynthesis) and animals breath it then plants must have come first since there was once pretyy well zero free oxygen in the Earth's atmousphere. But see this

Well you have the opportunity here to do what you said you came here for, to learn. I don't know what you know about reverberation time, or even if you have ever hear of it, but basically it is the time for burst of sound to spread throughout a container and bounce back (reverberate) off the far walls. The sound then bounces back and fore (reverberates) between the walls growing ever weaker all the while until it becomes inaudible. So yes we really do fill a room with sound until it dies away. And by fill I mean fill. Sound, being a wave phenomenon, goes over, under and around obstacles like tables and chairs and people. The technique I remember using involved bursting a balloon and recording the sound of the pop as it died away over several seconds. The Albert Hall apparantly has a reverberation time of 3.4 seconds, though I have personally not measured it. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/revlow.html#c3

I hate to contradict such a learned soul but of course you can put sound in a bottle or even the Albert Hall. I agree there is no transmitted sound in a vacuum, but objects like the vacuum bottle wall can still vibrate so I also agree that sound require matter. But of course the Albert Hall does not contain a vacuum. So all my courses about architectural acoustics and the measurments I made of reverberation times tell me that sound can exist in a container for a very long time. Far longer than the existence of many sub atomic matter particles. The decay is exponential so mathematically at least a sound never actually dies away completely. This last sentence shows what you might deem 'a flaw in the theory' and others would simply say it is going beyond the bounds of applicability.

Not necessarily. There are 3 axioms of addition Just for simplicity I will stick with whole numbers (integers) 1) Closure : If a, b and c are whole numbers and a + b = c then c is a whole number. 2) Commutation a + b = b + a 3) Association (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) None of these define the operation + (that is what I must do when presented with a form a + b Suppose I define that operation to be a + b = (a + b) + 1 ? Then 2 + 2 = 5 It is easy to show that this operation satisfies all 3 of the axioms of addition.