studiot

Where does this come from? imatfaal has already suggested how to get your third equation (you don't need 4) So in each case distance walked plus distance driven = distance walked plus distance driven = x + y So if you introduce a new variable, say z for distance driven the second time x + y = z + 3y You now have 3 equations and 3 unknowns.

Well in part (1) you have two unknowns, x and y and two equations so you can calculate them. I think you said he walks y km. In part (2) your wrote down that he walks 3y km (look carefully at the words)

Some may have seen this before, but I thought it was a good one.

But objects in space, including that famous picture on the wall and yourself, do not just exist at spatial coordinates (x,y,z), which is a mathematical 'point'. Objects occupy a region of space, containing many such points. If you say that time is similar what region is occupied in the time axis?

It's not clear in Sensei's picture but inside the bottle there are two thin strips (or one strip nearly torn into two) of aluminium foil. They flap apart like a bird's wing when supplied with charge and fall back together when the charge is drained.

This is not quite right. as imatfaal said.

Not really. Torque is a three dimensional effect. Please ask what you really want to know about masses in circular motion.

Surely there is no such thing as a 'sustained' fusion reaction? Two nuclei collide and fuse, if the conditions are favourable. And that's it, game over. Mig, with respect, I think you could rephrase to what you actually mean.

You need to understand what 'torque' is before you can understand the answer. The answer is that the torque vector is directed at right angles to the plane of motion so it it lies in none of the directions you mention, which are all in the plane of motion.

Not necessarily. Operation by the operator i is equivalent to a rotation by pi/2. So i operating on anything will produce an orthogonal axis. Just as x,y,z and ct are orthogonal to each other, cit is orthogonal to all of them.

You need to do the back substitution after the calculation to return from 'imaginary time' it to our time t. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

The Ancient Egyptians has wells. What did they use to haul water out in? And where in the English Language has anyone ever written that they hauled water out of a well in a boat?

Well said. Personally I'm a don't care, rather than a don't know (agnostic), or a definitely against (aetheist) as it would make no difference to my actions.

Now you are beginning to see past the beam.

I was comparing the relative strengths of the accelerating forces because almost everywhere we look and find charges being accelerated, they are accelerated (principally) by electromagnetic means. So before we can attribute any measurement of radiation induced by gravitational acceleration of a charged particle, we have to eliminate electromagnetic effects. I do not know of any measurement system now or in the foreseeable future that is accurate to 1 part in 1040.

No I do not want to extend the definition of Religion. You are still only talking about substance, but as MigL observers much of Religous content is to to with its several and varied purposes, such as a moral code of conduct, a record of history, a source of social authority etc. Talking of substance you have said Creationist Religion is in conflict with cosmology. and Buddhist Religion defers to Science. So what conclusion should I draw as to your views? 1)Religion is in conflict with Science. 2)Religion is not in conflict with Science. 3) Buddhism is in conflict with Creationism. 4) Some other conclusion.

Thank you for that correction. I'm glad someone here knows more about Astronomical Physics than I do.

Whilst I agree with John's clear and valuable extensions of my points, I think that trans ferrous elements were also made that way, using the spare energy available in large enough stars. It should not be taken to imply that fusion to create heavier elements, or fission to break lighter ones, cannot occur. Just that for this to happen would require a source of energy external to that particular fusion or fission process.

1) The use of the phrase 'there's no strong evidence' suggests to me that should such strong evidence appear the speaker would be prepared to consider or even accept it. That demonstrates the lack of closed mindedness, and arrogance.

I consider it to be in very poor form to give someone, especially an enthusiastic new member, a negative rep point for this post. There is nothing impolite, arrogant or demonstrative of a closed mind. So I have added +1 to reverse it. Further I repeat my comment about the narrow view taken on religion, which is still not being addressed.

I'm sure also that one of the things you are meant of gain from this exercise is experience in the presentation and evaluation of data. So do what do you think of the difference between my presentation and that of fiveworlds? Is the bar chart / histogram an improvement? Also you should be able to make comment on the two variables you have measured, viz temperature difference and weight (mass) of salt. Is there any impact on your data from the quality of the measurement?

That difference is too subtle for me, please explain. Here is a quote from Clemmow So the experimental implications of excluding electric accelerations on electrons are that we must measure to 1 part in 1039.

Wikipedia seems to be talking about what I meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function You need to look up the WF for Zinc and Copper

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility. But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water. Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation. But if you are going to achieve any credence with the modern engineering community, you need to speak to them in a language they will understand, and further not try to tell them that it is easy to move multi-tonne objects hundreds or even thousands of metres basically horizontally but generally uphill.

Do you mean is it possible for some person to believe simultaneuosly in Genesis and the Big Bang? Yes I think some individuals do just that. Or do you mean do I personally .... ? Actually I find both about equally unsatisfactory. But then I asked what is truth and since you did not answer consider this. Truth is what I believe. It is true because I believe it and therefore it is a tautology.