Greg H.

So you're saying that there's positive racism?

Please. Call it by it's proper name: Affirmative Action.

While I don't think this counts as stumping it, I did manage to convince it to admit it was dumb.

Me: You are not clever.

CB: Can you prove it?

Me: You do not speak Klingon. Clever people speak Klingon. Therefore, you are not clever.

CB: No I am not.

Me: Thank you for admitting your faults.

CB: You're welcome.

answer 1 is wrong. the derivative of e^x is e^x

You're absolutely correct, and I missed that. I had forgotten. Thanks for catching it.

As I don't know what the material is, I'll make a suggestion and you can modify it as you will.

IN the days of steam railroads, the railroads would use a very simple system to determine the level of water in water tanks (especially in the desert where you didn't get much rain). A wooden float, attached to a lightweight chain, was placed in the water, and the other end was fed through a clear tube (usually glass). The side of the tube was marked to indicate water levels with the highest level being at the bottom of the tube. As the water level varied, the float would move up and down inside the tank, and the indicator on the outside would move as well, indicating the current levels.

A low tech solution, assuming you can do so safely, would be to drill a hole in the tank, and then replace the missing material with a plexiglass or lexan window. If you can see your liquid, empty the tank.

#1 looks correct to me.

As for #3 I think you may have made an error in your addition for the final result. You may want to take a look at that again.

I'll leave the rest for someone else.

Could you explain how to use the foil method on this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just going to review the binomial theorem.

It's not really FOIL at this point. It's just brute force multiplication.

Like this?

 

[math] x^2+dx(x)+d(x)+dx^2(x+dx) [/math]

Yeah, though I would write it like this to avoid confusion

[math] (x^2+2dx(x)+dx^2)\times(x+dx) [/math]

You have to FOIL twice, basically.

So you do (x+dx) * (x+dx) then multiply the product by (x+dx) again.

My question is why are you bothering to do all this work when a simple application of the product rule will get the result you need.

Its not an assumption, it will be a self evident fact that he has made all of us in his own image that each one of us has the potential in us to create a whole new universe. Without a Self(soul) revelation of God is not possible. Its wise to abide in the truth and not turn away from it. This world belongs to God, the child belongs to God, he is the one who gives it and he is the one who takes it back because it always belonged to him. So we are not here to live our life the way we want based on our personal desires, we are here for the greater good of this world not for your own personal attachments and desires.

And what makes your God any more self-evident or correct than any other deity? I mean, let's look at it logically - there are thousands of Christian denominations world wide. If it's so self-evident and correct, why all the difference of opinion on it?

Obligatory IANAL.

That said, I think the real issue is that the laws (as I understand them) make no distinction with regards to the intent behind the possession or creation. Simply having the material is enough to receive the maximum sentence available, even if said material was captured to provide evidence. This is, in my opinion, what happens when you create knee-jerk laws instead of thinking a situation through slowly, carefully, and completely. Combined with mandatory sentencing guidelines, laws like this have, quite simply, emasculated the judiciary, and are, as has been noted in the articles you linked, destroying the lives of young people for being young and a little stupid.

I wonder how many guilty people I could find if I crawled Facebook looking for pictures of children and playing in bathtubs or swimming pools. I'd be willing to bet there would be more than a few.

Unfortunately the question of what to do about it is so politically charged that I'd be surprised if 10 years is enough time to get them changed in the US.

I will simply say this:

Your post is, for the most part, word salad, and largely unintelligible. This sentence in particular:

There are “magma currents” much like the ocean currents and jet streams, yet inner core.

isn't even a complete thought. I had to read it three times to realize I wasn't skipping a line of text.

What are you trying to explain?

Also, speculation forum is where this belongs.

There is no hole in the OzoneLayer it be a hateful lie The atmosphere would have scattered out to space

No, it wouldn't have. But you obviously do not care to hear about facts. So have a nice day.

Dear Greg

 

"In order to move from the earth's orbit toit's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars wouldneed to be moving roughly 669 inches per year"

 

 

 

Wow,great reply. Thanks you.

 

If NASA would make the verification and find this result, you have to take a trademark on that.

I am starting to think you miss the point on purpose.

To MigL

 

"David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces,"

 

 

 

The issue is very simple.

 

Today we all know the reason that causes the moon to move outwards from the Earth.

 

But, 50 years ago we didn't know that reason. Actually we didn't even think that there is a possibility that the moon is moving away from Earth.

 

Just after getting the formal approval from NASA about this situation, our wisdom science came out with this brilliant idea of reason.

 

Why they didn't think about it before getting the results from NASA???

 

Today, no one knows for sure if Mars is moving (inwards or outwards). Actually we can't ignore any idea of movement direction as currently there is no solid verification & test.

 

We just know that the Science consider that Mars stay in the same radius for billion of year. Is it reasonable???

 

I'm quite sure that if NASA will verify tomorrow that Mars moves outwards then the Science will immediately come with a new brilliant theory which explains this movement.

 

Why they can't estimate this situation in advance??? Why they can't see today what is quite clear and logical??

 

Today I have proved that there is significant evidence that Mars must had been in its Habitable Zone in the past.

 

Therefore, it must have been closer to the Sun.

 

Hence, it moves outwards from the Sun.

 

 

NASA – We have a problem!!! Please try to help!!!

Actually there's a pretty simple way to determine if Mars is moving outwards or inwards.

You just measure the time it takes to ping the lander. If that amount of time changes by a statistically significant amount (iow, outside the error bars expected for communicating with another planet, and based on the changing distance between them as they orbit the sun), then Mars is moving.

But let us, for the sake of argument, assume Mars is moving outwards at a rate of 1 inch per year and has been doing so since 100 million years after the formation of the solar system. That means it will have moved something like 4.4 billion inches since the formation of the planets. That's only 69,000 miles. That's not even far enough to reach the moon.

In order to move from the earth's orbit to it's present location (a distance of .5 au), in 4.4 billion years, Mars would need to be moving roughly 669 inches per year (assuming my math is right). With the precision required to land something on the surface of Mars, someone would have noticed that the planet kept moving a little bit at that speed.

So you don't hate my theory... I don't buy that. For example you don't allow own topic for ToEbi, even it's much more mature and powerful. To me, you hate it.

They closed the thread because you refused to follow the rules of the forums, to wit failing to provide evidence and address the refutations of others.

That aside, this isn't the place to discuss moderation. I merely brought up the old threads in the interest of making sure that anyone who decided to support reviewing your paper has all the available information on the topic.

In the interest of full disclosure:

Discussion #1

Discussion #2

To Greg

 

 

"How many times do I need to say it? Mars - say it with me now - has an atmosphere".

 

 

 

Greg

 

Try to say it slowly with yourself: ---- Mars has no atmosphere which can support a liquid water!!!

 

 

And now, try to do it faster: ---- It might have in the past. but not any more...

I never said it did. What's your point?

Then on a related note I guess the My Little Ponies keep pigs as a source of gelatin. They're cartoon characters, but they at least have some biological similarities to real equines.

How do fictional characters in an animated TV series have "biological similarities" to anything?

Anyway, I hope feeding gummies to cows doesn't have any negative side effects on them, or on the meat they become. I've been extra concerned about Canada's beef industry because of that e. coli breakout from Alberta.

This at least is a potentially legitimate concern, but I don't know if there have been any studies done of the long term effects of a high sugar diet in livestock.

So it's okay to feed gelatin based food to hooved animals?

I will refer you to Cannibalism (Zoology) on Wikipedia.

In particular,

In zoology, cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species. It does not, as once believed, occur only as a result of extreme food shortages or artificial conditions, but commonly occurs under natural conditions in a variety of species. Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to approximately 90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle. Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores and detritivores.

If the animals aren't really bothered by this, you do not need to be worried about it on their behalf.

So, if Mars would move closer to the sun, it could have an atmosphere.

It has an atmosphere now.

Therefore, in order to gain an atmosphere, Mars must be closer to the Sun.

It has an atmosphere right now.

In the past Mars had an atmosphere.

And it still has one today.

Hence, it the past Mars was closer to the sun.

Um, no.

Today, Mars is further from the Sun, without an atmosphere.

How many times do I need to say it? Mars - say it with me now - has an atmosphere.

Therefore, Mars is moving outwards from the Sun.

 

Why is it so difficult for you?

It's not difficult, just wrong.

If no ozone so no atmosphere factualy

 

The gases that be being the vapor specificaly be moving around i understand and though the atmosphere be being the oxigen hydrogen clouds be a very good example that be being a vapor and exectra

Suppose about the vaporive aspect for some reason i suppose it be being important

Wrong.

A atmosphere be for life as we know that and so basively that be being correct and i like that

 

 

If other planets had a atmosphere life would start there too

 

 

Do you agree

No. Jupiter has an atmosphere, so does Venus, Mars, Neptune, Saturn, and Uranus. The fact that ours supports life is irrelevant, as has already been pointed out.

Yes it does

It also contains the atmosphere because the atmosphere shall scater away into space if it shall none obtain that ContainivePrinciple

The ozone layer does not hold the atmosphere in, it keeps the sun's UV rays from par broiling everything on the surface with UV rays.

See there are a couple of things you need to form an ozone layer, and the first one of those is a lot of free (unbound) oxygen molecules floating around. Without that, you don't get ozone forming in the atmosphere. So you see, ozone doesn't cause the atmosphere - the atmosphere causes ozone.

Tomorrow i shall continue though

And you'll still be wrong.

Mars does have an atmosphere, albeit a thin one. According to NASA:

The maximum wind speeds recorded by the Viking Landers in the 1970's were about 30 meters per second (60 miles an hour) with an average of 10 m/s (20 mph).

Additionally, NASA landers have measured the average atmospheric pressure on Mars to be about 7.5 millibars.

How do you measure wind speed and barometric pressure with no atmosphere again?

One of the things I have noticed, at least in the US, is a very much "With us or against us" kind of attitude towards a wide variety of subjects. There doesn't seem to be any room for common ground in the middle - you either vote like me, or you're against me. You go to church where I do or you're against me. You believe the way I believe or you're against me and my beliefs. I remember growing up (and maybe I am romanticizing this - I didn't pay as much attention to politics when I was younger), you could still have a substantive debate with someone of a different political persuasion than you without it turning into 5 year olds yelling "Nuh Uh!" back and forth at each other. Now, it seems more like each side automatically gainsays the other just because they're "on the other side of the aisle" rather than because what they say is actually right or wrong. I think it's that strict bilateral viewpoint that leads to this feeling of persecution from the religious groups - if you disagree with or reject our beliefs, you are automatically attacking them.

If you didn't "want" your colonoscopy, why did you have it done? Like it or not, you wanted a colonoscopy.

I can't really agree with this statement. If someone is having a colonoscopy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was probably medically necessary, which does not make it a want (assuming they enjoying being alive). Having a breast augmentation done is a medical want. Having a procedure to determine if you have a life threatening illness is not.

That would be like saying having an appendectomy so you don't bleed to death internally is something you wanted to do.

Stick to the issue here Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error?

 

As you have not, and never do, provide any evidence to back up your WAG about the whole thing, what do I have to disagree with?

Henceforth, when you post these kinds of threads I am just going to start reporting them out of hand. Your nonsense is gone beyond funny to irritating.

Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment

 

Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid

You have already failed to demonstrate your claims on multiple occasions, so I am going to call you out on this early to save everyone here a lot of time.

Prove it, or for the love of God, stop posting crap threads.