CPL.Luke

the plasma vortex will never be stable see the virial theorem

actually if you review the full scientific method you'll see this fascinating section on hypotheses where a scientist makes an educated guess about whats going on and then makes a prediction based on that, and then tests that prediction. that is the scientific method. I don't care if blank blank said xyz about physics one time to a student or whatever, if you actually talk to them about the physics they all agree, its good some of them are trying to push things further but 95% of theoretical physics research is little more than mathematical crackpottery (except that the physicists know when they're finally wrong_

we'll watch the clock fall to the center alright, because we are also falling and as such we don't see an event horizon, although we can figure out the schwarschild radius. its not so much a schrodingers cat phenomenon, as while a stationary observer on the outside of the black hole will never see you cross the EH he will agree on the time it took you personally to fall into the center. GR provides the set of transformations such that we can not only predict how your going to move in one frame of reference, but how your going to move in all frames of reference

unfortunately I am not sure how black hole evaporation figures into it, my guess would be that the geometry is no longer purely schwarschild or thats something we need quantum gravity to deal with. fortunately its hard to find stationary observers with respect to black holes. the difference between the free falling observer and the stationary observer is that one of them is being accelerated (to fight the black hole) accelerated observers always have horizons and in this case they correspond to the event horizon of the black hole.

actually science is defined by predictions, not explanations. review the "scientific method" quotes from physics books are nothing compared to actual physics

the object never crosses the black hole to a stationary outside observer. this is a consequence of your particular reference frame, this does not require redshift in order to explain it, just the geometry of spactime. If the observer is falling into the blackhole, then nothing wierd would happen, you would see the other object fall to the center, and shortly thereafter you would fall to the center.

dammit you just made me think about my breathing... one mistake above is the idea that no one can read two pages simultaneously, or listen to two things at the same time. there are a couple autistic individuals who regularly read two pages at the same time and can then proceed to quote word for word every page and paragraph in the book. If the brain can handle certian things in parrallel why not others?

well to a certainn extant your talking about the probabilities of large numbers where the state of the system converges to the state of highest probability, (which is also the average). also your talking about histories then the most probable path will be the path of least action, as the paths that neighbor this one will add constructively and the paths that are further away tend to add destructively.

how come the universe currently isn't collapsing? you seem to be advocating a cyclic universe, however the expansion is accelerating also the statement that you can't talk about points in GR isn't quite true, a point in space time is a vector which gr will tell you how to transform into arbitrary coordinate systems

the car is coming out as a hybrid and an elictric the hybrid model gets 300 mpg in a trip over 100 miles, less than that and the efficiency increases

actually the number of galxies and stars is most likely infinite (the universe is flat) its just that we can only see the 300 billion galaxies in the hubble volume, if the universe is flat the entire way through then there is an earth out there orbiting a sun which is in every way identical to ours, and more so there will be the same stars in the sky and people on that planet doing the same exact things you are. however without faster than light travel and a few billion years travel time you will never see one of these. (faster than light travel would be a must as this earth s receding away from us at a speed several thousand times that of light (statistically)

also the salvia that you smoke is an extract of the salvia plant. however it is a perfectly legal substance with the only known case of a dath resulting from it being a delaware case where a teenager bought some and killed himself 4 months later. having several friends who are into halucinogens saalvia is clearly the safest of the drugs as in a small dose the hallucinations will last for less than 5 minutes, in a large dose they last a maximum of 10-15 minutes (assuming its smoked, chewing is different) THe statement that LSD has no side effects is patently false, you can find hundreds of cases where people who formerly did large quantities now continually get flashbacks, and also have "ghosting" in their vision which is where moving objects have a trace following them like you would see on a tennis ball on tv. however the use of almost any of the hallucinogens mentioned here is safer than things like oxygen deprivation, water deprivations, sleep deprivation and other "non-drug methods" insane-alien is also correct about "natural" substances being good. There are people who take deadly night shade in order to hallucinate, supposedly this will cause hallucinations for up to 3 days that feel about as real as real life. However the side effects include a very high risk of death, permanent blindness, paralysis and several other nasty little things.

when you completed the squares you neglected to properly add the (b/2)^2 terms to the rhs of the equation it should be equal to 4

however did they ever say that electrons could group together to form protons and neutrons? or that electrons could under certain circumstances form composite fermions. It is strange however that the electrons couldn't also join together to form bosons.

also to my knowledge when physicists use the statement 'is a tensor' they mean that it transforms by the summation partial x^a with respect to x^a ' for covariant indices and opposite that for contravariant indices. this is just the general transformation law or tensors, although when mathematicians say that something is a tensor I believe it means that "something is linear with respect to more than 1 argument, hence why the dot product is a tensor mathematically.

tromp conjecture? dark matter has to exist in order to account for the age of the universe, if it didn't then the universe would be alot older (younger?)

thats a myth

actually if GR is completely correct than gravity could easily be describedas the curvature of spacetime, as that is exactly what GR says. To say that its wrong would be a bit unfair and to state that the new quantum theory will look nothing like it conceptually is not a good thing at all as currently there is alot of progress to nowhere in quantizing gravity and its quite likely that there will turn out to be something new in the future that still looks like GR just with some refinements, such as a quantized spacetime.

think about what your subspace is in this case you have a plane such that the vectors of your subpace have to be orthogonal to the original vector (dot product=0) so you subspace is defined by the eqution c1(1)+c2(1)+c3(1)=0 as you can see c1+c2=-c3, so your talking about vectors where the third component is a linear combination of the first two (of course you could easily say that c1, or c2 were linear combinations of the other two as well, but the main point is that every vector in your subspace is defined by two parameters) now in order to right an orthonormal basis for this you have to find a way of writing the subspace in terms of two vectors which are orthonormal, there are two ways of doing this, one you could chose two arbitrary vecotrs (as long as one wasn't a constant multiple of the other) and use the gram-shmidt orthonormalization procedure, or you could just find two vectors which are naturally perpendicular to each other and normalize them. personally I like (1,1,2) and (-1,1,0) (for this particular instance) which are orthogonal and in the subspace. now you just need to normalize them and you have an orthonormal basis. to find a matrix that maps the vectors into the space just find the orthogonal projections of each basis vector in R^3 into you subspace, these three vectors will form the columns of your matrix.

what? maybe in this particular example they are equal, but that is not true in the general case, just feel your chair pressing into you, they are crtainly not the same thing in any instance.

yes but the mass term cancels.

massless particles always travel at c, because of this they have no inertia (mass). remember mass is just a quantity that describes an objects resistance to force, energy is a quantity describing an objects ability to do work. the two quantities are related but not equivalent. While an objects mass implies an objects ability to do work (as mass can be converted to energy in a number of reactions), an objects energy and ability to work do not imply mass. also the complete formula for the energy of a particle assuming there is no other potential (like the electric potential) would be [MATH]g_{{{\it uv}}}{U}^{v}{U}^{u}=-{m}^{2}[/MATH] where U^u is the four momentum and tau is the proper time. [MATH]{m \frac {({{\it dx}}^{u}}{\mbox {{\tt d\/tau}})}}[/MATH] and g_uv is the metric tensor. this of course simplifies to the formula given previously if you are in flat space. however this formula is the one that can be used for any curved space thats found in general relativity. if you are unfamiliar with the einstein summation convention you can place to summation symbols infront of the the equation, one for v and one for u that range from 0-3. as an unrelated note the above equation is how you get gravitational potentials in general relativity, once you include the conservation of energy and angular momentum. PS how do you put greek letters into latex?

it could also e one of those look what I can do things that occur out of sheer curiosity.

yes and you can bet that the newer chips are going to be faster, now that performance matters more than clock speed, and given any processor design they are going to make it go as fast as it can, however I doubt were gion to see many chips coming out that go much faster than 3.0

actually pangloss the extra clock speed doesn't due to much for you on its own, all it does is make it so that the transistors cycle faster. In order to accomplish this you have to do things like make the processing pipeline longer as intel did with the p4 (anybody remember the 1 Ghz p3 outperforming a 1.5ghz p4?) for a while the industry was stuck in a bid to make processors look like they were running faster than they were by ramping up these clock speeds without many gains. AMD was the first to back out of that and start making good processors that were more than just clock speed, this is why starting with the xp's the amd's were outperforming their intel counterparts even though the intels were running over a gigahert faster then they were. My A64 2.2 ghz could outpace the prescotts that were running at 3.5 ghz. the point is that the ghz don't really effect processing power when your looking at different processor designs, even though a prescott at 3.5 will always beat a prescott at 3.4 assuming all else is equal and they are both equal cores. the other thing that happened to shift the industry was that intel couldn't get a processor out that ran at 4 ghz while amd was claiming procesors as being 4000+ as while the prescott core was supposed to hit 5 ghz in actuallity a capacitanace effect between the circuits combined with quantum tunneling limited the speed to a maximum of 3.8 and it took them a long time just to get those out. so intel went back to drawing up better architectures and now our chips run faster. also to see what we gave up for those 3.6 ghz clock speeds in terms of the single core's the p3 had a 13 stage pipeline, the p4 a 20 stage, and the prescott core had a 32 stage pipeline. which means it took nearly 3x as many cycles for the prescott to compute something as the p3. also the theoretical limit for silicon chips is somewhere around 11 nm so in a few years we'll need a new building material if we want to keep improving transistor density.