Leaderboard

He didn’t say that. He said the technology to detect such an event will come online in the next decade. Please, please, please quote the relevant section of text so we don’t have to search for what you are talking about. Perhaps the act will force you to (re)read the text and you will improve your comprehension of what was said.

Your breath is cooler than the soup and warmer than the air. There is no inherent contradiction, if that’s all there was to it. Blowing on the soup promotes evaporation, which is a cooling process. Blowing through an aperture means there is expansion afterwards. If the pressure and composition of a gas remains constant and it expands, the temperature goes down. (an ideal gas follows PV = nRT, so they would be proportional under that condition) edit: see below

https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/applications/5991-4191EN.pdf https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/278653/1-s2.0-S1877705813X00037/1-s2.0-S1877705813002452/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjENz%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIEIlWT3IeFVnV6sgQqQ37xtiRmgN72R5JT20FzEHTpM9AiBInn9bsaSkYiO%2FEz7w7Jpstn6DtMBExrf0cEzT9qSicCq9Awj0%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAMaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIM09o9DOnzDe6aG4OcKpEDTOHASYQU8vdy%2BqfHkk5T4%2BN9uY8vf70Li9%2B0CP6uyMHDKwkj4XDjiO4VIY%2FwS6YqWXl%2BQh2ZcH4ofMzuZcI2C5GCswVz9W1fxup8REnxRvNdTtwwapNzFpiwn55eRqFH0nNHB3O0YZqj3Y%2FvTM0wHqY2FOJBYogKOGwcDbL1e%2FbwaQg3XFpt8oRXRpDDepBcAZFTJq5ran%2Bk%2Fei7VGbY3rweIF0OfGfkI%2F7umChLAy21LdxzXXdim75UKLqZnaDlqMTIRaTxaNDW7%2FKcwS6Rw40D1KiGDH8eNBFNzZdzjy9cu8rEEIq4wb5YdMIKaZl0lpQXSn179mvydlyKHpeMPYFZb7b%2Bkg7%2FCtkDGCoHFkB23dH%2BUyDDdomW8ncyLUT8vzDmz4JwAubNoQlCqfFjJISj9DEVbF0K6lU%2FT%2FA2qO8E7xg2iSZjdmGX9byhOEHdVVSOieJpcw3dNtG6GUOg5sw7zXNQVPrx0XgTUey4HzhOt42%2FHDVotXRkwN011YeqKGWL97R8QXfFHxMTG4VNT40wpsny9AU67AH%2FYxVM6WUIEk5Bn2NawP0lczwS%2BZNlCCuC5W0ymi87cPj4hKXr2HcdvwEJvKBMHvg2Q5Wjtu%2BTqj9qzaUWqilYNuSyZ4abtaQpJv485HywV9xLsO3CO11a%2BtBXTh17p51L1krdJKoIw0V24GdxqdBqBDTt8lg0lX5QL9ZzIL1TEPrKMpU%2FAFXoX1k2I1us8hbmOT9ZVbgsEtU5faPHYgdqjWdLZM6Ts%2FIuSTVHE4JHIdK3mmf2G%2Ftd3nPKNvk9fPSmOf%2FAw6qIymX2NSuUKlsoHJhDXkHBPwcsfBrjBOdoSfIdF%2FwyGK6V9G59Rw%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200419T203542Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYTAE5DEQW%2F20200419%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=06317f241a6551ef78f57849f6e28d5d9daef449af141a2451645456096c24b1&hash=de924d0b0578748b83ed7239617fe009c19be7d9faf8c58eb14a045e5d7870fc&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1877705813002452&tid=spdf-c096a25e-9af3-4b98-9148-5b2d505a7ec9&sid=a138e96326cc704c853a74b04a89830300cbgxrqb&type=client

No. And stop twisting every thread to fit your delusions. Have you spoken to your doctor yet? In the case of the black hole mergers detected so far, which are black holes around 20 to 30 times the mass of the Sun, even if they were as close to us as the Sun is it would only cause the Earth the stretch by about 1 metre, which is about the same as happens everyday due to the moon. (They would also be only about 100km across and so not visible without a really good telescope.) I will try and get some rough figures for the merger of supermassive black holes...

This statement needs addressing as it gives one of the most common misconceptions in GR. The fabric is a term that was used merely as a descriptive for the average person to visualize curvature. It doesn't describe some hidden or mysterious matter like substance. When one describes spacetime curvature one is describing the geodesic path between two positions. The geodesic is affected by the mass term (resistance to acceleration) of all other matter and force fields in a given region. The coupling constants of each field contribute to mass. However a field is a geometric descriptive of values or other mathematical objects. This is described via the Principle of least action (Langrangian). So do not think of spacetime fabric as some medium. That would be incorrect.

Hi Zulfi Your numbers will work just as good. But for the original proof in the book the idea is that there are m small items at the beginning, all of the same size. And there are up to m larger items at the end, also all of the same size. When the sizes are chosen in addition so that one large and one small item fit together in one bin with no spare room, then we can be absolutely sure that the value of OPT is exactly m. When you choose varying sizes as you do, it becomes more tricky to check that OPT doesn't end up below m. We do not know how many bins A uses among the first m. The algorithm can do whatever it wants. All we know is that A must use between m/2 and m bins to pack the first m items (if we assume that three of them will not fit into the same bin). Whichever number of bins it uses, we call that number b. When it says "At this point in the algorithm" they mean: after the first m items have appeared, and we are still waiting for possibly more to arrive. At that point you have m items, any two of which fit together in a single bin. So then the optimal number of bins possible to use would be m/2, in the special case when no more items come in. Remember the algorithm does not know when the stream will stop of more items to get packed. In your example, after arrival of the two small items, the optimal way to pack just those items will require only one bin. No problem. Pretty much stuck to this chair anyway.

Quartz transmits down to ~150 nm, so the transparent aluminum is worse http://www.tydexoptics.com/materials1/for_transmission_optics/crystal_quartz/

At ~25,000 ºC the peak wavelength of emission is at ~116 nm, and the transparent aluminum transmission cutoff is ~200 nm, so it would tend to block/absorb much of the light you want transmitted.

Yes, that is standard monetary economics and has been understood for the past 7000 years.

Yes, you can choose to pack the new item in any one of the existing bins, or in a new bin. Once you have packed an item in a bin, you are not allowed to move it to another bin; it has to stay until the end in the bin where it was first packed. Which is why you cannot in general achieve the optimal solution. Now I suppose that \(m\) is the number of items of size less than but close to \(1/2\). Their combined size is nearly \(m/2\), and a bin can only hold items that have sizes adding up to \(1\). Then clearly you need at least \(m/2\) bins. In fact you can get away with using exactly \(m/2\) bins, since the items can be paired off so that each pair has size less than \(1\). I read this to mean that if we observe what A is doing as it receives the initial \(m\) items each of size \(< 1/2\), we will see that \(b1\) bins are used to pack just one item in each, and \(b2\) are used to pack two items. This is different from what you are saying, since I assume that all the \(m\) initial items have size \(< 1/2\). The larger items, if any, will arrive only later. The calculations are used to compare the number \(b\) of bins that A uses to the optimal number \(m/2\). A must use a balanced approach, that is, it has to pack a certain number of bins with two items and a certain number with only one item. Even though each bin has room for two items, it would be a mistake to pack two items into each bin, because it would make A perform poorly if and when \(m\) further items arrive each of size \(> 1/2\). It would also be a mistake to pack each bin with only a single item, since if no large items arrive (A is not allowed to know the information about the total number of items), A will have used \(m\) bins where the optimum solution is half as many, and that is bad performance.

He is looking at the case when for a long time, you get items of the same size just less than a half, say 0.499. You keep getting those, and you have to decide how to pack some of them together into one box, because two of them will fit. Or to just leave some of them in half-packed boxes, because maybe later there will come items to fill up those boxes. Now in our case, the sequence I2 just means a sequence of items of size a little more than a half, at most .501. So that if you left any box ready which as only filled up to 0.499 of its capacity, then you can drop one of these items in there to fill the box. But if you do not have a box ready, then you have to open a new box to accomodate it.

I just told you that evolutionists can't explain anything... how lungs evolved, how heart evolved, how flagellum evolved... what "personal incredulity" has to do with anything? the only thing that you evolutionists really evolved, is fancy phrases that you use as defence mechanism... "personal incredulity", "strawman", "fallacy", etc... put more dislikes to my post more, more... i want 1000 dislikes. a dislike from evolutionist is a compliment to me.

Is this a threat? I have also other things to do than answering questions. My post is not even half a day on this forum and I have already got threats. In the time of Giordano Bruno you would have probably burned me. I will answer all the questions one by one.

A different one Thank you. I will remember that.

A hypothesis that the Federal Reserve can set interest rates based on the movements of the planet Mars. Here I have data going back to 1896 that shows how the Dow Jones performed when Mars was within 30 degrees of the lunar node. (- from appendix of Ares Le Mandat 4th ed)