Leaderboard

'Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today. Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too Imagine all the people Living life in peace. Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world. You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one." John Lennon 1971 Imagining is easy. Realization is the hard part.

How can a continuum be a constant? Could you elaborate on that? Maybe you're on to something. Can a stone be unhappy? See my point? If there is **one** feature of gravity that singles it out from every other force in the universe is the fact that you can always locally achieve absence of gravity (equivalence principle, EP). The only limit to this is second-order effects, AKA tidal forces. Jump off a window and you'll find out about EP. Get close to a relatively small black hole and you'll find out about tidal forces. Read a good book and you'll find out about how this all adds up. Oh, and mass is not concerned at all in GTR, as it plays no role in the theory. It's all about energy. It's energy that provides the source of the field. What you call mass is just rest energy, and this is no battle of words. Photons of course have no mass because they have no rest energy; and they have no rest energy because... well, they have no rest. Incorrect: Special Relativity (SR) says nothing (massless or not) can travel faster than the speed of light. Because GTR says geometry of space-time must locally reduce to SR, things moving locally can't exceed c. In other words: things moving past you can't do so at faster than c. People here have been quite eloquent so I won't belabor the point. I don't want to be completely negative. My advice is: Read some books, with a keen eye on experimental results; then do some thinking; then read some more books; then some more thinking, and so on. Always keep an eye on common sense too. Listen to people who seem to know what they're talking about, ask nicely for inconsistencies and more information, data. Always be skeptic, but don't just be skeptic. It doesn't lead anywhere.

That's not a good start, but... whatever. If you ant to look like a smurf, that's your problem. You have been warned. The kit you have is nice enough, you might also need stuff like a soldering iron. And a word of warning HP made good kit, but it's rumoured that they dropped the HP name because everyone said it stood for "Higher Prices". Probably less of an issue buying second hand. We live in a weird world. It's possible that getting a newer computer will let you use new er equipment which is paradoxically cheaper- think abouyt teh stuff made for arduino etc.

You beat me to it. I was going to post this under the title "Good things can come in small packages". The annual death toll from malaria runs just under half a million. Great to see a potential solution. Some more information on malaria in general here. (It's from the WHO, so Trump supporters should look away now.)

It is perhaps not so clear. We have a product \(AB\) of matrices, where \(A\) has more rows than columns. Suppose that if we perform an elementary row operation on \(A\) to produce a new matrix \(A',\) then there is a matrix \(B'\) for which \(AB=A'B'.\) (This is supposed to be the only tricky part.) Then since by elementary row operations we can bring \(A\) into a matrix \(\bar{A}\) that has at least one all-zero row, there will be a matrix \(\bar{B}\) for which \(AB = \bar{A}\bar{B},\) such that the latter matrix has at least one all-zero row. Now it follows from the formula for the determinant that \(\bar{A}\bar{B},\) and therefore \(AB,\) has determinant zero.

Massless bosons gonna massless boson.

Busy, busy, busy. Places to go, people to illuminate Nicely put. I get the impression that some people read books/articles (and answers on forums like this) having decided they are all wrong and just looking for things they can disagree with.

You should watch them. The rise they cause in blood pressure and vigorous exercise, thumping the wall with ones fists and kicking the furniture to pieces, obviate the need for regular exercise.

General Relativity describes cosmological scales to high precision but as you get to denser states and smaller sizes it loses accuracy and by the time you get to the most dense state it falls apart. This is where Quantum physics comes in but, as yet, there is no quantum model of gravity, so, scientists are stuck with two models for different aspects of the universe; the very large and the very small. Nether of these models are applicable in both aspects, just the one.

This is unknown, currently. All we know is that it was once in a uniformly hot, dense state and then it expanded and cooled. How it got to be in that state is unknown. One of the challenges is how it came to be so homogeneous. Inflation is one hypothesis. But if the universe is cyclic (the "big bounce" model) then that could explain it too. On the other hand, some attempt to add quantum theory to the equation suggest that the universe could be infinitely old, which would also allow it to become homogeneous. More evidence, and probably better theories, are needed to give us any chance of knowing.

Again, I'm not seeking any type of utopia; just a little better for a little bit of time... Anything we establish now, however just, will be subject to change/corruption; all we can hope for, is that this is another step on the ladder... Hopefully to a better place, that we don't actively try to destroy...

The point of this thread is that things have changed; suddenly we see the workers who are fundamental to a functioning society and, by extention, the economy; and it's by and large the worst paid, who often have to rely on charity (food bank's) to make ends meet (even in wealthy countries). And there's enough for us all. Their work is almost completely unnecessary, when we consider a sustainable economy, (the irony is) they don't need to work too eat...

What if they have kids? What if they can't put food on the table now because they don't have a job, and you want them to go take tests in order to be worthy to get money? Yet, they can't study for said tests because they have kids? And they were able to have a job before, because their kids were in school, but can't study now, because their kids aren't? Also, $30-$50 a day? That's less then minimum wage.

No problem, this is a good question and you have found the correct subsection. Well done and welcome . +1 Both electrons forming a covalent bond need not come one from each atom. One atom may supply them both. This type of bond is called a dative covalent bond. Now what you are referring to was probably in solution. In solution the HCl is fully dissociated (it is a strong acid) to produce H+ and Cl- ions. The lone pair (do you understand lone pairs ?) of the nitrogen in the neutral ammonia and the H+ ion are drawn towards each other to form a dative covalent bond. Does this help?

"Survival of the Fittest" actually refers to reproductive fitness: the individuals that can produce more offspring that themselves survive to reproduce are the ones that have the best chance for survival (actually, that's trivially deducible.) Darwin's Theory is really a specific case of the more general role of probability in Nature; things exist this way in Nature because they're the most likely to exist. Random mutations are always occurring. Most are neutral; some are deleterious (worse) and occasionally some are immediately successful. More often than not, the neutral ones plod along in low numbers in the population until the environment changes, and then they can become beneficial ones. At that point, they will be selected and increase their numbers in the gene pool. The previously more efficient genes will then become the less efficient ones. Type II Diabetes is an interesting case illustration. Once a pound of time ago, in the jungle where calories were hard to come by, an individual who could maintain body weight on only 800 cal per day would have a decided survival advantage over those who needed 1800 cal/d. Those genes were selected and were represented by a large gene frequency in the pool....Fast forward 40,000 yrs and those descendants with the "easy keeper genes" find themselves in an environment where they can easily smother themselves in YoHos & DingDongs, and we see their BS rise to 250 and they have CAD before you know it. Those easy keepers were the ones who were insulin resistant-- good in the jungle, bad in civilization. If society collapses or Bloomberg is elected president and outlaws BigGulps, they will once again have the advantage in survival. The more varied & diverse the availability of alleles in the gene pool, the more likely a species will survive a change in the environment. It's the generalist species that survive or produce the next evolutionary stock and the specialists are usually doomed to extinction.

Which, he conceded, was wrong. Einstein evolved with evidence. You could do the same.

Special relativity says that two things cannot move relative to one another faster than the speed of light. This only applies locally in the absence of gravity and curved spacetime. General relativity is the basis of the big bang model; that the universe is expanding. This is expansion is a scaling effect, so distances get multiplied by some factor in every unit of time. For example, consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. More here: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Space/distance is created between galaxies a certain minimum distance apart, so in the galaxy frame they are moving their normal speed. Space can expand as fast as it likes without violating Relativity.

Ok I'm no scientist and someone more qualified than me will surely give a better answer, but, in layman terms, the galaxies aren't actually moving faster than light. It's not the galaxies moving but the space between them, giving the appearance that the galaxies are moving faster than light. https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html

My assertion is that no one knows, do you know? https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html All the data I just received from you is 0 and 1's. They are irrelevant as it is your sentence in English that matters https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html Unknown https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html

@dimreepr I answer your question here because of moderation warning in other thread, I said MAYBE, I'm sure there ARE living humans on this earth that have a vast amount of knowledge on these craft, extra-terrestrial or not, the propulsion systems in these vehicles would revolutionize the energy industry. I believe this technology is intentionally being kept from us by the "mega-elite".