Leaderboard

That doesn't mean anything.

The age of bumper sticker level analysis.

Not ones that will work. We already looked at the end of the story. Newton wins. The ONLY way to refute an existing (i.e. experimentally tested and mathematically self-consistent) theory is with experimental evidence. Until such time as you build a device that moves on its own, you will not have shown Newtonian physics to be wrong. All you can offer is analysis that is flawed in some way, and all of your efforts have either been to try and hide the flaws, or by baldly asserting that they aren't flaws (which requires an experiment; see above) This is the playbook that we see over and over again. 1. Convince yourself that your idea is right. 2. Analyze your idea with physics 3. Contort the analysis to reach the conclusion you desire 4. If the flaw is obvious, obfuscate by making the example more complex Whereas in reality, if your analysis reaches a conclusion that violates laws of physics, you know you made a mistake someplace. The math is internally consistent, so this just points to a math error.

I agree...

That's not the way it works though, is it? You can actually believe something without investing it with "truth" or even "certainty". I can believe there might be a way for consciousness to exist after death, but I don't have to be certain of it to believe in it. It's more of a hope or wishful thought. Or I can study a subject in depth, learn everything there is to know about it, and be almost certain about what I believe about that subject. At a certain point, our wish/hope becomes trust. I think scientists try hard to trust their knowledge before believing in things.

Ok. Some correctly performed application of Newton will do. The tricks you have pulled out of your sleeves so far are not very impressing.

I don't know what you mean by "completeness" field. Can't even guess, I'm afraid. A commutative ring with unity in which every nonzero element is invertible is a field. Sometimes a "corpus" in French, I believe. A noncommutative ring with unity and multiplicative inverses is a division ring, called in older books a skew field. Same remark. Don't know what you mean by object or completeness field. An ordered field with the least upper bound property is complete. So the reals are complete but not the rationals, if that is what you mean. Don't know what you mean by objects, unless perhaps you mean sets. Or fields. Completeness field is a bad translation and I can't even make a guess as to what it is intended to mean. FWIW this is first-semester undergrad abstract algebra. Even the computer science majors need to know some of it, because finite fields are a big thing in CS. I agree that we're way past the original question.

I have been following this thread with interest and I would like thank the participants. I never really got the idea of a fictitious force, but thanks to this thread the concept now seems clear to me. It also looks like John2020 has long ago reached the point where he should have admitted his idea was wrong, if he was ever going to.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

@CuriosOne, while the word 'garbage' wasn't the nicest choice possible, it was directed to your posts, not to you. And I agree that your posts were a bunch of undigested ideas, very difficult to make sense of. Then you missed the most important comment: And after that "rude" comment, your next topic improved considerably, focusing on one particular theme and without bringing up just about anything that crossed your mind. Be positive, and try to get better, clearer. That's good advice. You will get better and better answers. Good answers to a bad question are impossible.

Uh? 'The distance'? Here you go again. Not mentioning which distance from which frame In E-X's FOR, the distance between E and X is 1Lh. So for B, moving with 0.8c, he sees the distance he must travel as 0.6Lh. There are no other relevant distances for this situation. Lengths of poles connected to B just play no role. Why, B could be a rocket of 1 Lh long. The only thing that interests us is the passing of the observer in B with his clock, passing E and X.

Not really. Science works the same for everyone. We deal with facts and observations, which are objective; not opinion, which is subjective.

I think the most striking thing of it all was Santorum's after-debate discussion comment in defense of Trump:" First of all, we do not keep kids in cages anymore...". Says pretty much all there is to say regarding the hypocrisy of a pro-life stance, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_extension#Extension_field

Don't you think that that Religion does have a rational foundation? No, plainly I don't. Not sure what the rest of your post was meant to say. It just looks patronising- as if I wouldn't be aware of that sort of thing.. People did not know why the moon appeared + changed. A rational view on that is to say "I do not know why this happens, and perhaps I never will" An irrational view is to say "God must be doing it". The "God" is a made up thing with no actual basis in evidence. Which option is Religion based on?

I'll try again with Slash and Myles Kennedy:

Sorry, typo. NoSenseOfHumor(R). It’s a brand of novelty rubber chicken.

Hey everyone, hope you are doing fine in these tumultuous times! Edit: I found my mistake: I used 'if' instead of 'elif', therefore the code executes: is r larger than 2, if not, ArrayB = Array (which is the original array of length 10). I have the following code, what I don't understand is that without the 'if r > 2:' part of the code, len(ArrayB) will be 20 in both cases (r =2) but with this piece of code, which is not running, len(ArrayB) becomes 10 (= losing False variables). I don't understand how why this piece of code affects the rest of my code, when r is not larger than 2? I am running python 3.8 in Pycharm r = 2 Array = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] if r < 1: ArrayB = [1] * int(r*len(Array)) Const = len(Array)/len(ArrayB) for i in range(len(ArrayB)): ArrayB[i] = Array[int(i*Const)] if r > 1 and r <= 2 : ArrayB = [False]*int(r*len(Array)) for i in range(len(Array)): ArrayB[int(i*r)] = Array[i] print(len(ArrayB)) # First len(ArrayB) print(ArrayB) # First print(ArrayB) # if r > 2: #Uncomment this part and len(ArrayB) afterwards becomes 10 # print('r is bigger than 2') # ArrayB = [False] * int(r * len(Array)) # for i in range(len(Array)): # ArrayB[int(i*r)] = Array[i] else: ArrayB = Array print(len(ArrayB)) # Second len(ArrayB) print(ArrayB) # Second print(ArrayB) output with all code active: 20 [0, False, 1, False, 2, False, 3, False, 4, False, 5, False, 6, False, 7, False, 8, False, 9, False] 10 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] output without if r >2: code: 20 [0, False, 1, False, 2, False, 3, False, 4, False, 5, False, 6, False, 7, False, 8, False, 9, False] 20 [0, False, 1, False, 2, False, 3, False, 4, False, 5, False, 6, False, 7, False, 8, False, 9, False Thank you for your time! Edit: problem found, if statements should be elif - Dagl

Not you I guess. You're too smart to care about stuff like this. You're a proper nihilist like all great intellectuals.

You really are a nihilist. Irrationally so. Why are you so jaded? Faithless electors are not common, so yes your votes do matter. Ignoring problems with not accounting for the covariance between state outcomes, do you think the probability weights are very far off?

I suggest you both re-read the title and think in the General.

Yes but what is the point of that analysis for those people? To gather 1000 plus points on an internet forum?