Leaderboard

When you arrive at point C, you will see the same light coming from both stars as someone who never moved from point C; Light that left both stars 5 yrs ago. You see both stars as they were 5 yrs ago.

Very sad news, a legend of film, and the pride of Scotland, has passed. The orginal ( and best ) James Bond, Captain Remus. Jimmy Malone and John Mason, has passed after a distinguished career. Remembering Swansont's previous avatar, I offer my condolences.

Haven't followed the thread but this seems a little ambiguous. Let's take a simpler example, N = 2 x 3 x 5 x 7 = 210. Now you want to consider the pairs of numbers that sum to 210, such as (1, 209), (2,208), ..., (209, 1). Do you care about order? Is (1,209) the same as (209,1) or different? Not a big issue, just a factor of 2, but nice to know what is the intended intepretation. Now "... where neither is divisible by any of the primes which make its product?" was confusing to me. What is "its" in this context? Do you mean that since 209 = 11x19, and neither 11 nor 19 is one of 2, 3, 5, or 7, we count (1,209) and (209,1) as satisfying your condition? And you want to count the number of such pairs? Just want to make sure I'm understanding the question. Apologies to all if this has already been covered in the thread.

Sure, remember we prefer to lead someone to the correct answer here, rather than just do it for them. But please, the more questions you ask the better you will learn.

I actually did not, it's 1 am and this home school program is torture, I just cant think anymore The answer was A, I think its because the oxygen had more than 2 bonds I havent mentioned that this quiz is rigged, there are times that two choices are exactly the same (and are correct) but picking the other is marked as wrong

Who needs categories? It's not for a humble 'Beacon of Hope' to decide. You have my respect, that's all I can say. Plus you've got all the symptoms: a self-correcting mind, critical thinking, insatiable curiosity, relational thinking (pattern sniffing), imagination tempered by intellectual caution, no-nonsense. Are you fishing for compliments? That's another symptom: actors, sportspeople, and scientists share it.

You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes !

Depends on the priest/scientist... Both are capable of seeking knowledge...

I find your approach to this forum to be very annoying. You speak as if you are an authority when it is obvious based on your comments that you are ignorant of much of what you speaking to. By suggesting that science is only represented by a final 'formula', you are ignoring the 99.99999% of science that preceded it, and all of the successes along the way that brought us to that point.

A team of scientists has a new idea for how to save migrating blue whales from dangerous collisions with ships: shut up and listen. https://www.tectalk.co/scientists-suggest-teaching-ships-to-speak-whale-language/

Interesting "trivia" Was also a talented footballer. Perhaps lucky to escape the Munich Air Disaster in another life. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sean-connery-man-utd-bond-22939245

It’s hard for me to forget him in Zardoz

This is such an interesting discovery. It is also interesting that Russia claims to have discovered water on the light side of the moon in the 70's. That is what the following video claims anyway. https://al.ly/dUeug5

Neither. You moved (impossibly) on the "grid", but as described you simply did it all in the same frame . Points A, C, and B are all in the same frame and you moved spatially only in that frame. You would have travelled forward or backward in time in some other frames, but not in that one. So you travelled in time relative to neither star.

Here's part of a post someone metaresearched on the composition on a vinyl record forum. Might give a clue to the chemists here.... More here: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=99579

Why do you need “magical technology” for this scenario? Seems like you can just ask this question about a point midway between two stars 10 LY apart.

Rest in peace. Here's one of his many brilliant moments: "I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne: Let my armies be the rocks, and the trees, and the birds in the sky"

Number 1 is a bit misleading, because \( \sqrt{1} = 1 \). Generally there are two basic ways of undoing a square root. One is squaring a root; e.g., \[\sqrt{a}=2\] which gives, \[a=4\] and the other is the one you suggest --rooting a square--, but with that one you must be careful: \[\sqrt{a^{2}}=4\] which gives, \[a=\pm4\] Another possible way to get square roots out of the way is to remember that sums times differences give differences of squares. As in, \[\left(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}\right)\left(\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b}\right)=\sqrt{a}^{2}-\sqrt{b}^{2}=a-b\] You can prove quite amazing identities with this: \[\frac{\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}}+\frac{\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b}}=\frac{2a}{a-b}\] \[\frac{\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}}-\frac{\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b}}=-\frac{2b}{a-b}\] There's almost no end to fun with square roots! Exactly.

Yes, no and it depends. Problem is that when instant travel or instant exchange of information is introduced into accepted theories of relativity the theories does not predict what is supposed to happen. I think the thought experiment is interesting as a way to see how and why problems arise. As far as I can tell: Lets remove the magic from the post it and assume that A, B and C are not moving relative to one another. Then your description seems to match what observers, stationary at A, B and C, would be calculating using mainstream theories. Observations from C, using a telescope to look at a synchronised clocks located at the other locations (A and B) seems to fit your description.