Leaderboard

I think it would be more probable to move the Earth gradually into an orbit that keeps us habitable but takes us out of the path of the sun's expansion.

I came across an article which ties in with our discussion about methods to end unequal access to Education, and the role Affirmative Action could play in that process. Given the fact that Black American slaves were once considered less than a person ( 3/5 th ), would it be ethical, or just, to now consider them more than 1 person, in an effort to right past wrongs, as the article proposes with voting rights ? "But there’s another way to undo the damage of the Electoral College and other structurally racist political institutions: We can implement vote reparations by double-counting ballots cast by all Black residents. The poisonous legacy of slavery applies to Black people regardless of when we or our ancestors arrived in this country. Vote reparations should also extend to Native Americans." https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/ What are your thoughts ?

With regard to OP, there are several strains of SARS-CoV-2 and one of them (B.1.1.7) seems to spread significantly throughout southern England, which carries around 23 new mutations compared to the original strain. There is evidence that it is more contagious, and potentially more infectious to children than the original. There is currently no evidence that it impacts lethality or vaccine efficacy.

Why does the left have to nicer? Why is the right being given a pass, especially considering the level of vitriol?

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/video-library/collection/2015/2016-complex-analysis-tibra-ali I generally recommend Perimeter Institute Lecture Series. I haven't followed this particular one, but quality is quite good at PI.

The issue is gerrymandering. It’s nearly impossible for republicans to lose given the expert precision with which they’ve redrawn voting districts to stack voters together and crack challengers apart. This is the far more parsimonious explanation for what we see than your frequently introduced “blame the left at every chance” hypothesis paraphrased as, “the right-wing media ecosystem would stop endlessly attacking and lying about democrats if only those mean ole dems were slightly nicer when they spoke.”

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one. ( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

If I may say something... I was aware that @wtf was giving a superb mathematician's exposition of the topic, while @MigL who had had some previous experience with the OP, was quite deliberately trying to dumb it down. It was fun seeing you interact. But your effort is not in vain, wtf. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I wish to refine this statement because it's a common point of confusion. You have no proof that "At every point on the curve of the function, you can draw a tangent line, such that 1 point ( only ) is common to both," nor do you have a rigorous definition of what a tangent line is. Rather, we have an INTUITION about what a tangent line is. In order to make the notion rigorous, we DEFINE the tangent line at a point to be the straight line passing through that point with slope equal to the derivative at that point, if the derivative exists. That is, the the slope of the tangent line is NOT "equivalent" to the derivative; rather, it's DEFINED that way. The idea is to make precise the intuitive idea of the tangent line at a point. If you think (as students often do) that the derivative is "the same" as the slope of the tangent line, that's a misunderstanding of what's going on. There is no tangent line, formally, until we define it via the derivative. Then (for example) we can make rigorous the intuitively clear observation that the graph of |x| has no tangent line at 0. Otherwise, we could have no proof, since without the derivative we have only an intuitive but not a rigorous notion of tangent line.

The Sun is mostly Hydrogen/Helium in 4/1 ratio. Even in 5 billion years, it will be mostly Hydrogen. The problem is that fusion takes place in the core, so while there will be plenty of Hydrogen, the heavier fusion products accumulate in the core. These heavier products ( deuterium, helium, lithium, beryllium, carbon, etc. all the way up to iron ) require higher and higher temperatures, or kinetic energies, to overcome the separation and allow fusing. The temps cause the expansion. The only way to keep the temps from increasing is to remove the heavier elements accumulating in the core, so that lighter, cooler fusing Hydrogen, outside the core, could fall in to take their place. If you can think of a way to do that, you can extend the life of the sun until it is too light, and can't supply the pressure required to produce Hydrogen burning temperatures.

And I had no idea that you are not only a physicist but a geologist and seismologist. A scientist with a wide range of knowledge, for whom there is simple geology, ordinary physics, and not cunning mechanics. Are you by any chance a hemorrhoid specialist? Could you advise my grandfather?

My advice to you, do not look in the mirror and the image of the asshole will not haunt you.

Markus Hanke's Points have been clearly refuted. He could not find errors with my calculations. Something has to be wrong with the conventional theory: Some General Types of Difficulties with the theory of Tensors: The transformation of a rank two covariant tensor has been considered. Then we proceed to consider a diagonal tensor[off diagonal components are zero:A^(mu nu)=0 for mu not equal to nu] to bring out a result that all tensors should be null tensors. A link to the google drive file has been provided.A file has also been attached considering the file attachment facility that has been provided by the forum. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10z63Xidgs3m8p04_C6ZiGh-8Q6KTwPsh/view?usp=sharing Incidentally I tried the Latex with the code button.But I am not getting the correct preview. Example \begin{equation}\bar{A}^{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial \bar{x}^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}\frac {\partial \bar{x}^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\beta}}A^{\alpha \beta}\end {equation} \[{\ bar{A}}^{\mu\nu}=\frac{\partial {\bar{x}}^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}\ frac{\partial {\bar{x}}^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\beta}}\] Currently for a long time I am not a frequent user of Latex thanks to the equation bar of MS Word. But I do appreciate,like many others, the application of Latex in various forums.Help is being requested from the forum regarding Latex.

List your questions. For example: 1.... 2 ... 3 ... It seems that bureaucrats have gathered here considering my dissertation for awarding me an academic degree. Prove that, prove it ... .. Gentlemen, I repeat once again, I have put the work here so that you people who know physics can give an overall assessment of my work, point out possible errors and advise some other scientific schemes when implementing my idea ... If you do not understand what we are talking about, then how to show this work to geophysicists who do not have deep knowledge of the physical processes described by me ?????

I came to this forum to meet not only professionals, but also people with whom it is pleasant to talk, and I found pouty turkeys who are bursting with a sense of their own importance, like you.