A Tripolation

So you're saying that since your threads are more focused in science, that means that they are not elementary? I think threads that deal in religion are far more thought-provoking than the ones that argue about animal testing.

How does having ethic threads in regards to religion make you any less able to start an ethics thread over bioengineering or some such matter?

I don't understand the difference between your's and Skeptic's plans. Could someone explain it to me?

Beautiful Capn. Time Mechanics, you seem to be saying that because some current models cannot account for some discrepancies in said model, that the math is obviously incorrect. This is not true. It's the model itself that is flawed. Not the math that was used to describe it. You're basically saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to prove anything until someone can come up with a Theory of Everything that uses nice pretty math that makes sense to you.

Physics math is math math. Newtonian mechanics works perfectly fine for introductory physics courses. The margin of error between it and general relativity are so small, that there is no point use relativity where classical mechanics works. No physicist or mathematician goes around thinking that classical mechanics is completely accurate and true.

Unless you plan on redefining logic itself, you kind of HAVE TO have equations that are dimensionally consistent. You can't have a unit of length equaling time. Do you know how idiotic that is? Here's a tip: If your "theory" requires you to ignore maths and start making things up willy-nilly, it's probably not a good "theory".

I think he was intentionally being grammatically incorrect.

I just meant with energy that kept it in motion. If it started to wobble, the added energy would only succeed in making it fall over faster.

I thought about adding, "if constant energy were applied to the top to keep it spinning", but I didn't think anyone would focus on that point. So let me rephrase my question. Let's say we have a top. It is supplied with a constant energy to maintain it's spin. If it wobbles, this wobble will cause the top to fall over, correct?

Actually, I initially believed he was still asleep because it never showed how he escaped from the dream. He just woke up on the plane. That's a strong indication that he's lost in limbo. I was more asking that in terms of classical physics, one a top starts to wobble, it WILL fall over. I wanted to know if that was a true statement or not. I kind of agree with that. I felt like it was more that he didn't care if the totem fell over. He was happy again.

I think firefox has an add-on of some sort that previews links by a mouse-over, but I don't know if it's any good or what the preview is like. Just a suggestion.

So basically, I have a question to ask about the ending of this film. The relevance of the clip I included starts at around 3:40. So the story pretty much is, that he spins the top (called a totem in the movie), and if it falls over, he's awake. Conversely, if he spins it and keeps spinning forever, he's stuck in a dream. My argument is that since the top appears to start wobbling at the end, it will at some point in the future fall over, correct? Once it loses that perfect balance it initially has, it will stop. So he has to be awake. Is there any flaw in my thinking, provided that tops behave in Inception like they do in the world we live? Edit: Every clip I find has embedding disabled. So you'll have to go to youtube to see it. Apologies.

Hope it stays that way.

Wait...what? Do you realize what you just said?

I'd like to add onto Mr Skeptic's post that Italian and Spanish are quite similar. I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, and I find that while I can't speak Italian too well, I can easily read it. The languages are very similar to one another. So learning Spanish or Italian would be beneficial in my opinion, as you can then easily expand to one or the other.

I also have a presentation in a few hours. I have to succinctly explain and clarify Maxwell's equations to a group of students with only rudimentary algebra skills. So while I don't have to do complicated research, I DO have to "dumb" the material down sufficiently for it to be understood, and yet not lose any of the elegance that these equations offer as the fundamentals of classical E&M. I asked around and it turns out that pictures of field lines and line integrals are by far the best way to convey it. I agree with what others have said. Genecks, I truly don't understand why you didn't ask on this forum for some help, or some other place. There are many knowledgeable people that would've gladly assisted you.

Get a computer science degree with a focus in graphics design and languages?

I can't decipher what exactly you're asking. You kind of contradict yourself a few times. I'm a physics major, focus in engineering physics, which is essentially what you're looking at. As far as I know, grad school for pure physics, or an engineering specialization would be relatively easy to accomplish, provided you're accepted. Also, that is a fairly heavy and intense curriculum. Good luck with it.

While there is a general syntax that most languages follow, most syntax errors are language-specific. It would be best to ask in the Computer Science forum, rather than create a whole new forum for syntax questions.

Precisely.

Yes. But on this instance, they would have substantiated claims. While I support your idea, I can see the oppositions argument's and understand them. I think most would consider this a violation of privacy rights.

I think too many people would start screaming about an Orwellian regime.

No. We're complaining about your browser. You assert that SFN is censoring your links, yet your browser continues to mutilate pretty much any feature that this board offers, eg, the "quote" function.

Then delete it.

That's quite small in the days of TB HDDs and 12Mbps connection speeds.