joigus

I don't know about MAPLE, but I think there is a Mathematica package to calculate Christoffel symbols. I've found this discussion which may be useful for the Mathematica option: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/8895/how-to-calculate-scalar-curvature-ricci-tensor-and-christoffel-symbols-in-mathem

Please cite another language with a shorter alphabet.

Berserk!!! Thank you. Agreed.

smorgasbord, finesse, latte, pizza, siesta, zeitgeist, faux pas, guerrilla,... katana, feng sui, voodoo, or d'oeuvres, lingerie, shaman, cul de sac, baton, bon apetit, epaulettes... French seems to be le favori.

I don't think any aphorism will bypass the need to practice. Not even with tensor calculus. But how about this for pep talk?: If Django Reinhardt could do it, why can't you?

I completely agree with your point about reality. Also about your summarizing the concern of physics. In fact, I think what you said isn't nearly enough insisted upon in classes and seminars. But I don't completely agree with the point about truth. I think it's just the statements involving truth in physics are conditional, or graded, or constraining the mental space of possibilities, if you want. Not absolute. So my phrasing would be, and I hope you agree and it's no moot point, physics is not concerned with any absolute truth, or absolute certainty, but with degrees of certainty (truth). +1. Has Nature no final truth in store for us? Maybe so. But true or false are states of our knowledge that necessarily affect our statements about the world. So maybe the proposition is (rephrasing @Strange's rephrasing of Feynman some days ago): Photons are not particles. Photons are not waves. They are what they are, something else: photons, wavycles, whatever. I see some value of truth in that. If only to say what definitely they are not.

If they are well-learned enough in science, maths, logic, linguistics, computer science..., why not?

My first hurried answer would go in the direction of #(moles of gaseous products)-#(moles of gaseous reactants) being as big as possible. But I also realize as I read you all that the exothermic character must be an important factor too, which would make a lot of sense. I also gather from what more knowledgeable people than me are saying that for some reason reactions involving Nitrogen are better at it.

Eponyms and toponyms are another scary field of lexicon, potentially limitless. In Chinese you've got quite many of them that have their own specific pictograph.

I still have some difficulty with this, but maybe it's not 'up my alley' as they say. Every trade has its lingo. I do. Brilliant ideas never die. But Fourier rocks too. There seems to be a branch of mnemonics here ranging from cross-cultural to off colour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_color_code_mnemonics Some of them I find more difficult to remember than the sequence of codes itself. Thank you. I find especially useful the report-writing one.

Very interesting piece of news. Thank you. +1 Although, AFAIK, Mars' surface is very homogeneous, I wonder if one could detect signs of past transport phenomena, normally associated to glaciers, like erratics. Something like that would definitely clinch the case, IMO. Or maybe Mars' geology is just too boring to hope for that. Scratching patterns could be another sign. Maybe also difficult to see on Mars' surface, as Martian soil is generally soft and windswept.

Oh, rest assured he's up to something by now. Probably confusing, un-related and un-nice. Crackpottery and trolling are more than just a lifestyle.

Japanese is loaded with English loan words! +1 It has an English living inside its lexicon. For example: エレベーター ドア Edit: Which leads us back to your previous question: What is a language? No simple answer. Edit 2: I love this one: ベルト (beruto) for "belt". LOL. I've forgotten most of my Hiragana and Katakana phonetics.

Sorry, but you seemed to be talking about the SM: I wouldn't disagree too strongly with Markus about that. All I can add is there is no application that I know of in which you invert time at the horizon. He went on to say that this idea doesn't sit too well with the SM. He did say that, and related it to the point you were making. You seem to be suggesting to do away with the SM at the horizon, while retaining GR there. You must have a pretty strong argument if you want to do that. There you are, he did mention the SM in connection with the argument. Keep in mind that T, C, and P, are always considered as passive transformations (re-labellings), not as something that you can actually do to a system. I hope to catch up with the main arguments eventually, though. I'm a late comer here.

I could hardly agree more with this. Language is an ever-changing, evolving structure. Consider the word "smart." It means something in the UK, and has a different meaning in the US. And even today these meanings may be evolving towards a cluster of different meanings around the same word, due to the effects of more, and more efficient, communication bridges opening up across the Atlantic.

The SM's Lagrangian is full of so-called gamma-5 matrices all over the place, just to make it explicitly and unambiguously break CP symmetry maximally. It's not just broken, it's broken by design. All leptons and quarks are lefties in the SM. So... I, for one, am sure about that. It better be, cause maximal parity violation has been shown to hold in EW decays in the laboratory ad nauseam.

Do you consider Ebonics, English-based creoles and pidgins, like Walpiri, as English? They all have different degrees of English features.

Denisovans, Neanderthals and maybe other post-Heidelbergensis are a fascinating topic, but I think the original OP's intention was to make a point about possibility of implausible hybrids, more common, to say the least, in species that spawn, rather than mate the way mammals do. Because the topic is fascinating nonetheless, I suggest splitting in a friendly and dispassionate way, or creating a new topic.

That sounds to me like sympatric speciation. In plants it's common, but in animals it seems to be not so common and to have more to do with sexual conflict than with adaptation. Allopatric speciation is far more likely. But I'm sure even that is not the whole story. In species like humans, which are very successful across different environments, and have been for several hundreds of thousands of years, hybridization has very likely played an important part. But this drifts us apart from the topic.

In the framework of concepts that I've grown up with, it would be neither of them. For me, for anything, (differential manifold, analytic manifold, space of solutions to a differential eq., etc.) for this space to be local, non local, or have global properties, it should have at least correlations from one point to another. If there are no correlations at all, well. I can see no meaningful way in which I (or anybody) can define any reasonable concept of locality. But I would be interested to know if anybody should put forward a sensible one. Edit: On second thought, maybe you could come up with a sensible definition based on correlation functions... I don't know. The concept is a bit alien to me, but maybe it's possible. Edit 2: The more I think about it, the more I think it's an interesting idea. +1. Whenever I hear of an idea that I haven't heard before and I can see no reason why it doesn't make sense, it becomes automatically interesting to me. So you would have a random angle at every point x: \[\theta_{x}\] And then you would have a density for these thetas: \[\rho\left(\theta\right)\] And yet you could have the thetas at distant points having well-defined, well-behaved, smooth correlations functions, even satisfying PDEs, if you want them to. Why not?: \[\left\langle \theta_{x},\theta_{x'}\right\rangle =f\left(x,x'\right)\] If anybody can think of any reason why this is not possible, please tell me. It's a bit late. I'm going to bed.

I couldn't resist quoting this: Lee Siegel Net of Magic, Wonders and Deceptions in India. (my emphasis and my additions in square brackets) I once went to a conference by James Randi, and it was very interesting. He's the guy who debunked Uri Geller when even professional scientists had failed to do so. Ask any professional magician and they will tell you that all magic is real (meaning based on deception, and not supernatural). The reason is very simple: it can actually be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipole_radiation

Then your "photons" are not elementary particles, because sure as hell they would radiate. Either that or Maxwell's equations don't hold for your charges. Which one is it? Edit: Sorry, what did you say, elementary particles do not radiate?

I don't know others, but for all I care you could either be a street musician or a Nobel Prize winner in Physics and I would still tell you that your dipoles will radiate. In fact, there is no way for me to know who you are, or the other way around. I could be a gorilla who's learnt how to type and studied physics, or the Sultan of Brunei. That shouldn't worry you in the least.

I particularly like the example of the soldier who uses the F word in one sentence like seven times, except to refer to the sexual act!