michel123456

That's the beauty If you take a circle 1. say the radius is 1, then the perimeter (2Pi) is irrational or 2. say the perimeter is 1, then the radius (1/2Pi) is irrational. There is no absolute irrational, there is only irrationality relative to something. Pi is irrational relatively to number one AKA it cannot be described by a fraction. And as you must know, you need 2 numbers at least to make a fraction. For example, you can cut a string and decide arbitrarily the the length of the string will be Pi in some new weird unit system. Then curve the string in a circle, find the diameter: it is the number one in your weird unit system. It's all relative. Does that help?

That's a bit tricky but that's not a bad idea. To falsify we should inquire information from the future, since the end (in our future) would be the same event that what we observe in our past (the BB). I am not sure it is possible to gather information from our future. Also the universe would show full time symmetry, I guess. And our mathematical model of the future of the universe would produce a Big Bang. I guess again.

(bolded mine) ?? why do you intend to use both the aelopile pressure and a propellor? What will be the configuration? At first sight it looks like a bootstrapping approach, like the sailor that blows into his sail.

bolded mine. So the A changed in E circa 1538? That is 46 years after the discovery of America? (1492)

Is English the language of Eng people? and England the land of Eng people? Isn't it the language of people from Angelland (or Angleland), the land of Angle people, like in Angleterre in French, with an "A" instead of "E", as in Anglican church (and not Englican?) When did the A mutate in E ? (with a different pronunciation?)

What life? your life, my life, human life? Or life? First of all IMHO it is a bit arrogant to believe there must be a point to your little life between billions of other humans around, living, passed away, not born yet. why should there be something pointed on you, coming from nowhere, that would give a point to your life? If you want make your life having a point, that's up to you. You have to make your life. Or you can live a pointless life, that's another option. But since we are on a science forum, I would be more interested to know if there is a point to Life in the broader sense. At last, if there is a point, our human life would be a small part of this broader point.

bolded mine That is another system. Yes, for you it clearly is but for others it may not be so evident. If the system was not a crystal but a glass of water, we could put sugar in the system. I guess for your understanding (trying to go into your mind again) that would be a different system, for someone else the same system would have changed.

I wonder if one or the other science would escape from the definition: there are a lot of sciences. So I went rambling over the web to find a exhaustive list of recognized sciences. I couldn't. I found a list of "ologies" and a list of academic disciplines. but physics, mathematics & others are not in the "ologies" list while some academic disciplines are clearly not science. So, do we write a definition from scratch and look if one or the other dicipline fits, or do we want a definition that encompasses already recognized disciplines?

Yes, yes, yes. There is no "absolute velocity" For example: Speed Of Light is not an "absolute velocity" Speed of Light is constant. Because there is a fundamental difference between the concept "absolute" and the concept "constant".

The circle is the system. At first, the system contains only X. When you add B, the system changes. I am not aware of of a way to make a change without making a change. You should. When you increase the temperature of X and X dilates (occupies more space), is it still your original system or is it not?

So, if I understand correctly juanrga: by definition, you cannot add energy to a closed system, so when he (juanrga) reads "consider the solitary right hand block as the system" he understands "the solitary right hand block is a closed system". Which was not said. Quite the contrary it was said "and therefore into the system". IOW it is a question of proper definition of what the system is right from the beginning. ---------------- edit: when it is stated that "the solitary right hand block is the system", it is not said, but should be said, that the system has an "aura" around it that allows change such as adding mass.

These are 3 different questions. Q(1).Do you present the real you in the forum? A(1) Yes, meaning that I don't tell lies. And No, that's not me, that's the part of me I show very rarely in real life. Q(2)Does this ring any bells with you? A(2)Yes. Q(3)If I met you in everyday life might you come across as someone with a different personality to that which you show on the forum? A(3) I agree completely with hypervalent_iodine's answer. I am more formal because english is not my native language (I also uses this forum to improve my skills) and written language is very different from spoken language. I always re-read myself several times before posting, editing, searching my words. Sometimes I can write a full text and after reading it I say to myself "Rubbish" and throw it away. That doesn't happen in RL. The picture on my profile is me on a good day, you don't want to interfere with me on my bad days, and my avatar is where I live constantly.

Only ONE editor used the term "obsolete" Some other editor wrote: from the same talk page. I'd like to get some confirmation (or infirmation) from other knowledgeable members. Also the particular wiki article has been peer reviewed, and the word "obsolete" does not appear once on the main page. from the talk page introduction.

the problem with quicksand is that you stuck in it. In the French Wiki article it is described as acting as cement. In the english article: bolded mine. Which makes me think that once you have put something in quicksand, it will be very difficult to get it out, no matter buoyancy.

That seems correct to me. I remember as a child a book about common nonsenses with a small article about that. The book is lost I am afraid and I can't recall the title, it was 40 years ago.

That is quite disturbing. I know wiki is not the best of the best, but "obsolete" and "incorrect" is a harsh judgment. i can find tons of interesting things in the talk pages, but when those things are not reflected in the main page, there must be a reason to it. quoted from the linked wiki page. There is nothing interesting about that. The page was automatically modified by one Wiki-bot that corrected a word in French "particule --> corpuscule". Look to the change done by the bot http://en.wikipedia....oldid=488482596 the interesting part is that the page was updated the same day you said it was obsolete. That looks to me as a page under 100% application. What do I have to believe? That an electron (and matter) has a duality? Or not?

Juanrga made the following statement: I was surprised, that's all. There is a huge litterature about wave-particle duality. I am not aware of any information making the concept obsolete. The main article in Wiki is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality a random article from Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6754/abs/401680a0.html

that is not a surprise since your input was

Interesting: quoted from the linked wiki page.

So you say this article about wave-particle duality is obsolete?

I am not sure. That all looks to me as other's people thoughts.

The other options are: 1. money (to impose a fine) 2. corporal punishment 3. talion law (eye for eye) 4. banishment (exile) 5. slavery (forced labour) Maybe I forget some. Personally I like the romantic ways of escaping justice by going into a monastery or to the French Foreign Legion although I am not sure it's always a good idea to give a gun to a criminal. I'd like for example a corp of "volunteers" firemen made out of convicts.

in the last billion year: 4 or 4,5 and 1/1250 of a revolution since the origin of humans. source: wikipedia

Not bad. The lowest estimation on this site is slightly more. About 782000 km/h (217 km/s)

Maybe you could be interested by the work of Edward T. Hall about proxemics. That is anthropology, I don't think it is philosophy. Following this concept, the "boundaries of your existence" are around you out of your body, not somewhere in your head. But that is maybe philosophy. As physics are concerned, instruments and repeated measurements are supposed to help the observer. I am not sure if there is an issue about this.