michel123456

Nothing of the above: _I have not Einstein's capacities. _I have not enough time & knowledge to write any theory. _I will never win a Nobel Prize, these are for people who have spend a lifetime in research aiming to make Humanity a better place, or so it should be. _I am learning all the time and i will never make an important discovery, I am afraid. _I think my ideas are correct & important. _I tend to speculate. Why? Because life is short, and I am afraid all my ideas will die with me. It is impossible to discuss with anyone of my entourage. They simply don't care. This Forum is a legacy. I hope being like Midas's barber shouting to the river. ---------------------- edit There is another reason: I was always interested in science. At the age of 40, I suffered a (hidden) age-complex. Wow, I just passed through the middle of my expected lifetime span (and more, my father died 62), it is not acceptable to die without even knowing where I live. What is this planet, the Sun, the Moon, the Galaxy, the Universe? Where am I? Existential question. Then I said to myself; go and learn, there are plenty of people who know about that, open a book and learn about what we know. And so I did. The problems came quickly. It was totally impossible to accept. I felt like those books were made for imbeciles. And after 10 years, I still feel the same. The common reaction at my feelings is "Michel don't understand". Maybe. Probably. What are the probabilities? 99.99%? I bet everything on 0,01.

The video has been removed from Youtube, no comment available either.

Very interesting indeed. Here I am again: Moderators, be prepared! Your own past (10 minutes ago) lies inside your past cone, right? Question: Is your past a part of your visible universe?

There is also an issue when one decides for a risk that someone else will encounter. There are a lot of activities (all activities actually) that have potential risks. When a worker at a building construction site falls from a scaffolding, all parties involved, including the worker, knew there were such a risk, even if all measures were taken to avoid it. With a nuclear plant, things are somehow different. The one who decides to take the risk (the government?) is not the same one who will be injured. The risk calculation involves someone else who in most circumstances has no knowledge of the risk.

The explanation exists already, look around the Forum.

It happened to me too. The avatar changed. April 1st?

You could start a thread with this.

I understand nothing but I am glad you are happy. It surprises me that half the structure can stand, the design is intended to be complete (unlike Spyman's). If you have enough material, cross the straws to make your structure hyperstatic. FYI if you had at your disposal many more straws, and since we are on a scientific forum, you could made a more up-to-date structure based on the chaos theory. Something like this (the picture is copyrighted). A nest. ------------------------ Ah, one last thing. Be extremely careful at both bridge ends, where the weight is transmitted to the main support (chair, table, wathever). You'll need to make another structure there that will make a good repartition of the forces.

This will not be a democratic procedure anyway. No one will ask for your opinion.

Highlight the text and use the quote button. Note, you can do that anytime by editing your old post.

And you can't protect something against everything. In some other post it was questioned why some stupid fellow had decided to put the generators at low level: it would be much more logical to put them at high level so that they would'nt be submerged by the tsunami. Well I suppose the "stupid" fellow maybe had in mind that a plane crash was much more probable than a record-breaking-tsunami. IMHO there is no way to avoid all risks, there will always be a certain percentage of probability. The problem here is that when you build in a seismic region, you are multiplying the probability. When you face a fault, you increase the risk more. When the risk of tsunami exists,... It is not wise to build there.

Also: if you make a careful analysis of Spyman's diagram, you may notice that almost half the elements are redundant. It is an "over statical structure" (lost in translation) which means that one of the element can be damaged without provoquing the collapse of the entire structure. My diagram is more economic, but if you take away a single element a total collapse is highly probable.

It is not to scale. You must make a draw of your bridge (highly recommended) .The basic curve is a parabola. Your structure design will depend on the available straw length and on the total bridge dimension. The width of the bridge must remain a certain percentage of its length. Try to remain above 10%. The bendy part of the straw can remain as long as you use it cleverly, that is under contraction. Take some time to study my diagram & Spyman's. Put in red the elements in contraction, and in green the elements in traction. Where 2 elements in contraction join together, you can use the bendy part. But be carefull: 1_if the intent is to build a self sustained structure, you must be able to reverse the bridge upside-down without collapsing. In other words, your bridge would be like a beam.(like in the spaghetti bridge contest). You cannot make a suspension bridge. 2_if the intent is to build a bridge on site, the structural inventory is larger and you can imagine a suspension bridge. A suspension bridge collapse when turned upside-down, it is not a self-sustaining structure. For the parts under traction, you can use only the tape. Theoretically: beware of points 1 & 2 above. You could use only tape to make a bridge, without straws at all. For example, you can roll the tape like cigarettes to make beams. Or you can collate the tape face to face in order to make a somehow rigid ribbon, straight or curved (better) You can increase the strength of the ribbon by cleverly shaping the tape before collating together, like origami. Possibilities are endless. --------------------------- edit: if you are under point 1, take a look at space frame structures. Very efficient, but you'll have to deal with how to make the node.

It is all about traction & compression. I would propse this kind of structure. Many bridge have 2 aspects: 1. to go from one side to another of a gap. 2. to let enough space beneath for transversal passage, like a bridge over a highway. In your exercise, you don't care about point 2. So you can span the tape from one side to the other of the gap and make in time zero the main structure of the bridge.* Next you'll have to construct the mantel: that will take the entire time at your disposal. Be careful to make your bridge resistant to lateral push and to inequal load: that will be the reason your bridge will collapse, if it collapses. Good luck. -------------------- *edit. i supposed the gap is stable somewhere. Otherwise, if you must make your bridge as a self-sustaining structure, it is a little bit more complicated.

There are others: Dividing by 5 is the reverse (multiply by 2) Multiplying by 25 is like dividing by 4, and reversely. Divide by 125 looks difficult, but multiply by 8 is easy. Also: multiplying by six is dividing by 2 changing the decimal (see precedent post) plus one time the value. For example 72*6= 360+72=432. it is not quicker than regular multiplying, but easier to do mentally. You can do the same for multiplying by 3. And a lot more I suppose. I am not so good at it.

So do I. For a reminder, the use of multiplication table is based on mnemonics. You calculate it once, then you put it in your memory and give back the result at any time without calculation. This is not what I call a calculation trick. A calculation trick is for example to say that multiplication by 5 is the same as multiplication by 10 and division by 2. For example the result of 170*5 is 170/2=85 by ten gives 850. It is very useful for certain numbers: 242424242424242424*5=1212121212121212120 you can't do that on your pocket calculator.

I suppose if the window was large enough to see the entire path up & down, the resulting equation still stands.

You are scientifically confusing "girlfriend' with "wife". Only wives are always right.

Wiki's definition is "numerical description" means "measurement".(description has a broader meaning, but they are basically the same) My definition would go like this: Distance is a one dimensional measurement of space. If you accept the above, you can say that distance is the measurement of space reduced to one dimension. And if you accept the above, the next step consists at saying that measurement coincides with reality. Then you obtain distance = [one dimensional] space. This is my syllogism.

Let mods correct me: what I understand from the world, universe included, is that what happens in the small scale is different from the large scale. An atom is different from a planetary system, and a planetary system is different from a galaxy. In-between, we are different from an atom and from the Sun. Not 2 things happen to be the same as much you go along the scales. If the structure of an atom seems to ressemble that of the sun, it is mainly because we use the one to explain the other, not because they are the same. They are fundamentaly different. And that is a complete mystery to me: why is it that way? I would prefer a system that repeats the same structure over and over, like a fractal. But it does not seem to be like that. The Universe has a structure.

From wiki atomic orbital Emphasis mine. Isn' that the answer to the OP question?

Your link is about molecular orbital. Is that the same with atomic orbital?

That's the good way. And beware. The more enthusiast you are, the more crude will be the answer. I am a gribble-grabble too. I know what I am talking about.

Jamie is enthusiast. That is wonderful. I am sure he has a lot of other terrific ideas. I find that great. Now he must slow down.

Look back at Sisyphus' s comment. No matter the direction of the blast, radial, tangent or in-between, the plasma-ball will come back to the sun after one orbit at most. Or the plasma will not orbit at all in case it reaches escape velocity.