michel123456

Is this question related to the G and g constants getting to zero?

Questions _is this the lower part of the yard? _under the gravel, is this black thing we see on the picture natural ground? _when it rains, do water go out with a drainage system or does water go down naturally into the soil? _do you put frequently gravel there, or do you have the same for several years? _do you observe the same phenomena where the soil is not at level (horizontal)? --------------- Also Does the borehole you discovered go horizontal after a few more digging?

All things are not simple, but there is a tendency, or a will. Another example: If one could present a model with fewer than 16 or 17 or 18 elementary particles, that would be a step forward. To simplicity.

Let's take another example. There are four fundamental interactions. As much as I know, many scientists struggle to find the unification of these four interactions. Isn't it a step toward simplicity?

Well understood. Science is not only about explanation, science is also about prediction, like the path of a photon or the orbit of a planet. A simple (or a complicated set of) equation(s) is required, based on measured and cleverly chosen units. Not the entire reality is required to make the prediction. That's what I call a simplification.

All equations,units, measurements are simplifications. I don't understand your point.

Yes it is sinister. But you should know that anyone at any time can make a search on you. I remember a misunderstanding I created on this same Forum with another member. He challenged me to find info about him and it took me less than 15 minutes to divulgue I don't exactly remember what (his name, address, when he married, the name & school of childs, such kind of things). And I am not a specialist. That's the Internet. Beware. ------------------ Note: I won't do that again.

One should note that the criterias of ranking does not include students opinion. Although in real life i think the question you are interested in would be answered by students. See http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/qs-world-university-rankings-methodology

There is a counterpart. if you post some gibberish and there is no comment then you may perceive it as if your gibberish was so truly illuminating that nobody could say a word. There are such threads that are maintained by a single member. That is not good, it is encouraging the crank. Insulting is not good either. i have felt insulted several times here, it is not a pleasant feeling. But as i said on a mysteriously disappeared thread, I have become a pachyderm. From the etymologic sense: with a thick skin. So that nothing can bites me. IOW one must keep the balance.

This is how the story goes on my head. Pure speculation. Ophiolite was sombre this Christmas night. His wife asked him, why are you like this? Aren't we supposed to be happy? Ophiolite answers: grmlbm grrrlmmm grrrrrmbmlml Wife: "Sorry?" O: "an O.T. on my Forum has been supported by the Mods and grmlmbmm I am right and grlmmblm they are all wrong and grrrrrbmllm all of them against me grrrblmmm" W: "Are you serious? Ruining Christmas because of an Internet Forum? You must be joking. Leave them, that' s all they deserve" O: "You are right darling. That's what I will do".

As much as I know, the British sell their education. To them, it is a product. For other nations on the continent, education is not a product you can sell, it is a good that you have to deliver free of charge to your population.

AMAIK Belgian KU Leuven is private, owned by the Catholic Church. Very good level. The rating between universities is based on a large range of matters, not only the level of studies.

We don't know how many atoms are in the Universe. The number may be infinite, we simply don't know. The question then resumes to "are there enough atoms in the Observable Universe" but then one can counter argument the anthropic principle upon that part of the universe that we can observe. IOW we are observing that part of the universe where life occured, that's all.

My remark is that in the solar system, the velocity of the planets is a function of the distance from the centre. It is a consequence of Kepler's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion When the radius increase, the height of the triangle (the distance upon the orbit) must decrease. I supposed the same happen in a galaxy.

You liked the chasm word too.

Yesterday I was looking at three years of Sun In my profound ignorance, I was poundering: We are rotating around the Sun. In 3 years, the video would have shown only 3 rotations. But there are obviously more, thus the Sun is rotating. I went to the solar rotation Wikipedia page and indeed IOW the Sun makes a full rotation in 24.47 days, while the Earth needs one year to rotate around the Sun. Which reminded me this thread. The rotation speed increases towards the centre. And I was thinking: the same law must apply inside the star. i mean, there is no reason why a physical law that applies between objects must not apply in the object itself. The law must apply everywhere, even if other forces apply. So I was thinking that inside the Sun, the rotation rate must increase. As it appears to happen inside the Earth, where the Earth's core is seemingly ratating faster than the crust. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0825_050825_earthcore.html

Too bad. IMHO you shouldn't evaluate the respect that people has for you from a single incident. I hope you will change your mind. Quoting one of my most knowledgeable & detestable professor: -------------------- Is this a Christmas spirit aftermath?

Now that i take a new look at it, it looks to me that Newton's 3rd law ressembles quite a bit with Archimedes principle. Not to say that paradoxically Archimedes should have known Newton's 3rd law in order to formulate his principle.

That was Michelangelo

If a private company can use a technology for reducing its number of employees, the company will use this technology. A simple example is self-service at gas stations. in this case, technology will be an instrument. The cause is not technology, the cause is that employees cost a lot of money. If you want to reduce costs, the first thing to do is to reduce the number of employees. if technology can help, technology will be used. On the other hand, technology can also produce jobs. But the former employee at the gas station will not become an IT professional at Texaco. Governments are the ones who have to manage the gap, giving some income to the unemployee and creating schools for the new IT. Another way for governments to fill the gap is very simply to create useless jobs. This part of useless jobs can reach a huge percentage (50%, 70%) of the administrative staff. IMHO statistics alone do not help very much if one wants to get an accurate image of the situation.

!!!!!!!!!!! Can you give more info on this? Or at least give a third party info that supports this?

Another method with one weighing. No cheating.

Oh, you are correct. Two weighings. The cheater wins anyway. I am pretty sure this particular puzzle has been made for ridiculizing the mathematicians. A long long time ago. Mathematicians are so stupid that they will continue calculating for centuries upon this problem, waisting their time.

The trick is to do it with a single weighing. No maths required. ------------------- As i explained before, the stupid mathematician jumps into calculations. The smart philosopher re-read the question and find the solution wiithout calculating anything. IOW it is not a mathematical problem, it is a bad joke against mathematicians. --------------- It is a trap and you jumped into it with both feets.

So even when you have been told it is a trick you continue.