Bignose

It's been 6 months. How has progress in using the Gryzinski model to make all the same predictions to similar accuracy QM does coming along?

Yes, this was my immediate first reaction to this too. This dimensional inconsistency needs to be addressed post-haste.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/30/national/main2740065.shtml Here's a bridge that collapsed because burning gasoline weakened the steel in the bridge. These aren't that terribly difficult conditions to have occur. Or maybe this bridge collapse is a conspiracy too?

If there are any threats posted anywhere, I would hope that people were reporting them to the mods and the person making the threats would be banned. Threats are not common here, and are certainly not allowed. In the same vein, the rules also state that the principles of science have to be adhered to. Creationism, in every incarnation it has taken to date, has not been science. If you can present some science, then please do so. Otherwise, trying to defend a position without science for which there is an alternative for which there is significant scientific evidence is going to be difficult on this forum. The rules of science are very important here.

But, a 4th dimension doesn't have to be time. Here is a good example from my studies: [math]\frac{\partial \dot{V} f}{\partial v} + \nabla \cdot (\mathbf{c} f) = h [/math] where f is a particle distribution in space and in particle volume, v The first term represents a particle growth, something like a species in a super saturated solution coming out of solution and causing a crystal to grow larger The second term represents a convection flux through space (c is a velocity here). Could also include a diffusion term. The right hand side, h, represents all the collision-based occurances. This will be collisions that could be causing the crystals to break apart, or possibly agglomerate together. Or both! Its exact form isn't important to this discussion. The important thing to note is that what we have here is a distribution in space and particle volume. 4 dimensions. 3 spatial and 1 "internal" describing the particle volume. Another choice could be to use a very similar equation to describe a distribution of cells in a bioreactor. This would have 3 spatial dimensions and an internal dimension describing the cell's age. Again, 4 dimensions. Time can be added to each of these equations above, leading to a total of 5. One can imagine many different situations where in more than just 3 or 4 dimensions are needed to mathematically describe a situation. Consider a particle distribution in space (3 dimensions), distributed in velocity (3 more dimension), and particle size, and varying with time. That's 8 dimensions. An additional dimension is needed whenever the dimensions that have been used already cannot be used to describe the situation. A particle at spatial position (0,0,0) can have volume 1 or volume 2 or volume 4.8125876..... Therefore, we need an additional dimension to describe the situation, and the "4th" dimension becomes volume. I wrote the above just because I think that it is important not to get hung up on phrases like "4th" dimension. Depending on the mathematics needed to describe the situation, many, many dimensions may be needed.

x is the original amount of money you want to put into an interest bearing account. You multiply x by 1.07 because you said that when compounding, you get 7% over the period. So, the amount that will be in the account after compounding is x*(1.07). You also said that you wanted to gain 10 pounds in the interest. Therefore the amount you want in the account is x + 10. You set these equal to each other, and solve for x, and you get how much you have to set aside initially in order to fit the conditions you stated.

x*(1.07) = x + 10. Solve for x.

This was in the vein of my reaction to this thread. My reaction is pretty much "How often have we communicated 'normally' or 'directly' with any of the animals we've studied?" I mean, we can teach dogs and other domesticated animals verbal commands, but we aren't using the animals' noises, the animals are learning our speech/commands.

All, we need to be pleased with this post. JTF has finally made a testable objective prediction!

This is ridiculous. Do you not believe in distance either? Are we in the same place? If not, go get me a bucket of distance and bring it to me. In short, you don't measure time in units of volume, any more than you measure units of length with a bucket. A bucket measures volumes.

I'm not so sure this is true. Because the way you talk about it seems more like "seconds" or "hours" or "years" or "millennium" are the man-made tools. Kind of like "meter" and "foot" and "furlong" and "light-year" are the tools to measure distance with. But, man didn't make up distance itself. Things have distance and/or are distance apart. Two thing either are in the same place or they aren't, and distance is the measurement of how much two things aren't in the same place. Similarly, events last for a certain amount of time or occur a certain time apart from one another. That isn't "man-made"; it just is. There is a difference between simultaneous and not-simultaneous and time is the measurement of how non-simultaneous things are.

Why can't you make a "line" 3 cm and 10000 cm long and then it wouldn't fit... The point is, like michel wrote, you need to define was "made it into a line" means? Is is a function from [math]R^2[/math] to [math]R^1[/math]? Do you mean, given a rectangular object of area A, and a length L, find what the W is? And so on.

One doesn't fit inside the other because area isn't just limited to squares or circles or other regular shapes. As you noted, something with an area of 1 m^2, and take many different shapes. Another way of putting that is that just because something as a given area, doesn't set its perimeter in any way whatsoever. Unless additional information is given, for a set area A, there are an infinite number of shapes that can have that area.

Any physical object will have three dimensions -- even if it is as small as angstroms (10^-10 m) such as the diameter of an atom. But that doesn't mean that 2-D objects don't exist. The surface area of a 3-D object is still two-dimensional. You can locate things on that 2-D space, such as using the latitude and longitude on the Earth's surface.

I think that there are valid arguments for school uniforms: In my opinion, a big one is getting into the mental mode of being at school. Just like when one puts on a sports uniform, it helps get into the mental mode of being ready to play that sport. The uniform may help the students take a more professional approach to school. There are many workplaces that also mandate clothing standards. As one example, to go out into the shop where I work, I have to wear a bump cap, earplugs, safety glasses, gloves, and metatarsal steel toed boots. I have to wear slacks (no jeans) and a fairly dressy shirt (i.e. not just a T-shirts) in the office. When I put on my safety boots, I get into the mental mode of going out into the shop and to be aware of the dangers present there. Doctors and hospital staff often require the wearing of scrubs. Construction workers usually require safety footwear and hardhats. Policemen typically wear a uniform. Etc. Etc. I think another advantage would be being able to easily identify students that should be in school if they try to leave the campus when not allowed. This could also be useful for class trips. In the end, I think that most of the arguments both for and against are based on a lot of hearsay and conjecture, really. If there aren't any well-done studies, then it is just speculation, really.

mishin, it is tough to communicate when you make mistakes like [math] \displaystyle \int\limits_{0}^{x} f(a+x)dx=\int f(a+x)dx [/math] This equation is wrong. One side has limits, the other doesn't. This is not an equality.

There are ions with negative charges and ions with positive charges. Though it is arbitrary which one to denote as "positive" and as "negative", it is not arbitrary that when balanced quantities of positive and negatively charged ions combine, you end up with a substance that has no charge. One way or the other, there is a concept of negative and positive that additively combine to zero in nature.

My point was that most progressive rock is not considered popular. Rush, despite releasing 19 studio albums and another on the way in 2011, only get about 4 songs total played on the radio in most classic rock formats. Emerson, Lake, and Palmer don't get a lot of playtime. Yes doesn't get a lot of playtime. King Crimson doesn't get a lot of playtime. Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree, despite being among the most popular progressive rock bands today, don't get a lot of playtime. etc. The exception to that is Pink Floyd, who does get a fair amount of play time, especially later in their career when the moved away from psychedelic rock. And, my example of a progressive rock that is truly popular is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. That is, in spite of it being firmly in a genre that isn't very popular, it is a truly popular album. Not that other progressive rock albums haven't sold. But compare the 30 million to Pink Floyd's other works and it is dominant. In terms of popularity, their Wish You Were Here is only 13 million. Rush's Moving Pictures (generally considered one of their strongest albums) only sold 4 million. Porcupine Tree's Deadwing, one of their most popular, has only sold a half a million albums, and Dream Theater's Images and Words just over half a million as well. To put it in perspective of popularity, Brittney Spears routinely sells 3 or 4 million copies per album, and I suspect that most of us would agree that her work is not progressive or complex. I am sure that there are a few other progressive rock albums that have sold well. Jethro Tull's Thick as Brick must have sold well, too, I just couldn't find any sales figures quickly on Google. I hope that I made my point clearer -- that progressive rock, typified by being complex, normally isn't very popular, though there have been exceptions such as DSotM selling very well.

Listening to my mp3 player today: Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick is at least as complex as an average symphony. I do wonder if there is an objective measure of how complex a piece of music is.

Samm, I am confused. 30 million copies is indeed popular. Truly is an emphasis on just how popular it is. Truly as in sincerely, genuinely, truthfully, accurately, in a true manner, etc. I will assume that this was just a miscommunication...

Samm, that's why I called it "truly popular". Re-read the quote. Provide an objective measure of complexity, and I suspect that I can find numerous modern songs that are at least as complex as any classical piece by that same measure. I want an objective measure of complexity, because it doesn't count just to have you listen to it and say "nope, not at complex as Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exposition"

Marat, I wonder how much of the classical music written in years past has disappeared because it wasn't good. Such as being too repetitious, or simple. The really good pieces have survived the test of time. There is a whole sub-genre of rock called progressive rock that essentially specializes in rock music that is more complex, and not just a typical chorus-driven rock song. It is filled with infrequently heard time signatures (like 13/16) and other "classical" influences. Some of the originators are popular, some are not. Yes, King Crimson, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Jethro Tull, and Pink Floyd are some of the originators. Rush is a progressive band that has released numerous albums and is still going today. More modern bands are Dream Theater, Opeth, Tool, and Porcupine Tree. Tool and Porcupine Tree in particular have a wide range of sounds and some very complex tunes. As is the word "progressive" it is tough to nail down an exact definition -- and many of even the most popular bands have a few songs where they just explore and create instead of pumping out "arena-rock". And, most of the above progressive bands have several tunes that are more "pop" and mainstream. Beyond just progressive rock, there are innovators in many areas. Two more I think are worthy of mention are Kings of Leon, a fairly innovative Southern Rock band, and then the UK's Mumford and Sons, a "progressive" or "new" folk band. Both have many songs that really don't follow the usual verse-chorus-verse-chorus-chorus pattern. In particular, I have been really, really impressed with Mumford and Sons. The four of them have an amazing harmony in their voices, are incredible instrumentalists, but most impressive is the song writing. One of the band members owns a bookstore, and their debut (and only full length) album has songs based on the works of Shakespeare and Steinbeck, for example. Not content to sit on their laurels, they just released an EP where they worked with an Indian group and the combination put out 4 folk-Indian songs. The bigger point is that there are complex and unique songs in most every genre. Like most gold, you just have to dig for it. And, it isn't always the most popular songs -- in fact it rarely is. The only truly popular progressive album I can think of is Pink Floyd's Darkside of the Moon. But, the complex deeper stuff is out there, and can be very rewarding when found.

Do you want help to solve it yourself, or do you want an answer? The first split must go like this. Let's call the original total of coins N. N0 must be in the form 3*P+1 because N is split into 3 equal piles and the extra 1 tossed away. So, N = 3P + 1. Then, after the 1st man leaves, the pile remaining is 2P. And repeat this procedure again for the next man: 2P = 3Q + 1 and the pile remaining after the 2nd man would be 2Q. Repeat for the next 2 splits. I think that the last clue is that the original pile was between 200 and 300 coins. I think that the one flaw in the problem is that each of the 3 men should have known that the original amount was between 200 and 300 right? Well, after the 1st man takes his cut, the remaining pile would no longer be between 200 and 300, and the second and third men should have been upset that the amount wasn't right. I.e. say the original amount was N=298. After the 1st man splits this pile and then tosses the extra 1, and then takes his third, the pile would be 198 = 2 * 99. Well, the second guy should have been upset that this pile was less than 200. Any number between 200 and 300 will have this same issue. But, if you assume that this fact wouldn't bother people, I think that the problem is solvable. If the above hints aren't enough, I'll come back and try to solve it later.

At least the units are right (all too often this isn't the case when someone posts a formula here), but unless it comes from a derivation, it doesn't really have any meaning. that is, how is it any different from: [math]v = c \frac{\sqrt{m'^4+2m'^2m^2}}{m'^2+m^2}[/math]? units cancel correctly again, but I just completely made it up and it really doesn't have much meaning at all. So, where does your idea come from, and what does it really mean?