kenshin

What I feel is that they are not chosen totally randomly.There has to be some sort of relation as something goes on somebody's mind before he/she chooses these things,which I feel is related to the liking of the person like in case of bascule,ryanj and others.Like bascule is liking the book for 12 years.May be,that is because he found something attractive in that which influenced him much.I am not saying that the predictions be extremely reliable,but then its all about knowing how reliable they can be.As glider belongs to this field,I request him to take the pains of making such predictions about us and then lets see how much accurate it can get.This can then be called a research(sort of).So I request you all to participate in it,make some predictions about someone and then let him/her tell how accurate you have been.

One thing that I notice is that every body is trying to relate there nickname and avatar to there personality or trying to say if something can be extracted from there avatar or not.As I want to know that if something can be extracted or not,so lets try to predict somethings about some one from there avatar,nickname or signature and let us see if it works.Please contribute.

One thing that has come up is that avatar and nicknames have something to do with a prominent character trait of the person which may be a strong liking,philosophy of life,loved profession etc.One thing that should be noticed is that a prominent character trait influences the overall personality very much.This will mean that one's personality may be judged from these two things.But as thread goes,its more than what you see.Like bascule said that he read Feersum Endjinn 12 years ago ago,but,the point is that he liked it enough to carry something related with it even after 12 years.This may mean that a psychologist who might have read it may open bascule inside-out. This crap is my view point. What do you people say?

I was just wondering what a psychologist can tell from a person's nickname or avatar.I feel that a lot can be told.What do you people think?

This thread is being added so that we can discuss programming problems and suggest some good programming exersices.

lo.I wonder if you could have used a better metaphor!Hehe.

That's the whole idea.But not just energy,may be every thing could be explained as space-time geometry.Thanks for reply.

THANKS MAN:-)

First of all I am not claiming that I have a new theory or something.What I am just saying is that I have another viewpoint of looking at the things which will follow.Before that,I request you all that if you read the post please leave a reply,may be a comment,a flaw that you find,some criticism,if you want you can put that I am a jerk but please discuss and guide.So here goes. When I first learnt that G relativity puts gravity as space-time geometry then my response was that other forces must also be space-time geometry as nature can't be biased to one force.That was just an intuition.No other reason for believing that.Then I came to know about kaluza-klain theory and representation of forces as geometry of higher dimensions. Now,what I feel is that if forces are space-time geometry,and force-fields contain energy then energy must also be space-time geometry.You may now say that energy is what causes space-time curvature,but what I say is that what if it's other way round?What if space-time curvature is energy as to me space-time is more fundamental than any thing else. I am not saying that whatever I have said is right,I am just saying that we should at least once look at the whole picture that way. Now if energy and mass are inter convertible,then,it can be said that mass is also just space-time geometry.These wrinkles in space-time are the soul reason of existence of forces,energy,matter and dark-matter. So gist of the story is that I think that every thing in this universe is nothing more than space-time geometry. Analysis and criticism of the above are highly requested.Please discuss and guide.

Thankyou very much klaynos.That was hell of a help.I have joined but interface was sort of alien to me .I hope to get use to it.Hope to see you there.THANKS once again.:-)But there is still one thing,I followed what pdf says and also installed java as you pointed out,but I still get blank page????????Can you help?

Can anybody please tell me about good physics chat available out there? Also how to use SFN chat.I clicked on the provided link but what I get is a blank page with no activity.

gotta be joking

1)I have no problem with zero or constant function.I am just saying,that if it were the case(k=0 etc) then examinor/teacher/instructor would have used the function cos(kx) or cos(wt).Also isn't it that A=0 will mean no partical(free or bound)at all?So I am assuming that A is not = to 0 and niether are k or w. 2)secondly,we are discussing physics and here for me a solutions means one which represents a physical quantity/entity.Also you said that"You can construct all solutions of the diff. eq. from these base vectors - including the physically meaningfull ones. ".Is it possible for a non-well behaved function as well? What do you people think?Please enlighten me.

Yes you are right.I misstated it all.I say that cos and sine are not solutions as clear from the calculations done by sarahisme.Cos will be a solution iff tan has a constant value as calculated(using [math] \frac{\hbar^2 k^2 A}{2m}cos(kx -\omega t) [/math]=[math] i \hbar \omega A sin(kx - \omega t) [/math]),but niether cos,nor sine or even the function that you stated can represent a real entity as they are not well behaved.So given problem is resolved into two problems: 1)Is cos a solution of a given DE? 2)Is it a function representing a real entity? As stated,answer to both the questions is no.And hence the given functions don't represent a solution of S.E,niether physically nor mathematically.At least that's what I think.

sorry repeated it.

In all the posts I find that you have been heavyly condemed.I wont say you are right as you are not,but,your approach of dealing with subject(physics)is all most right.You can think good,thats well,but,you should read well too.You reminde me of my olden days when in ninth grade I was desperately trying to prove that E=MC^2 is wrong.I will suggest you read brian green or still better kleppner and kollenkow(introduction to mechanics),if you can handdle some maths.Also I liked the examples of various clocks what you quated.You can easyly stump a common man,but here no one is common.Start some good reading and you will find things changing.

I thing that what I would like to point out is that the functions under considration are not well behaved.They are nither normalizable(hope so)nor their limit tends to zero as x tends to infinity.So I think they can't be a solution.But what really bothers me is that beautyfull func. like sin and cos are not solutions.Also,from eq,if tan(kx-wt) is equal to a particular contant(the original solution before putting values.),then eq has cos(kx-wt) as a solution.Contradiction??What do you people think?Or,if we trust eq, can we say that tan can have any value on no. line but that which is also against the behaviour of tan.I am so confused. .Please ponder and reply.Also excuse me for spelling mistakes if any.

Logically,if mass is relative,then all the properties asoosiated with it should be relative.So,an object should be a black hole for one observer and not for other. Though I am digressing a bit,but,what will be the properties of such a black hole ,and what will be the outcome of this phenomenan?

Its not just about galactic rotation,its also about the ultimate fate of our universe.

Well!As space-time geometry tells matter how to move,so,if a deeper wrinkle exists in the vicinity of a shallow one,matter will never accumulate there.

Dark matter is basically added to the situation to explaine the gravitational pull in the absence of visible matter.We know that the gravitational force is space time geometry.So my suggestion is,what if our space-time is not so uniform afterall and containes wrinkles.Now these wrinkles will give rise to gravitational field,but no matter will be present,hence,producing an illusion of matter or dark matter.Also these wrinkles might not have gathered matter due to presense of deeper wrinkles in its vicinity.Under this alternative,we won't require any dark matter to explaine the situation at hand.

Well!I am sorry.i just read the last post,its same.So my reply makes no sense.