Radical Edward

I never saw that, though I hear the technomage was a good idea. Furthermore I thought the end of the Earth conflict was good, but as for the shadow war, Sheridan went for the "if you can't solve it, nuke it" option... the third time he had dealt with a war by nuking someone. also the line "now get out of our galaxy" was rather unfulfilling I thought.

I thought that 1 was multiplying something by zero never gets you anywhere apart from zero, and you can do this an infinity times and never get anywhere (this infinity being an illusory infinity) the other one looks like you divide something by a real number infinity times and get a zero, this infinity being a real one.+ basically: R*(n0)=0 where n is illusory when you let it tend to infinity R1/nR2=0 where n is real when you let it tend to infinity. note that I am not using "real" in the mathematical concept of a real number, and I have no idea what he means by it, or illusory.

my sentiments exactly. I thought I would let you deal with it as your a mathematician type, and I prefer to run away from anything with infinity in it.

My biggest disappointment is that Agent Brown and Agent Jones aren't in this film. still, we will have to see what Agent Thompson is like.

yeap, I know the whole thing. It is a real shame really, it made s5 look like a real botch job.

in equation 1.54, where does he get Aij from? It looks to me like he gets it from <ej|fi> but then that would seem to make the whole derivation a bit redundant. in 1.56, would I be right in saying: fj|ej>=|ej>fj=|ej><ej|f> in other words: fj=<ej|f> sincethis is the scalar product of the orthonormal basis |ej> and |f>

I never have, thanks for the link. Old laser Physicists don't die, they just become incoherent.

heh, yeap, series 4. It's such a shame that the studios were so iffy about funding it that they didn't tell JMS about if there would be a series 5 till too late. yeah, I think Sky is disgusting for that, especially on the main channels like sky 1, where they seem to spend hours advertising other sky programs/channels right in the middle of your favourite programs, like the Simpsons. The simpsons is far superior on BBC2... such a shame it is so damn late.

but you are criticising something that you barely show any evidence of even understanding in the first place.

right, I finally got round to starting to learn this stuff.... I have a question on p26 of the notes I posted, what is the meaning of |||x>|| is that just the magnitude of the vector? and why two lines rather than the conventional 1? thanks. oh, I am finding his discussion of completeness a bit tricks to follow as well, specifically the Cauchy Sequence.

animatrix is pretty cool. you can just download it, about they are all pretty big files. and everyone knew that it was going to end with a to be continued ... anyone who puts that down is a raging retard and should be shot!

Since Babylon 5 ended, about the only thing I miss about not having a TV is the documentaries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3043731.stm In what yould be an extraordinary breakthrough, Quantum entanglement between two particles has been observed in a silicon chip over a distance of 0.7 mm, potentially paving the was for a new generation of supercomputers. I would like to comment more, but without the original article, I can't say much. If someone could get the science article, that would be lovely.

what means I don't understand you at all.

you shouldn't have said it in the definite then.

it is an absolute gem, I will grant you that.

Baby Jesus' dad was a bit slack too.

I can't be bothered typing it out. Get the Emperor's new mind, and read p273

I never said you could split the electron

I already have. I told you to read Born and Wolf: Principles of Optics. It's a pretty monumental tome that will tell you everything you need to know about this sort of thing. It doesn't go into atomistic theories, but it does give references to these if you really want them. You might also consider learning a bit of maths too. I suggest partial differentiation and vector analysis.

what?

out of interest, what are the other three then?

you're in a different rest frame.

I am not talking about more and more accurate theories. and besides, none of them contradict current theories, they are just a better version which can be approximated e.g. Newton is a good approximation of Einstein. throwing into the fray things like SuperString theory (the only one of those theories you name that I recognise) does not at all alter the fact that you are still entirely wrong, and colour is caused by the electrons, and not nuclear forces. All the examples you have given so far can be explained with current theories.