John Cuthber

You have missed my point. I can pick any number bigger than 69 and write out the polynomial trivially. If you add a dozen more numbers I can still write another expression for the "next " number to be anything I like as long as it's bigger than all the ones you have put forward. I suspect the number you expect is about 130 (not to give the game away) but I think you should check your arithmetic again.

And, in doing so you are ignoring reality. At best you are making a mistake if you think it's plain; it is anything but- partly because the world has changed in the intervening two centuries. It is open to interpretation, not just by (as you put it) every dingbat, but by judges and such whose job it is to try to interpret that sort of thing. To be blunt, the 2nd amendment is a logical non sequiteur. You have "the right to keep and bear arms" but you have no "well regulated militia". The militia doesn't follow from the right to have guns. So the premise of the amendment doesn't actually hold true.

Vitamin c?

What I meant was that if you have two methods for measuring time, and they are both altered in the same way then you will never notice the alteration. so if you were using orbital periods and pendulum clocks to keep time and G changed you might not notice because it would affect both "clocks" in the same way. But a quartz clock or one based on the radioactive decay of uranium or something would make it clear that something had changed.

It doesn't alter my point. If you have a finite sequence of i(monotonically increasing) integers then they are always the roots of a polynomial in order of increasing size. And I can put any number I like at the end and choose an equation so that I can justify that choice of number. There are an infinite number of solutions to the problem you have put forward.

Careful definition of terms is semantics. It is also the underpinning of discussions in science, so your post makes no sense.

For n = any integer greater than 73 the answer is n You need to multiply out (x-0) (x-7) (x-28)( x-73) (x-n) to give a 5th order polynomial The function is then the roots of that polynomial in ascending order.

As far as I can see, the only case of that being true is the the people of the world are from the world. Because you can look at somewhere like England and point to communities" within it where the majority are (for example) black skinned people of Caribbean origin and have a culture that reflects that. But that doesn't make that group a nation. Where do you draw the lines round "nations"/

It seems that, if you explain what guns actually do, fewer people wish to buy them. https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpf1/v/t43.1792-2/11052628_904950219556802_2076527557_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MzY5NH0%3D&rl=1500&vabr=951&oh=5af530948b8dfc750dd296db770678ab&oe=55E1A3CF

"f the BAC test eliminates alcohol..... then what?" Then you know it is psychosomatic, because no other intoxicating substance is present.

Plenty of blown transistors show that to be wrong in the real world, though, as I said, it hardly matters. If you had talked of a superconducting coil and a superconducting capacitor then the only loss would be from radiation. Good luck finding a classical superconductor or a classical transistor. (well, I did say it didn't matter )

And the Bible talks nonsense about it. "And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth." Nothing to do with splitting light into components. Even less to do with photons.

Without an objective test of BAC this is pointless. With such a test it is trivial. You also need to control the time over which the alcohol is consumed.

They were not perfect, but they were good enough to show that the Earth's rotation wasn't constant. They were certainly good enough to show up an effect at 0.1% in six years (and I'm happy to round 0.06% or so to 0.1% for the sake of convenience, though I'm slightly embarrassed to have only just checked it) A good clock would keep time to 1 second in a year and would run for a few years before it failed- for whatever reason. So, unless they were really unlucky and picked a local extremum of that cyclic variation they would expect to see a change of something like a third or a sixth of the amplitude. Even if that that amplitude is just 1% of 1% ( 1 in 10^4) in six years than it's about 1 in 10^5 for a typical year. There are 31 million seconds in a year, so the error should be something like 5 minutes. A clock that keeps time to a second a year should be able to see an error of 0.001% in six years with a factor of about 300 in hand. Of course, if some mechanism keeps the pendulum clock and the earth's rotation locked, then no method will detect a difference between them. I guess it's unlikely that anyone seriously times the earth with a pendulum clock any more (perhaps slightly sad but...) But they do time it with some very good clocks (take a bow Swansont et al) and we know how much it varies. And the variability is about what the very good pendulum clocks said it was so unless the variability of the earth's rotation has suddenly changed we know that the pendulum clocks must have been pretty near right. If G was varying then g would also have changed and that would have messed up the pendulum clocks. It didn't. I just think my explanation - they are not as good at estimating errors as they think they are- is at least as credible as the cyclical variation (in something unspecified) they have suggested- not least because on one hand, that variation would have been spotted by other means and on the other hand, other data show that people are bad at estimating errors. (I used to be part of the team run a QA scheme and believe me they think they are a lot better than they actually are)

No, I don't, but it would be interesting to look at how inaccurate estimates of uncertainty typically are. But your question misses the point; do they have any reason for that sine wave? Even a factor of 3 would make the data look more like a constant than a sine wave, and it's not as if the sine wave goes through all the data's error bars anyway. Is some mysterious 6 year cycle more likely than the estimates of uncertainty being optimistic? Nobody knows, but people often miss out error sources and thus underestimate the overall error As I said, even if the 6 year effect is real, the people reporting it didn't allow for it (because they didn't know about it) so their assessment of error is wrong. Even if they are right, they are wrong.

If I had been caught out claiming that a psychological response could not explain flushed cheeks, I'd be blushing as red as a beetroot. I also suspect that those looking on would find my circumstances amusing and would be grinning like idiots- with or without the help of liquor. It's well documented that you can get people to act "drunk" by giving them water and telling them it's alcohol. http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/harry-fisch-md/sex-alcohol-unpredictable-bedfellows

Is acsinuk a sloppy journalist? I'm getting confused here. Anyway, as I pointed out, if you look at the local value of g it doesn't vary much- but it is vastly easier than G to measure accurately. So, it looks like there must be another explanation. I have a relatively simple one based on years of looking at "error budgets" and such like. Let's have a quick look at the data. the data in the graph have error bars based on a calculated uncertainty. If those were all correct then all the error bars (strictly 95% of the error bars) would overlap some value that was actually correct. They don't. So there's either some lack of constancy of G, or the error bars are not correct. Imagine that you replotted the data but made the error bars 5 times bigger. Then they would (nearly) all overlap and you could claim that the middle of the overlap was a consensus value. That would only happen if there were (ironically) errors in the error bars. but the error bars are the result of calculating the effects of things they know about. So, if there is some mystery 6 year oscillation- then it's something they don't know about but. if there's something they don't know about, then the error bars are wrong- specifically they are too short- and nobody knows by how much. so you can't use those error bars to justify the sine wave through the data. To cut a long story short, if the data is so bad that there might be a 6 year oscillation then the data is too bad to demonstrate that oscillation. My simple guess is this- they modelled the errors as normally distributed but they are in fact a fat tailed distribution (and believe me there are lots of those in science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat-tailed_distribution Any takers?

Did you actually think that saying that helped, or was it a joke?

Gravitation constant G can vary 0.1% in 6 yearsIt seems like the OP does. I know, but it is the variation in time that is under discussion here. I already explained that.

Because I couldn't find any. So I addressed the title. "Gravitation constant G can vary 0.1% in 6 years" And, as far as I can tell that's impossible because, for example, pendulum clocks rely on g being constant (locally) which implies that G is constant. The clocks work, so G must be substantially constant (or, at least, it must not vary by as much as 0.1% over 6 years). It's not that clocks are the only things that measure G but they are among the best known. Gravimeters of various types do it and (at that level of precision) even a spring balance would do the job. just about every electronic balance would stop working properly- and people would notice because they run calibration checks on them. Incidentally, someone has been measuring g in the same place for years.have a look at fig 34 here https://jila.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/assets/files/publications/precision%20measurement%20of%20gravitational%20quantities.faller.pdf The direct measurement doesn't show a 6 year periodicity

It looks like they covered what you need.

No. You will not, because much of it is dissipated in the transistors and as heat in the coil. It hardly matters, but it shows that you have not fully though this through.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacred "sacred. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." Nope. Life is not generally "devoted or dedicated to a deity or a religious purpose" and ,while it is entitled to veneration, that's not "by association with divinity or divine things".

For the temperatures involved in cooking I suspect the change would be to small to measure.

Once again, I raise the big Ben clock as evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ben#Clock ". On top of the pendulum is a small stack of old penny coins; these are to adjust the time of the clock. Adding a coin has the effect of minutely lifting the position of the pendulum's centre of mass, reducing the effective length of the pendulum rod and hence increasing the rate at which the pendulum swings. Adding or removing a penny will change the clock's speed by 0.4 seconds per day" if the error over the century and a half or so is of the order of a "small pile" of coins added to a 300kg, 4 metre pendulum then it's not 0.1% in any 6 year period. And your question "0.3 second per year is about 1 x 10^-8 stability. But that's only a millisecond per day. Are you going to notice that change in rotation on a daily basis?" misses the point. Nobody would notice it on a daily basis, but that wasn't the topic. They would notice an error of 11 minutes at the end of six years. Obviously, if they kept "tweaking" the clocks so they ran in synch with the stars then they wouldn't spot it (unless they kept a record of how much they needed to tweak it - and I bet they would have). But the point of the Shortt clock was that you didn't keep tweaking it because you didn't need to. They ran to about a second a year. They were the first clocks that told the world that the earth's rotation wasn't constant. They were accurate enough to show up an error of 0.1% in 6 years easily.