mooeypoo

Hey again guys, My second physics course also deals a lot with some math I haven't really dealt with before. This time, though, it's a bit more practical question rather than the 'principle'. I actually understand the principle, but the question doesn't work for me - I think I got confused somewhere, and the book's not much help. My professor is writing ineligible script on the board and in the hw assignments, apparently he forgot that there are non-Americans in the course (I'm nto the only one) who have trouble reading script. Damnit. In any case, here's the problem (hopefully I translated the script right, took me a while): So, I know this is a question about gradients; the magnitude of the gradient will give the height, and the direction of the gradient will give the direction of the maximum increase (max slope of the hill).So, I tried calculating the gradient: Top of the hill is: [math]\bigtriangledown h=0[/math] So: [math]\frac{\partial h}{\partial x} = 10(3y-8x+28)[/math] [math]\frac{\partial h}{\partial y} = 10(3x-6y-17)[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown h = 10((3y-8x+28)\hat{x} + (3x-6y-17)\hat{y}) [/math] But... I have 2 variables.. when I equated this to 0, I couldn't find the actual coordinates.. Help? What am I doing wrong here?

Hey guys, I am asking a question about my homework, but my point is to try and get general explanation about the method (since I am quite lost here, and the book isn't very helpful). Which is why I'm posting it here and not in the HW help section. I am using my hw as an example only; if I understand the point I will (hopefully) be able to solve this myself. Okay, then. I started a new advanced physics course (2, actually, expect questions about the math of the other one soon) and there's a lot of math that gets me quite confused. I am familiar with the general principles, but I think that somewhere I'm getting myself confused over the terms and permutations. Help.. please.. The question (as an example): Ooookay then. I know that [math]\delta_{im}=\sum\lambda_{ij}\lambda_{kj}[/math] Which is the difference between the two angles. Also, C=AxB, and [math] C_{i}=\sum_{j,k}\varepsilon_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k}[/math] So this is supposed to help me breaking down the components. Here's what I've tried to do: [math] (AxB)_{i}=\sum_{j,k}\varepsilon_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k} (CxD)_{i}=\sum_{m,n}\varepsilon_{imn}A_{m}B_{n} (AxB)\cdot(CxD)=\sum_{i}(\sum_{j,k}\varepsilon_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k})(\sum_{m,n}\varepsilon_{imn}B_{m}D_{n}) [/math] Then, I tried to break them into their components: [math] (\sum_{j,k}\varepsilon_{ijk}A_{j}B_{k}) = [/math] [math]i=1 [/math] [math]A_{2}B_{3}-A_{3}B_{2}[/math] [math]i=2[/math] [math]A_{3}B_{1}-A_{1}B_{3}[/math] [math]i=3 [/math] [math]A_{1}B_{2}-A_{2}B_{1}[/math] And the same with C and D. I have the feeling that the difference between the components lead to the Kronecker Delta (since it's a difference too) but I'm not sure, and I am quite confused with all the symbols and different applications of them. Aaaaand...I have no clue where to go from here. Meh, I think I got completely confused here. Help? thanks in advance, ~moo

You're so sweet -- Here I am fixing the problem and you complain you couldn't demonstrate on it. Nerds, pff.

UPDATE: Apparently, my site was hacked and a fraudulent .htaccess page was inserted there. Interesting, eh?

Well, they can't buy the domain without our approval, so I don't even want to answer them.

Even if they write this as their BRAND name or Trademark? My parents' company is written in ISrael only, I think, so it's not valid worldwide. We never thought it was a problem, seeing as our name is not very common (to say the least). If somone (for.. whatever.. reasons...) chooses this as their brand name, doesn't have have full worldwide RIGHTS for the name? It's a bit weird, but to be honest, I have no clue how those things work. I know that when new domain extensions open (like the new .me recently) you still have no RIGHTS to open cokacola.me -- because Coka Cola is a brand name, and has Trademark copyrights on it. Have no clue how it goes with "backward" copyright but.. weird.

Glad I could help

Okay, here's what I'm worried about: That it *IS* the server, because I was redirected to this spamsite from another system I have on the same server (but unrelated folders completely). I installed joomla 1.5 recently on the subdomain moriel.schottlender.net and something weird happened when i tried to edit posts in the back end -- a click on either button ("Apply"/"Save"/"Cancel") would pop up this message and redirect me to the spamsite. I didnt get there through google, this was already INSIDE the site. I contacted joomla (I thought there was a bug in their new release) but their code is fine. I uninstalled joomla from there and installed it on a completely different hosting I own, and it works fine. So.. twice in the SAME HOSTING (hence, same server) and same domain (though with different subdomains) this happens. Are you sure it's not a server problem? I'm not... ~moo

How do I fix this? The pages are HTML, simple, and I didn't touch them in at least a year... what do I do to fix this virus!?!? Call the hosting company? I don't know who that mayor person is, but this site is *MY* family's site, my parents company. Their only crime is that their website wasn't updated for waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long (it's full of info, but because my folks had no time updating it, we decided a simple 'under construction' with a removal of links to the rest of the *UNUPDATED* info on the site would be less confusing). The emails and contact info are VALID (trust me, I get plenty of mail to it) and so is the whois. The allegations on your post are not only uncalled for (I asked for help on a domain, not an opinion on the company, thankyou) but they are also cause for a lawsuit. I am asking the mods to delete it, seeing as it's unrelated, unhelpful and might actually do damage to a company that has nothing to do with what you're saying. In short, [ censored ]. ~moo

Okay, my parents own the domain name http://www.schottlender.net (after our last name) for 5+ years and use it for their company. They recently received this email: This smells like a scam, but it can also be real (why the heck not, smoeone just registers a brand and then contacts us to charge money, sounds perfectly cruelly logical to me, sadly). Does anyone have any idea what to do with this? How can I be sure if this is a scam or not? Is this even legal? meh. Help! My last name is being stolen!! ~moo

No offense to anyone, these are great facts, but I suggest that each post in the thread MUST have references, so it can (a) be properly verified and (b) so we can read more about it if needed.

uh.. WOW. References, please!

The outcome is dependent on whether or not your theory has any basis in reality, which it seems to not have. Your refusal to read through the entire post, understand the process, and answer our inquiries and questions, doesn't improve the status of your proposed theory. We spent some time writing our responses and trying to explain the methodology of the scientific method and peer review. It's not personal, it's supposed to be objective - or at least as much as possible lower the subjective influence a human being naturally have on experiments and observations. You're not being very cooperative, and to be honest, you're not convincing us this way. You came to a science forum that follow the scientific method. If you want to argue your theory, do that; don't argue against the scientific method, it's not the right thread, and I'm not too sure it's the right forum either. I can't speak for all, but i am interested in a scientific debate, and it seems Edtharan is too, judging by the effort he put in his lengthy and explanatory response. Please start taking us and this debate seriously, and stop evading questions. ~moo

Okay, the process you are going through with us at this thread is called peer review. Peer review is meant to take a theory and try to rip it to shreds by criticizing the living heck out of it with these possible outcomes: If the theory survives that process, it's valid (until it falls again after reevaluation, or new observations/facts are found). If it fails, then at least you get a chance to see why, and perhaps revise it accordingly to try and get it to stand through another same process. You don't get to choose our questions in this peer review process. If you can't answer a valid criticism, your theory is dead. You are being asked questions on the merit of what you are presenting. The fact that you might not have valid answers only means that your theory is shaky, not that we are wrong in our questions. What do you mean by "non-living" species? The term "Species" is quite well defined in scientific speak, and I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by non-living species. You mean the extinct ones? The fact you pick and choose pairs that seem nice to you does not mean they are pairs. What is the pair of a fig tree? What is the pair of a dog? For that matter, what is the pair of this animal, or this, or of the Contagious pustular dermatitis virus? Please supply the methodology and requirements of 'picking' a pair. What would constitute 'pairing'? What are the rules you are using to pair things up? They need to be logical and scientific, and have quite a lot of substantiation themselves, too, since I can explain what I - personally - think of as pairs, and odds are we will differ. Different approaches lead to different conclusions in those matters. For example, I doubt the National Association of Evengelicals would agree on what I constitute as a logical pair in human mating or marriage. Actually, I'm pretty sure they won't. Why? It's anecdotal and completely personal choice to include it in any type of family, or to a family in general. you might think of it as a family of Forces; I consider it a family of attractors, differing from force in strength, function and direction. I can also put it in a family of spacial phenomena, or Newtonian observations. It's arbitrary, and hence not valid as a scientific fact. From here on you just continue with yet another series of arbitrary pick of what you WANT to be a logical trail, but is, in fact, personal preferenced pick of 'groups'. I can play the same game with entirely different pairs. In fact, I can play the same game with octets too, if I put my mind to it. It's not science, it's a mindgame. Fun, perhaps, but not enough to prove a scientific theory correct. Just a minor point here = gravity doesn't "Use" anything, gravity is a force/phenomenon. It's not using, it's being observed as a fact of existence -- two (or more) objects are attracted to one another with relation to their mass and distance. We call that phenomenon "Gravity". It's not an "it" or a "her", hence it does not "pick" or "interact". Actually, you're the one who seems to like them, that's why people tried to help you understand our questions using analogies. Analogies by themselves are NOT science, and are not proofs. They're just a means to an end -- use an analogy to explain your point. I'm the alterpair of Edtharan: He explains what I try to a lot better; We often agree on many issues; He's a man and I'm a woman (alterpair right there); He is likely to write my exact point but better said But then again, I can also find the same amount of reasons why we're not alterpairs, and why I'm the duality of Sayo. Or Cap'n. Or YDOAPS. Because it's not based on any actual factual logical processes; it's just shooting from the hip -- it SOUNDS logical, and I LIKE the result, so I pick it. It doesn't quite work, though, and it's far from being a fact. That requires proof. Preconditioned for what? How do you know this? Why are you saying this? Prove it, or it's vain. You mean what you did here in this theory? No no no, some people asked you questions which you couldn't ANSWER so they labeled your theory bunk. Answer the questions we ask instead of repeating the claim with no substantiations. Nothing -- NOTHING -- will make me happier than to meet a valid theory in this forum, rip the living heck out of it, have it survive and stand still, and see it being submitted to a quality scientific publication so it changes the way we think of current physics. Absolutely nothing will make me prouder and happier; it will, for one, give me more money and more work, since new advancements are a GREAT opening for new research, and new research is new work, which is money. But we can't be expected to accept a theory that failed our questioning. You THINK your theory is realistic, that's why you're here - so we examine this. It turns out you are using way too many analogies, way too many subjective decisions in your logical premises, and way too little facts and observations. Fix this matter, refine your theory, and perhaps it will stand stronger and you will be able to go on and win a Nobel prize for changing the face of science. Man, I am SERIOUSLY wishing you good luck with this effort. Seriously. You're just not quite there yet. You're not explaining yourself, though, that's our problem. You say it's not an analogy but instead of giving us HARD PROOFS for substantiations, you give more and more analogies and subjective explanations. What do you expect us to say to those, exactly? Now, sadly, I must run off to the Gym now, so I have to cut this analysis short. But don't worry, I should probably stop here anyways and let Edtharan do a better job explaining my point for me, as he usually does. Cheers, ~moo

Okay.. I officially completely lost you. What is the purpose of this thread? Are you recanting your hypothesis? I'm.. at a loss here... I thought we were discussing universe expansion and the doppler effect. ...are we?

The link you supplied speaks of General relativity.. could you please give us a bit more specific substantiation to your claim that there's no expansion? Specific page out of the multi-page site you posted, perhaps? Please try to understand that the purpose of peer review is to criticize a theory. If it stands the review, it's valid. If it fails, it's invalid. That's the entire point of the process, and it's also the process that makes sure we are not accepting crackpot theories that have no basis in reality into mainstream science. For your theory to be valid, it needs substantiation; we are vigorous because we're supposed to be. It's not personal, it's not against you, it's not supposed to be hostile. We were reacting to what seemed to be a negative and evasive attitude on your part. We asked you for substantiation, and you either ignored or outright refused us. Peer review is part of science. It's supposed to be vigorous. It's supposed to try and invalidate your theory. That's the only way to make sure only truly valid ones enter mainstream science. The right thing for you to do now is explain all our counter-points in such a way that your theory survives our criticism. Then, well, then you might win a Nobel prize for changing the face of physics. And I meant what I said about the good luck. Change in science is exciting. Good luck achieving it. You have a bit of proving to do, though, still. ~moo

Nope, no proof at all. No knowledge of the rules, either, it seems. Reported.

You have no proofs at all, do you.

I'm not the one making the claim, hence this is besides the point. The question remains: Can *you* prove your words. It seems you can't. Very easy: You made a claim, you need to support it. If I were the one to make a claim, I'd have to prove it. The scientific evidence support (VASTLY support) universe expansion, the existence of the doppler effect in stars and distant galaxies, and much more that proves (quite extensively) that our universe expands, and that the Big Bang happened. The fact you don't know these explanations, or don't understand them, does not mean they don't exist. That's also what I meant about a google demonstration; it seems you are in need of some reading, which you can do quite simply by looking up the Big Bang theory (+proofs) and the Doppler Effect in astronomy (+proofs and observations). That will show you that currently, science DOES have proofs for this theory. You made a claim that is against mainstream science. Hence, the burden of proof is on you. By your own admission and your own evasions, it seems you have no proof. I'm starting to doubt that very much. Restore my faith in your claims by actually showing us some substantiations instead of claiming you have them. Read up. And read a bit about the scientific method, logical thinking and logical fallacies, too. You made a claim in this thread, you are in need of proving it. It's science. It's logic. It's the rules of this forum. Prove us wrong. Substantiate. Good luck, ~moo

Again ignoring the rules. You're not SHOWING anything - you're just contradicting everyone without a shred of effort to show us why you claim what you claim. Posting a claim is not enough, you need to prove it, and the burden of proof is on you, not on us. You claim that mainstream science is wrong, you need a whole lot more than a 2 line retort (that says nothing) to convince anyone your theory has any validity to it. ~moo

Stop saying you can explain, and instead EXPLAIN it already.

Right, okay, you said you can prove it, how 'bout you stop asking silly questions you can get answers to online and prove your highly-unlikely anti-mainstream-science theory so we can actually follow the rules and spirit of the forum and (oh..) debate? Or have you missed the part where this is a SCIENCE forums and not a google tutorial?

Bah, I was FIRST on facebook! (ahem, fan me fan me!) We so need a facebook application now, btw.. anyone up for the task? we should brainstorm on what to put there to bring us good peeps. BTW, those of you with working blogs (sfn blogs), you can join the blog-network application and promote your blogs: http://apps.new.facebook.com/blognetworks/blogpage.php?blogid=30395 Let us know if you did that so we can all fan your blogs, and .. uhm.. in the spirit of cooperation, I would appreciate more fans too ~moo

Science is about common language and common practice, so that it eliminates (as much as possible) the existence of human bias and human error. One of the requirements of a theory, to be considered scientific (and hence, valid), is that its experimentation can be repeated. If I want to make sure your experiment is valid, I need to know what you've done. That's science. Another requirement is that I your theory fits reality. At the moment, the last sentence of your post is doubtfully mathematical. I am not sure it's even physical. In fact, I doubt very much that it's even English. You need to make sure you separate your interpretations from actual facts and observations. When you were asked about the meaning of six, the scientific response should have been a *logical* construction of the proof, along with observational data (or math, I'll take that too). Instead, you spurted out an interpreted opinion, which, other than being interesting to read (..sometimes), is not helping the validity of your theory. Don't forget this very easy fact: You came to us. We are a scientific forum, following the scientific method. If you wish to discuss your theory using gibberish, ignore our requests for proof and substantiation and preach to us about not disagreeing with you, then perhaps you should move to "my-theory-must-be-right-despite-of-reality-because-i-like-it-forums.net" Otherwise, I suggest you climb off your high horse and start following the rules of the forum you chose to sign up to, and talk some science. ~moo

Saying there's no need for Aether in the theory is like saying there is no need for the invisible pink unicorns in the theory. If it's undetectable, unseen, unidentified and un-affecting-anything, then it's unnecessary and unimportant. Michaelson Morley set out to find the Aether by setting up certain effects (or expected observations) that should be seen if Aether exists. The 'methodology' was something of the spirit of "If Aether exists, then X, Y, Z must happen/be seen". Since these observations were not found, it meant one of two things: (1) Aether does not exist. (2) Aether exists but we cannot observe it, interact with it or measure it or its effects on anything else. Statement #2 is not science. Hence, the conclusion out of the experiment (and others after) was that Aether does not exist. ~moo