JaKiri

That's not proof. It's very similar to a problem I did on a STEP paper recently. What you've got is a system where it's a 1/2 chance of moving forwards, and a 1/2 chance of moving backwards. When you move backwards, 1/2 of the time you move forwards yadda yadda yadda infinite sum of a geometric series where a = 1 and r = 1/2.

How about we count dead as dead?

The paper example in the first place is correct. It's illustrating the way 3D space folds in 4D space by folding 2D space in 3D space.

Is the poop deck what I think it is? Yep.

I never said it wouldn't induce a current, just that it wouldn't make a noise. Most TV aerials are yagi arrays.

FIGHT THE MACHINE

That's energy concerns, which deals with absolute amounts, not comparative calculations. Furthermore, (and correct me if I'm wrong) I'd think that it's more to do with physical conditions than chemical reactions if the output is increased more than suggested by mass ratio.

Nothing like a bit of Harry Harrison

Explanation of the effect, btw: The signal from the phone can induce a current in a wire, much the same as a TV signal inducing a current in a Yagi Array (or 'aerial' if you prefer). The frequency of the signal determines the frequency of the sound, and the pulse length is the same in both. However, this only works in powered speakers, because the amount of energy transferred in the wave is absolutely tiny.

I don't see why that's true; surely, if a reaction works with one mole of a substance, it would work in the same proportions with 2 moles. Furthermore, I have studied chemistry at university. This module, specifically. Oh I see, you're totally misunderstanding my point. This is for reactions like 20C + 20O2 -> 20CO2, which can obviously be cancelled down to C + O2 -> CO2. I'm not, say, talking about cancelling C6H6 to CH.

Why do you want me to accept something which is incorrect? Surely that's unscientific?

No, because it's 1. using a different definition of penetration to that which is standard within the scientific community when another word could be used with equal ease (you yourself used 'pervasive') and 2. it's utterly irrelevent, unless you're being so generic as to contain no useful information.

I know what I mean. A poll needs to be very well defined, because you're trying to collect the relative numbers of opinions. Obviously, if people who hold the same opinion can vote for diametrically opposite results, it's a flawed poll.

The property 'ability to penetrate' is irrelevent as to why the sound is produced. Obviously it's a prerequisite (at least in this case) that it penetrates the exterior of the radio, but it doesn't give any explanation as to why it happens, and thus has no real status in a sensible reply.

He wasn't referring to the line of argument, but to the irrelevent reply. For instance, card games generally all involve the dealing of cards (and the like). There aren't any card games I know that don't involve the properties of playing cards; like their values, and the like (except 52 card pick up, but that's more of a very bad joke). That's identical to saying that you can shoot many different things with a gun, therefore a gun can be used for more than just shooting (or at least that's what your reply was implying).

Acceleration is utterly irrelevent (apart from it being indistinguishable from gravity, but that's another story)

The 2nd para is dealt with in the edit above. As for the first.... Languages evolve, the same word can have many different meanings, and shades of meanings. This is why scientists have taken to defining the words immensely precisely, in the context of science, so that no misunderstandings may arise from the use of language, and why using different homonyms, if not acceptable to the scientific community, is not on.

He shot me down bang bang, I hit the ground bang bang, that awful sound bang bang, my baby shot me down. Go go gadget Nancy Sinatra

The dictionary definition is NOT ALWAYS the scientific definition, and should not be used as such. It is, however, accurate to use different homonyms if you're not using it in a scientific context. You are the one being argumentative over 'nonsense'; what I posted was accurate and precise, and it is your nonacceptance of the possibility that you might be incorrect that is prolonging this. 'If you cannot say what you mean, you will never mean what you say' [edit] Furthermore, by any definition of the word penetrate that can be applicable, I don't see how it causes the effect mentioned. It's a prerequisite for the effect in some cases, but it doesn't actually have any information contained within of HOW it occurs, which is what science is all about. You came here for SCIENCE didn't you? Why not start obeying its constraints? It's like you said that it makes the noise because it's existant. It's perfectly true in the sense that if it wasn't existant it wouldn't have made the noise, but it's not the direct cause.

And that is why you were WRONG. As I said, the word 'penetrating' has a specific meaning, and this is EXACTLY WHY science holds the exact definitions of words in such high regard.

It's the completely wrong word to use. It's an utterly irrelevent property. The way you worded it suggested that the reason that the sound was made was that the signals were penetrating. For instance, neutrinoes are immensely penetrating, but you don't see them causing blip blips on speakers; you'd be hearing them constantly they did.

I don't see why you're complaining about semantics on a SCIENCE WEBSITE. A large part of my physics course (well, the experimental part) was making sure you get your language correct, and this is true for all science.

Guns (as a concept) were designed to kill (well, cause severe damage, if you're taking them as evolving from cannon). Cars (as a concept) were designed to move people about faster than walking without the need for horses. Furthermore, the car fulfils another function. What can you do with a gun other than shooting things? [edit] To reduce it down to a statement: 'Guns kill by their nature, whereas cars can only kill through an unwanted sideeffect'

I don't. Oh, and you're also getting the cause and effect the wrong way round. The equations approximate the interactions of the particles, not define them. Why not read them yourself? You've only replied to the THIRD line out of THIRTY EIGHT

Be nice dude.