Cap'n Refsmmat

A few years ago dave wrote a series of calculus tutorials for the mathematically inclined on SFN, and they were a success for quite a while. After looking back at their success, we've decided to go further. SFN will now be the host of a series of Ground-Up Tutorials (GUTs for short) on various scientific topics, ranging from mathematics to evolution and computer science. We're piloting the first tutorial, an expansion on dave's original tutorials, and plan on adding quite a few more. To do so, however, we'll need some support. We staff do not know everything (though we do pretend at times), so we'd like some volunteers to help contribute material. Our goal is to make SFN not only a place for discussion but a place for learning, and GUTs promise to help use achieve that. We're looking to write GUTs in several areas: Mathematics, ranging from basic calculus and trigonometry to more advanced undergraduate level topics. Topics in computer science Basic chemistry Fundamental physics If you'd like to volunteer to help out, just send me a PM explaining what you can help with. You can look at our pilot tutorial to see the sort of style we're looking for. (The goal is for readers to be able to go from no understanding to moderate understanding by reading the tutorial. We don't expect to cover topics at the depth of a real course, however.) If you're interested, just send a PM. I'm hoping that GUTs will expand SFN and help facilitate our future growth.

This isn't going anywhere. Zephir, for you to get any constructive input on your theory, you'll need to work up some sort of document that explains, in full detail, exactly what your theory proposes. So far you haven't been explicit enough, and the result has been back-and-forth questions that haven't gone anywhere. This thread could be far more productive if we actually knew your theory in detail and could critique it. So to prevent this madness from going further, I'll close the thread here. If and when you do come up with a more detailed explanation of your theory, feel free to open a new thread for discussion.

You are confusing facts with theories. A fact is a statement of something true. (The Earth orbits the sun.) A theory allows us to make predictions about a situation. ([imath]E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4[/imath])

This thread is getting stupid. Zephir, allow me to explain something. Physics is limited by what we can measure. Physicists can speculate on the underlying "cause" of what they measure, but there is no definitive "answer" because there is no way to find out. One explanation may fit the data as well as the next. (Quantum mechanics is a good example of this phenomenon.) If you want to prove that your theory is different and better, you need to establish that it makes predictions that can be tested and would produce answers different than current theories predict. (You often see science magazines saying "His theory would be confirmed if the Large Hadron Collider produced particles of certain masses...") To do that, you need mathematical descriptions of how your theory works. If you are trying to explain what is untestable and unverifiable, you are veering into metaphysics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_x-ray_free_electron_laser

The human body wouldn't have evolved it, but cholera uses cholera toxin to essentially flush out the intestines and spread itself. I don't think that you can really argue that symptoms such as the spasms produced by tetanospasmin are natural responses hijacked by tetanus.

That's what'd make sense, but that's not the case. Length depends on who's measuring it. It seems incredibly strange (and contrary to common sense) but it's what happens.

From what I recall about black holes, Hawking radiation was invented as a solution to the information problem. It's not part of the problem.

Please point me to it. Let's get this straight: You propose we bomb Mecca. I say that risks making the moderates that don't hate us hate us. You say there's already hatred, so that's not an issue. The problem is that bombing Mecca not only reinforces the hatred already brewing among radicals, it also turns those who don't hate America against us. It'd be safe to say that most Muslims don't want to kill all Americans, but a bombing campaign risks changing that. Very well. I'll dig up my copy of the Quran if you can tell me where to look.

Right, but Physia was using their non-aggressiveness as an excuse to justify bombing Mecca even though only a minority of Muslims are radicals.

Does that make you guilty of murder? Going back a few posts to the first page, I'd like to insert a historical break. Back when Islam was originally spreading around, their policy was never "kill or convert." They had an obligation to share the booty with the rest of the faithful, so if they converted their new subjects to Islam, they'd get less of the rewards of their conquests (it'd be shared with more people). I don't really see any historical evidence of the "kill or convert" mentality, though I'm no historian.

I guess any further recommendations depend on how much mathematics you know. General relativity can't be fully appreciated without differential geometry, for example. If you're interested in learning more than just concepts, you'll need to tell us what level of mathematics you've learned. If you don't mind just reading an overview, I can recommend Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos, which is a very good introduction to quantum phenomena.

What are the titles of the books you own so far?

I do not see how you jumped from your premise to your conclusion. So you deny that there is a population of Muslims that does not hate America. Very well. I can provide counterexamples. Source?

That's what they must do to not approve of radical Islam? Sure, I'd love for them to do these things (and I believe some have been done), but inaction != consent. What? I don't see how it will trigger reform. I can see it triggering hatred (all those moderate Muslims will hate you) but not reform. What would you do if someone nuked the Vatican? Say "oh, well, we needed the reform" or decide to kill the guy who did it?

It's more obvious what the problem is if you use one letter, and hence people notice more quickly.

The trouble is that current lasers that are powerful enough to take down missiles require massive amounts of chemicals to provide their energy, and can only fire a limited number of shots before the chemicals are exhausted. You can't refuel a satellite, and the chemical tanks required are big. A highly efficient laser that could fit on a satellite would have to be developed.

Well, things like graphite aren't as dark as this particular material, so I presume not all allotropes do it.

I can prove that 2 = 1. Let's assume that we have two numbers, a and b, and a = b. We can see that [math]a^2 = a \times b[/math] because a = b. Subtracting b2 from both sides... [math]a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2[/math] and then factoring: [math](a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)[/math] There's an (a - b) on both sides, so it can be canceled out, leaving [math]a + b = b[/math] Because a = b: [math]b + b = b[/math] [math]2b = b[/math] Divide by b: [math]2 = 1[/math] There is, of course, an error, but it's tough to find. [hide]You can't cancel out (a - b). To cancel out, you have to divide by (a - b) -- and (a - b) = 0. Dividing by zero isn't allowed.[/hide]

Indeed there is, although it's not particularly helpful: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/faq.php Hope you enjoy SFN. (I moved antimatter's post from the other thread into this one and then deleted the duplicate thread. Hope you don't mind.)

I would mandate that all obvious safety labels be removed, so as to allow natural selection to improve the human race.

Rule 2.8: Thread closed.

Physia, you have put forth a classical false dichotomy. Either moderate Muslims stand against radicals, or they approve of them. You are seeing the issue as vastly less complex than it is. There are several questions that came to mind when I read your post. The foremost was simple: what do you propose these moderate Muslims do? They clearly do not support the radicals (or they would not be moderates), but they cannot "stand against" them. How does one "stand against" a terrorist organization? Issue a statement saying "I do not approve of this message"? There is no central church in Islam. There is no Pope in a turban to say "we do not approve of these radicals." I can assure you, as ecoli can, that there are many moderate Muslims who disagree strongly with the actions of radicals, but they are helpless. They do not have the bombs you wish to use. Their choice is to not support the radicals, and that they do. Second, I question your decision to bomb Mecca. What, exactly, do you propose that will achieve? It will prove to the world that we are an intolerant and hateful nation. It will kill innocent civilians. It will give those moderate Muslims a very good reason to become radical Muslims. It will, in short, turn the tide against us. Bigotry, whether you are faking it or not, is not appreciated on this forum. I would like to remind you of rule 2.1.c, and your obligation to abide by it.

What I find interesting is that just as many people are interested in honestly expressing their opinion as are interested in choosing a totally irreverent answer.

Now I'm just left wondering why they banned him from the theater in the first place. What were they expecting him to do, lob a grenade at the projector booth?