D H

But only one of the four solutions to that 4th order polynomial works in the sense that the square root symbol means the principal value. Hint: This one sensible solution has integer values of x and y.

Some clues then: Evolution has nothing to do per se with the big bang theory or with the age of the universe. It has nothing to do with black holes, dark matter, dark energy, or the shape of the universe. It has nothing to do with variations in the Earth's gravity field. It has nothing to do with the formation of the Moon or the Earth. It doesn't even have anything to do per se with how life first formed. Why did I mention these things? Simple: Creationists are wont to lump all of these concepts (and others) as one topic. So, what is evolution? It is a scientific theory regarding life forms change over time, and over very long spans of time (to us, that is). There is an enormous amount of evidence that evolution did happen. There are explanatory mechanisms for why evolution does happen. Evolution ranks right up there amongst the best of scientific theories. The amount of confirming evidence is absolutely immense. The theoretical basis for the theory is very, very strong. It was very strong even before the discovery of DNA over half a century ago. You really need to learn what you are arguing against. Teaching the theory of evolution is beyond the scope of an internet forum. There are however many excellent sources where you can learn on the net. Here are a couple: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ If any of you other who frequent this site want to add to that rather spare list please feel free to do so.

I agree with what swansont said. A moderator's job is to look for violations of the rules. Getting facts wrong is not a violation of the rules in and of itself. Misleading or incorrect facts are against the rules only if they construe a fallacy. This site would have far fewer members if getting one's facts wrong were a rules violation all by itself. Regarding the post in question, if Hellbinder had said 99% of all biologists rather than 99% of all scientists he would have been on solid ground. What is going on here is a quibbling with words, and excuse my shouting, five year old words at that.

It is very, very hard to go back to school to obtain a PhD after leaving get a PhD. Heck, its hard to go back and get a Masters. Things like a decent salary, a mortgage, kids, and just having a life just get in the way. If you want a PhD the time to get it is while you are young. What people said above about PhDs closing some doors is true. What they didn't say is what those doors are, and more importantly, that a PhD opens other doors. A bachelor's degree closes some doors, too. It is tough for people with a technical degree, even if it is just a bachelor's degree, to obtain a job that requires one to ask "do you want fries with that order, sir?" The doors that a PhD closes are the technical equivalents of those McJobs. If you like hard problems, the doors that a PhD opens are very, very nice doors. The academic industry churns out a lot more PhDs in technical fields than the number of PhDs needed by academia itself because of demand outside of academia. If industry and government had their druthers they would only have PhDs lead their really hard problems. Thankfully there aren't enough PhDs to fill all those spots; they have to hire people like me.

The question at hand is not how many scientists believe in god. It is about how many scientists, biologists in particular, accept/reject evolution as a description of how life (and humans) came to be. One need not be an atheist to think that evolution is the correct model. There are plenty of scientists who have in their minds reconciled their religious beliefs with science. That 32% of scientists in the field of biology and medicine (life sciences) believe in god does not mean that 32% of life scientists reject evolution. The number of life scientists who reject evolution is a very small number. BTW, I see that physicists are the smartest of the bunch. 11% of us gave the correct answer to the pollsters: My religion is none of your effin business. Re those Gallup polls: The biased phraseology results in rather skewed results. Other polls get different results than does Gallup. Support for teaching of evolution is much stronger than the Gallup results would suggest.

No thanks. I don't like stale popcorn, and this is some mighty stale popcorn. The complaint is about a 5.5 year old thread. Is 5.5 year old popcorn even safe to eat? I thought it mutates into something nasty in that amount of time. Suppose that I decide to rearrange my living room after 5.5 years. If in the midst of that rearrangement, my dogs found a 5.5 year old stash of popcorn I would hope they would refrain from eating it. Yech. Certainly there must be a statute of limitations on threads. There was nothing to report here. forufes is raising a stink where no stink exists.

That's one error. What about the [math]\int v\,du[/math] term?

Correction: [math]du = \frac 2{2x+1} dx[/math]. You forgot the dx. Look at what you wrote for u, v, and du (with my correction). Do you see the error? Once you make a mistake in an intermediate step all work from that point on is no good.

Minor correction: The threshold at the time Virginia purportedly passed the amendment in 1819 was 16 or 17. After Louisiana achieved statehood in 1812, there were Indiana in 1816, Mississippi in 1817, Illinois in 1818, and Alabama in late 1819. The threshold for passing an amendment was 16 for most of 1819 but bumped up to 17 for the last couple weeks of the year. On the other hand, making it so that the bankers and lawyers, along with all of the PhDs, doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, etc., are second class citizens at best --- perhaps those wacky thirteenthers are on to something (or at least on something).

For this problem, please ignore the fact that babies are not 50-50 boys-girls. Just assume that half of all babies are boys, the other half girls. A starter question first. You meet two old friends. One says "I have two children. The older one is a boy". The other says "I have two children, too, and at least one of them is a boy." For each friend, what is the probability that both of their children are boys? Hint: The probabilities are different. Now a third old friend joins up with you and says "I also have two children. One is a boy who was born on a Tuesday." What is the probability that both of this third friend's children are boys?

You have cause and effect reversed here. Sometimes a picture is not worth a thousand words. Here are the words behind that picture: http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1994032320.pdf. The authors are proposing, not claiming, a connection between major climate events such as ENSO (cause) and earthquakes (effect). Those climactic changes result in changes in the oceanic contribution to the Earth's angular momentum. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity. The changes in the oceanic angular momentum budget means that there must be a corresponding change in other portions of the Earth. Some, but not anywhere close to all, of the transferred angular momentum goes to / comes from the atmosphere. The only other component is the solid Earth. The authors are proposing that those major climactic shifts are in part responsible for an increase in the number of earthquakes. Not true Very true. The supposed change in the Earth's rotation rate caused by that Chilean earthquake was very, very small. The claim of a 1.26 microsecond change in the length of day from that earthquake is a calculated result. It is far too small a change to be measurable. That is clearly false, In order for there to be an exchange of angular momentum the rotational speed of one must occur first - other wise there is nothing to exchange Your statement is clearly false, not insane_alien's. You appear to be conflating angular velocity with angular momentum. While there is a transfer of angular momentum to the Moon (see below), this is a very small amount compared to the Earth's total angular momentum. The Earth's total angular momentum is essentially constant over a short period of time, short here meaning several years.The primary cause of the daily, monthly, seasonal, yearly, and decadal changes in the Earth's rotation rate results from changes in the Earth's inertia tensor. Think of how a figure skater goes into an ever faster spin by pulling her arms in. Short term changes to the Earth's inertia tensor result in corresponding changes to the Earth's rotation rate. Now that is a hoot. You are correct that angular momentum is slowly being transferred from the Earth to the Moon. The cause is not earthquakes however. It's tides.

The entry page can take a long time to load.

Speed. The new scienceforums.net is slow.

It's not a good idea to try to start a thread on a closed topic. I've asked you many times for the definition of work. You never did reply. Here it is: [math]W\equiv\int_c\vec F \cdot d\vec l = \int_c \vec F \cdot \vec v dt[/math] In order for a force to do work the force must have a component parallel to (or antiparallel to) the motion. The component of force normal to the motion does zero work.

Where, exactly, did I say there is no such thing as centrifugal force? Please be careful: I did say the centrifugal force is a fictitious force and I did say that it is not a real force -- in the sense that (1) real forces are forces that not fictitious and (2) can be measured by some local experiment. I did not say that it does not exist. And do stop with the C H nonsense. I don't know what you are meaning by that, but I suspect you are up to no good.

Well, dang. I thought this thread was going to be on a more interesting topic: What's the deal with the positions that various religions advocate that men and women use? For example, the advocacy of Catholic Church's for the missionary position versus Bali Hinduism for the lotus position versus the Kama Sutra which advocates for every position. Oh well.

Emphasis mine: The highlighted phrase is nonsense for two reasons. One, the inertial frame is not normal to the line of force. I can't even begin to make sense of what you are trying to say here. Second, there is no centrifugal force in an inertial frame. You are mixing reference frames here, and that is a definite no-no. Re your comment to swansont: Do you know what the definition of work is? Forces that are normal to the direction of travel cannot perform work. It is part and parcel of the definition of work. Also important to note, no work is done on an object that is not moving. That is also part and parcel of the definition of work. A question for you: Is the hammer moving in the rotating frame in which the hammer thrower is stationary? What does the answer to that question say about work done on the hammer in that frame?

RIght back at ya, dude. You are the one with an overly simplistic view here. And do stop with the C H (or more correctly, D H), gf) gf<newline>/ silliness. It just makes you look, well, hhmmm, what to say? If you can't say something nice ... The photographer is standing on the ground rather than rotating with the hammer thrower. That is ground in the foreground, not a rotating platform, after all. There is no centrifugal force in that picture.

Where is the centrifugal force in that picture, gf? Hint: The camera is not rotating with the hammer thrower. There is no centrifugal force in that picture. Let's look at things from the perspective of the photographer. There certainly are forces at play here. The stone is subject to tension in the wire, and so is the hammer thrower. The hammer thrower is exerting a force on the wire, etc. etc. Just because forces are involved does not mean work is being done. For example, if the hammer thrower was rotating at a uniform rate, there would be no work. There is no work involved in uniform circular motion. The trick here is that the hammer thrower's rotation is not uniform. He starts spinning slowly and quickly builds up a rapid rotation. Work is involved because the rotation rate is increasing. That's fairly easy to see from an inertial perspective. Computing work from the perspective of a frame that is rotating at a non-uniform rate is rather challenging. I suggest you try it. BTW, this recent discussion of centrifugal force has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It would help if you were a little more specific. Centrifugal force is a terribly overloaded and widely misused concept. The thing most widely referred to as the centrifugal force, [math]-m\,\boldsymbol{\omega} \times (\boldsymbol{\omega} \times \mathbf r)[/math], is a fictitious force. It cannot do any work because it is a fictitious force; fictitious forces cannot do work because they aren't real. The centrifugal force is not always perpendicular to motion. In any case, force that is always perpendicular to the motion cannot do any work by definition. So you must have been thinking about some other force when you said that it can do all manner of work -- except you implied that you are thinking of the fictitious centrifugal force when you said "Centrifugal force is an example where the force does not lay in the inertial frame".

What packages are loaded? AMS LaTeX, and do we have begin/end environments? [math]\begin{aligned} a &= \phantom{0}6 \\ b &= \phantom{0}9 \\ ab&=42\end{aligned}[/math] That works, very nice! (My math skills on the other hand appear to be inherited.) What other packages are loaded?

Let's see how the graphics work. Any aliasing problems here? Symbols with sharp edges: [math]\sum_{x=1}\sqrt x[/math] Comment: Very nice. The diagonal lines on the sum and square root symbols are nicely anti-aliased, but no so much so as to make them fuzzy. Zoom: Symbols with no sharp edges but lots of curves: [math]\int_{\xi=0}^{\tau} e^{-\xi^2} d\xi[/math] Comment: Very nice. The diagonal lines on the sum and square root symbols are nicely anti-aliased, but no so much so as to make them fuzzy. Zoom: Comment: Very nice. The diagonal lines on the sum and square root symbols are nicely anti-aliased, but no so much so as to make them fuzzy.

Edit: The original problem (math mode didn't work) has been fixed. A simple test: How does a2+b2=c2 render in math mode? [math]a^2+b^2=c^2[/math] Comment: A little bit fuzzy, but not bad. How does y=mx+b render in math mode? [math]y=mx+b[/math] Comment: Once again, a little bit fuzzy, but not bad. Let's stress the graphics work. Any aliasing problems here? Symbols with sharp edges: [math]\sum_{x=1}\sqrt x[/math] Comment: The fat diagonal lines on the sum symbol, and the skinny diagonal line on the square root symbol render quite nicely. Symbols with no sharp edges but lots of curves: [math]\int_{\xi=0}^{\tau} e^{-\xi^2} d\xi[/math] Comment: The integral symbol looks very nice.

What does all this recent discussion have to do with the topic of the trhead?

Like I said. Crackpot.