md65536

I imagine a crash like that would be more survivable than the explosion itself. Considering the amount of damage around the crash site, I doubt someone could survive the blast, given that the helicopter was open and it landed even farther from the blast after being hit. Nearby buildings are damaged completely *through* their entire structure. I think that much damage may be unrealistic (relative to the size of the mushroom cloud), but that much explosive force would probably destroy the helicopter and kill its occupants. The wind at the end is silly. Once the mushroom cloud has expanded from the blast, it rises upward (not continuously outward) because of the heat. It would suck air inward.

How is the idea of "induced time" different from the idea of "emergent time"? Edit: I first came across the topic here: On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1 It might be off topic but it speaks of the idea of emergent spacetime and expressing things in terms of entropy... there's probably a better introduction to the idea elsewhere. It might be due to my own inexperience but I get the feeling that some of your terms are not scientifically meaningful??? Does "artificial" have an unambiguous meaning that I don't know? Are you saying that it's a man-made concept, not natural, or that there is an unreal or illusory aspect to it? Are all of your references "accepted" mainstream science? If so, and if you are arguing that your ideas are a logical consequence of them, then I personally (not speaking for either scientists or the forum admin) would consider that a discussion of mainstream ideas. If not, I think you'd first have to prove that references correspond to mainstream science or something??? Probably better accomplished through writing papers. I don't think that internet forum consensus counts for much. Anyway, some interesting ideas and discussion of previous works I've never heard of... some of it "sounds wrong" but again it might be due to my lack of understanding of the topic and references.

Oh. But it doesn't rule out such small changes, which would be significant over larger time frames, right? Regardless, current understanding of Earth's history (including "space dust", larger impacts, formation of the moon, geological changes etc) includes a "significant" change in the Earth's size over its entire history, doesn't it?

So it is growing. Or shrinking. Note that if the rate were constant throughout Earth's history (it wouldn't be, of course) that would add up to a change of about 7% of Earth's current radius. Thanks, that post is quantitative and based on experimental results. I suppose that if current rate of change must be determined by precise measurement, there's probably not a very certain record of Earth's size in early geological history? Not sure how they would use GPS to measure change in size if it can only measure insignificant changes without breaking...

Please don't ruin the "GPS works, therefore science" argument by misapplying it. OP is talking about "overall through time". GPS hasn't worked through that time period. What is "significant rate"? Are geologically significant rates the same as "it breaks GPS" rates? Is there a single objectively "significant" rate? How is your argument different from this?: "If the continents were shifting at any significant rate then GPS wouldn't work. GPS works therefore plate tectonics is false." Planet formation doesn't occur in an instant, where a planet's shape and size is set in stone for all of eternity. Any argument along the lines of "GPS works, therefore the Earth has always been exactly the same size" is ridiculous and impedes others' attempts at actually learning any real science about planets. Can planet-wide geological activity change the density (and thus size) of a planet? Earlier in Earth's history, there was greater geological activity and also a lot more stuff in the solar system to fall into the Earth. So today's rate of change --- even if "insignificant" on whatever time scale you choose --- wouldn't be the same as historical rates. But yes: The Earth isn't growing at a rate that would break GPS over its expected lifetime.

I'm not sure who would be interested in this or who would publish it. I very much doubt it's suitable for any scientific journal, sorry. vixra.org, or scribd.com might be your best bet??? I would encourage you to NOT spend too much more effort on this. If however you're driven by this and are not going to let discouragement stop you, then don't let me get you down!!! Write an abstract! Check out some of the "Further Information" links on the list I linked (http://www.doaj.org/...49&func=subject), which may advise on what they're looking for. Eg. "The manuscript should be as concise as possible with an abstract not exceeding 200 words." What you posted here was too long. I couldn't even bother reading through it, because the first few sentences lost me. I've posted this link a few times: http://www.lightblue...te-an-abstract/ There may be better guides out there but this one should let you see the point of an abstract, why it's necessary for what you're trying to do (get people interested), and what it needs in order to be good enough. And... if you can't get a person interested using a 150 or 200-word abstract, they're not going to be interested in reading a few thousand words. Again, I want to encourage you to NOT spend time on this and do something else. Learn some more physics. Write more, and practice writing, if that's your interest. But if you keep working on it, maybe find one concrete conclusion of your work, and focus on it, learn what it will take to prove that it's correct (or not --- it must be falsifiable), read other papers to see how it's done right, etc. Go to school. Learn about the topic through existing work as much as you can. Find people to discuss the idea with among those with whom you share mutual understanding of the existing work. --- This is not the path you've chosen but the way you're going about this leaves you with HUGE obstacles to face and ends in NEAR CERTAIN failure. So, I can't help thinking that I should clarify my advice and explain why I gave it. I'll try to show this by example. Example 1: Here's what I'd say is so bad of an abstract that it wouldn't even qualify as one: "In this paper I present some thought experiments related to relativity, and the results are very surprising. It forces us to rethink all of physics. The conclusions drawn are absolutely mind-boggling." - Don't promise people it's interesting. Tell them what it is that's interesting. - It doesn't explain any details or any specific results. Mystery is not a virtue here. Example 2: An insufficient abstract. "We examine a thought experiment involving a train moving at relativistic speeds, and find that the moving frame's clock ticks faster than a stationary frame's, contrary to Einstein's special theory of relativity." - Nope. You did something wrong. If your paper contradicts accepted laws, that's a problem that needs to be addressed, and I don't see it being addressed. Most people aren't interested in reading every flawed paper to try to figure out the flaw. Example 3: A good abstract in my amateur opinion. Having never written a good one, this is my best attempt at what you might strive for, and I wouldn't mind other people's opinions on it. "We examine a thought experiment involving a train moving at relativistic speeds, and present a curious result where the moving frame's clock seems to tick faster than a stationary frame's, contrary to predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity. We are able to resolve these contradictory results by ____________." Or perhaps that last line might be, "This suggests a modification to the theory, whereby _________. This may be experimentally verified by __________. Existing experimental results are shown to be in agreement with this modification because _________." Those blanks are what you're missing. Filling in the blanks I believe is impossible (because special relativity is correct). It may be worth it to try to fill them in, possibly even learning where you went wrong, but committing yourself to an impossible task may be foolish.

Okay maybe something easier to calculate(??? I haven't tried )... Alternate question: Suppose the statistician watches 50 brown cows leave the barn. What is the chance that the next cow out will be BLUE?

Yes I think that must be the key. The statement about a cow's 50% likelihood of being brown isn't a statement of absolute permanent fact (every actual cow has an actual color, it's just not known) but a statement of belief or uncertainty that must be open to additional information. I guess any interpretation other than yours would be a "too literal" misinterpretation. Thanks, this has been more of a lesson for me than a real puzzle.

I think your idea is to lower the center of gravity to stabilize the rocket? Edit: After reading Enthalpy's and doG's replies, I think this is all wrong: I assume this would work, but only so much. It would be like crouching on a tight-rope, or like making a car low for stability. The rocket is still unstable though, because the propulsion occurs below the center of gravity. The point is, the nozzle is pushing toward the center of the fuselage, and if the rocket begins to tip off balance it will continue to tip further. If you put the nozzle above the center of gravity (so that the nozzle is pulling the rocket up from the top instead of pushing it up from the bottom) then if it begins to tip off balance, it will tend to correct itself... it is stable. I would say it is useless to use only the bottom half of a rocket for fuel like this, because if you have the top half empty, why not just make the rocket shorter??? This will lower the center of gravity even further. Edit: So instead... the force of gravity couldn't be used to stabilize a rocket, because the rocket would essentially be in freefall with respect to the force of gravity? If the center of gravity is off-center of the rocket thrust's axis, whether in front of or behind the nozzle, it would provide torque to tilt the rocket. Then uh... would moving the CG away from the nozzle help reduce this??? Regardless, as doG says the CG to CP relationship is important, and I don't think you could make a rocket stable enough just by moving its CG without using fins.

There are 100 cows in a barn. Each of the cows is either brown or blue, and each is equally likely one or the other. A statistician visiting the farm knows only the above. The cows are let out of the barn one by one, and after 10 are let out, all of which are brown, the statistician asks "Are you sure each of the cows are equally likely to be blue?" A farmhand replies that the cows are kept sorted, and that all of the brown ones will be let out first. What is the expected ratio of brown cows to total cows?

That's certainly the most sensible interpretation of the puzzle... But:

Yes patterns are probably a big part of it. http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/11/04/2027250/mathematically-pattern-free-music "Scott Rickard set out [...] to make the world's ugliest piece of music" I suspect there may also be some connection with breathing or heartbeats, making consistent and appropriately timed beats more appealing. "In tune" notes resonate or whatever... out of tune notes cause interference and junk... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics) The human ear I think has hair follicles that respond to different frequencies. I would think that if you're triggering them in a consistent pattern that is easy to process and stimulates the right parts of the brain, to illicit some emotion (conscious or subconscious) then the sound is pleasant. If the follicles and brain are being stimulated in a way that is taxing or hard to process or something, the sound may be unpleasant.

I am not a published author of any papers so I'll only answer in questions that hopefully someone with more experience might comment on. 1) Why do you need a manager? You're writing papers, right, and not books? If your primary role is scientist rather than author, I don't think you need a manager... is it help and advice you want? Perhaps some kind of academic advisor, and I don't know where to find such a role outside of academia. 2) http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=49&uiLanguage=en A list of "open access" physics journals. Open access refers to access by readers, but would these tend to also be more accessible to writers? There's one on metaphysics that might be more open to new ideas... Worst case there is always vixra.org (prepub, not quite "published" but at least you can get your work out there). Upload there and people will tend to not bother or take you seriously, but it might be a first step. This is for uploading "finished" work, not for finding people to help you. 3) Don't go bugging individuals for help? I assume that a million crazy people (yes, many are literally insane, sadly) bug anyone they can with their pet theories, and I don't think anyone pays attention to people who say things like "My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics". Come up with results. No one cares about grand posturing and promises without at least some results, because no one ever delivers on such huge claims. 4) Write an abstract? If you don't have a paper finished, have at least the abstract. (Not an introduction.) There are too many papers out there, and "no one" will read them all to see which ones are interesting. People read the abstracts to find out if it's worth reading the paper. Again, it's about specific results listed in the abstract, not vague claims. Then, anywhere where you are contacting someone trying to get people interested (like by posting in this thread) include the abstract so that people know whether or not to be interested. (And make it good, or they won't be. You can get help on that.) In conclusion, I think my advice is: Just write. A paper speaks for itself. Results (backed up) speak for themselves. Or go to grad school, and get hooked up with a prof who will help guide you??? How do you find a journal etc. to publish to? Do you just submit a finished paper to one (or many?) and hope for acceptance? Do you need academic affiliation or an endorsement to even be considered?

What if I changed the question to...

The finish line is above their heads, and the winner is just over a foot shorter than the other, so remains farther from the line even while crossing it first.

No, the "trick" involves stats/probability stuff, and not the physical details of the imaginary world. To be honest, I changed my mind about the answer I had in mind after I posted the question. So I don't even know if this is a valid puzzle!, or what the solution is...

You're mixing up both the puzzles, and the rules of the puzzle. The latest linked puzzle was meant to be treated separately. On the island, there may be families with two boys, but none with two girls. In the "google quiz" it's reversed. Back to the island: You can change the measured gender ratio by manipulating when you decide to measure it! The expected number of girls to boys will remain 1:1 but the actual number of girls minus boys will be a random walk. If you say "I will only measure the gender ratio when there happen to be more girls than boys" then obviously you're going to get (quite) skewed results. Likewise, if you say "I will only measure the gender ratio after the birth of a girl" then you have a slighter and more subtle skew to the result. In your examples, you don't explicitly state any bias, but others have (eg. the assumption that the process completes successfully) and it's important to either carefully avoid the biases or acknowledge their influence.

It doesn't. Actually the barn is hot pink and the escaped cow is brown.

I meant the proportion of the 100 cows. The same applies to the other 2 puzzles! I didn't mean for that to be part of the trick.

A farmer (on an island of course) has 100 cows in a barn. Each is brown or blue, and is equally likely to be one or the other. A cow escapes from the barn and it is brown. What is the expected proportion of brown cows to total cows? There is a trick to the wording of this one...

A farmer (on an island of course) has 100 cows in a barn. Each is brown or blue, and each was purchased from a supplier that randomly sells a brown or a blue cow with equal likelihood. The farmer tells a farmhand to go in and let a brown cow out. A brown cow is let out. What is the expected proportion of brown cows to total cows?

A farmer (on an island of course) has 100 cows in a barn. Each is brown or blue, and each was purchased from a supplier that randomly sells a brown or a blue cow with equal likelihood. A cow escapes from the barn and it is brown. What is the expected proportion of brown cows to total cows?

Yes, you're right, but if you're given information about the cow that got out, that "new information" can have an influence on what you're describing. I've done a simulation to confirm. See also this very related (but much more complicated) problem: "I have two children. One is a boy born on Tuesday. What is the probability I have two boys?" http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=419102 Yes, you're right, that if you're told that a family will stop trying after N boys, that doesn't change anything. If you're told that some family stopped trying after having N boys, that is new information that does have an influence. If you're told that some family would stop trying after N boys but they didn't have to, that's new information. As well... Suppose you're told that any family would stop after having N boys. If you are shown an example family that stopped, that is new information (it excludes all possible cases where all families had a girl) --- AND it is different information than being shown a randomly picked family and finding out that they stopped after having N boys. (This I think is the main point with the "I have two children" problem. Nah that's not the point, but whatever.) PS. I'm going to add a new puzzle or two to discuss this point... Edit: So, while writing out the "cow island" puzzles I figured something out:

I think that's an important factor (for the second "erroneous" question only) but I think that it actually works counter to your intuition. +1 insightful. However, in some cases "after-the-fact, closed barn door" information can affect the probabilities. For example, if you're told that "The process has been completed successfully and no one is getting pregnant any more" then you know that the last child born was a girl, and that information alone can skew the distribution (by an unknown degree, without knowing some other numbers). Yes, the caveat of "assume an absence of any factors that unnecessarily complicate the puzzle" was meant to intentionally avoid the issue of biases and imply a 1:1 ratio without specifically saying it an giving the answer away.