imatfaal

Which is why you have two such sensors situation thousands of miles apart and compare results. Both will see lots of variations of that magnitude in noise and the noise will be unique to the environment of the sensor - but only the signal will be reproduced in both

Pinkflutty was banned and his/her solitary post was hidden

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

This. The first parts of the MIT advanced mechanics course were 1. Identify the System 2. Ensure you have identified the system correctly

It is another attack in an area I know well and frequent - just makes me more determined not to give into to fear I am afraid that Sensei is correct - but I think that it will have the opposite effect to that which the scumbag terrorists hope for. We will not allow this to breed extremism - not of the islamic sort, nor of the anti-islamic sort.

Not holding them to higher standards than the president - but claiming that only by distinguishing ourselves by word and deed in both style and content from Breitbart and its hoards are we different from those deplorables. It is noble and perhaps doomed to failure but we look to win by soaring above the moral depravity of trump and his new swamp-minions and not by compromising ourselves by stooping to brawl in their mire-filled gutter Completely agree however that the furore over this has been ridiculous and a deliberate attempt to move the eye of the public and the press away from the trumpster. If the right-wing pseudo-press and president can make the argument about trivialities then they will win or at least not be able to be held to account. That does not detract from a judgment by those here and in other places that the sketch was ill-considered - but you are correct that this inconsequential sketch will be used to distract from massively important flaws at the heart of government à la mode de "...but the emails!"

There is a tutorial http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73369-uploading-images/#entry732878

I think this is an ethical question as much as a political one; I like to think that I (and the sort of people I am friends with and politically aligned with) would eschew making jokes which rely on recycling images of brutal beheadings. Those that do allude to violence in a "humorous manner" or as part of an "entertainment" tend to be on the other side of the political divide; I would like to keep it that way. I will let UKIP/Tea Party right-winger engage in personality politics, character assassination (see how hard it is to avoid), and attack ads; I would like the liberal left to counter with evidence based politics, honest debate, and face-to-face engagement with the electorate. Of course this it is not as clear cut as I have painted - but in the UK without doubt and I believe in the USA there is a clear difference. When someone from the left uses the inflammatory and brutal language of the right-wing gutter press I am personally a little bit ashamed - one of ours has stooped to their level.

Btw 1e = première= 1st , 2e = deuxième= 2nd French ordinals are (can be) formed in shortened form by the digit and the letter e

I've missed the old barbed iNow

Fox1981 has been placed in the mod queue

Sensei - the difference in our approaches is that I am looking at this from a theoretical calculational complexity / Big O viewpoint whereas you are looking at it as a practical computational complexity / C++ perspective; both are, of course, equally valid. At very large numbers and serious computing power the two concepts will converge - but it is very difficult to compare one to the other without two sets of code or two sets of complexity calculations; and I just do not have the knowledge for that.

Not sure I could make it through the pseudocode if I tried. The crux of the matter is that the calculational complexity of multiplication is similar to that of division in that the fastest growing term in the complexity of division is a multiplication operation. However, for any calculation of actual time used the division will take about Log(n) times longer - this is because the calculationally fastest method of division for large numbers is to take the reciprocal of one and then multiply by the other; so how ever quick you make the multiplication the division is always longer because you have to take the reciprocal as well as doing the multiplication.

Crookes radiometer [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], by The original uploader was Timeline at English Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer They are fascinating, beautiful, and scientifically interesting

It looks like a variant of the overall heat transfer coefficient U is the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (Watts per metre^2 per Kelvin) Q is the Energy transferred in time t ( Joules per second ie Watts) Delta T is the difference in temperature between two surfaces (Kelvin) A is surface Area (metres^2)

I was hoping you would weigh in - I understand on the vibration; the expected velocity value is not something I have imagined is it?

I think they might. Whilst they are not little balls huddled together with electrons whizzing around them in beautiful elliptical orbits there are quantum mechanical treatments which place protons within orbitals (weird shaped things) with expected velocities which are not zero - this is a long way from saying that proton_1 moved from point A to point B however. And protons are indistinguishable from each other so in a nucleus you cannot really even think of them as proton_1 and proton_2 - so much so that you can never tag an individual proton. But I think the wave-equations still have room for expected values of velocity, vibration, and shape of orbital

I think the complexity is of the same order - but that does not mean the time taken for a real world example will be so. I think big O notation works in the limiting case as the numbers tend to infinity; thus the two complexities will be the asymptotically similar but in practice different. In this case, the multiplication is of polynomial complexity and the division is logarithmic * polynomial complexity; when the numbers get very large the polynomial swamps the logarithmic and big O only notes the important fastest growing term. But for any actual calculation, there will always be a greater load for the division than for the multiplication; ie a pair of 20 digit numbers will take very roughly 20 times longer to divide than to multiply

http://www.sysifos.cz/index.php?id=vypis&sec=1344094631〈=en

I would draw a little diagram of a simplified spinner if I were you and consider the forces required to keep it together; think of the accelerations / forces involved. Remember: 1. Things will travel in a straight line in the absence of anything else 2. The outside bearings (*) are travelling in a circle - thus they are being accelerated inwards all the time (otherwise the straight line thingie above) 3. The acceleration inwards requires a force directed inwards - the centripetal force 4. The force means that the arms are under tension - work out roughly how much. 5. If one of the arms fails under the load - there is no longer any inward acceleration; so what happens? * Why do these things have bearings on the outside arms?

You picked up on exactly the point I was thinking of - people are zealous, and over-defensive about their interpretations; that was what made me use the god/religion analogy. it is amazing how people can be far more extreme in both their defence of and loyalty towards that which can have no proof than they are for things with empirical validity. I suppose it is part of the equation of investing time, effort, and love (?) into something so abstract which cannot yield specific reward that one must never allow complacency to merge into equivocation to become doubt; it is a spiritual/mental sunk costs fallacy.

Further to Geordief and Dimreeper's comments - the Many-world's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the most regularly seen version of this concept of multiple independent universes. By its very nature as one of many interpretations there can be no evidence for it at present - as soon as there is evidence or even the possibility of evidence then it stops being a member of the group of interpretations and stands out as a part of testable empirical quantum theory. At present none of the interpretations have characteristics which are testable by currently envisaged means - some have tests that might become possible in the future. This does not stop it being a great thing to think about - especially as it has jaw-dropping notions which even the layman can repeat and seem to understand

! Moderator Note This topic is on space flowing towards a mass - anything else is offtopic. Handyandy - even the originator of a thread can be seen to be hijacking a thread if they head off on too many tangents. If you wish to ask about the graviton then do so in a new thread, ditto spin characteristics, ditto fundamental particles' make up. And too many "what is this vague mix of buzzwords is true" will set off the verbal vegan (word salad) alert - ie please don't just guess at stuff and ask if it might be right. Ask structured questions to gain knowledge and you will get amazing answers; assert word-salad garbage purporting to be a question and people will start to call you on it and leave your threads alone.

My view is that maths is not science - it relies on axioms and proof rather than observation and evidence.