imatfaal

Let's keep QFT out of this thread apart from where essential - and also bear in mind that QFT is a tool for understanding what we observe and not necessarily the undiluted/unsullied truth of nature (like all scientific models)

Even in a neutron star there are no atoms (or precious few) - the gravitational pressure is such that protons and electrons fuse via electron capture create neutrons. The whole star is neutrons held apart by neutron degeneracy pressure which is basically the outcome of the pauli exclusion principle the Singularity is something which is predicted in General Relativity (Hawking and Penrose) - but the existence of the singularity is normally taken as a sign that beyond event horizon is out of scope for GR; ie you need a new theory to properly deal with this. "What piece of information am I missing?" That we know next to nothing about what happens behind the event horizon and definitely not what is going on at the singularity - or possibly more accurately, and definitely not what is actually there instead of a physical singularity

But the "science" is not the effect - it is the explanation of the effect; it is the model which allows you to understand the effect in terms of simpler well-known causes.

rational humanism with a tinge of deontological ethics

! Moderator Note Thread almost Locked. Frankly there are about two or three arguments going on - none of which have anything to do with the Aspden Effect. You were asked nicely to put those arguments in their own (new) threads but everything continued here. Guys - please a little discipline; this was a thread on the Aspden Effect split from a thread on Relativity - yet we are into QFT? Any further posts not on the Aspden Effect will be zapped. Studiot and, I think, others had some relevant questions on the so-called effect so the thread will remain open for that discussion only.

You would not be the first looking to harness the energy content of children - although your idea is, slightly, more humane A Modest Proposal

technically I think it was Count Lagrange - Napoleon made him a comte de l’Empire

! Moderator Note A very interesting topic - however, I think one which is best suited to the Philosophy sub-forum.

And to answer the question properly (ish) - yes it is provable - Euler proved it in the 18th Century. It is a special case of the (later) Catalan Conjecture. The conjecture states that 3^2-2^3=1 and that this is the only non-trivial solution to x^a-y^b=1 ; this conjecture was only proven in 2003 by Preda Mihailescu Here is an interesting read on the conjecture and its final proof as Mihailescu's Theorem http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2004-41-01/S0273-0979-03-00993-5/S0273-0979-03-00993-5.pdf And here is a copy of Euler's proof and a more modern proof for a=2 and b=3 (page 12 onwards) https://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~zbimar/Catalan.pdf I think I might understand the Latin better than I understand the maths in Eulers

zero 0^3+1=1^2

I presume the bits you have marked as deuterium are actually deuterons? Where does the energy for the acceleration come from and why not just utilise it directly? Is D-D fusion energetically viable in these circumstances - the only reports I have seen were hilariously inefficient and required huge electric fields (gigavolts per metre). What sort of temperature and pressure is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier and get fusing? Like with so many uses of fusion - once you can get the energy of fusion and utilise it then the energy requirements seem paltry; but it is getting it turned on, and safely, continuously generating power that is difficult. So difficult that we still struggle - although apparently safe and commercial fusion is only 20 years away (and always has been!)

! Moderator Note This is barely mathematics - and definitely not linear algebra nor group theory. Moved to speculations.

Yes - I understand that; you need to get your head around what can be done and what cannot. There are numerous texts on this sort of geometrical conundrum. Which angles are equal, supplementary, complementary and which lines are parallel. Most of this can be done with a careful diagram done with ruler and compass. You can get to trigonometry and cosine and sine rules - but then you also have to consider that triangles with whole number sides (primes remember) are a requirement. Have you actually tried constructing triangles with known primes - you obviously haven't because your early assertions to the numbers required were impossible. I presume you know how to construct a rough triangle with a straight edge, ruler, and compasses Sounds like chop-logic and apologia to me And a real non-believer wouldn't say that - because God is a supernatural entity with no proof anyway so why introduce other complications. Personally I think it is a strange question - and you are not the first person to have mentioned it; the question strikes me as incredible hubris. We postulate a supernatural being who by very existence/definition must transcend human bounds and understanding; yet immediately we bring in human constraints and frailties. But this is not the place It is not merely that humans are limited - it is that maths is axiomatic. We make the foundations of our maths and build from there; within those axioms we can say what is true (sometimes), what is false (sometimes), and what we cannot decide upon (sometimes). Whilst some things are not decidable; if we can prove it within the system of axioms then it is proven and nothing can change that No one likes being wrong - that's why we study and learn. You are right about doses of realism; you are tackling Mount Everest and getting angry with yourself that a short walk every evening hasn't been enough training. This is an stubborn peak of mathematics that the greatest thinkers have pushed themselves to the limit in an effort to make that vital breakthrough. You are using tools that have been thoroughly tested by people like Euclid, Fermat, and Leibnitz; you can be virtually certain there are no simple things that will crack prime numbers. That is the benefit of fora - post stuff when you have time; someone will look at and critique your 5 step pattern. There are numerous posts in this subforum about the patterns of multiples which are ruled out from being prime

! Moderator Note 762 OK - Last Chance. Either get with the programme and follow the rules or I lock the thread. I explained that members must be able to participate without leaving the site. You were asked a perfectly reasonable question - referring to an off-site download is not acceptable. Do not respond to this moderation other than to either start posting details or acknowledging that you will not (in which case we can lock it and move on).

! Moderator Note You need to post enough of the argument on this site (not just dump a link to vixra) for members to be able to participate without downloading papers or accessing third party sites. Please do so or thread will be locked

! Moderator Note Nonsense. thread locked. Do not open more threads in this vein

Leave the crap at home. You need pencil, pen, calculator etc. You can manage for a couple of hours over a few days without mobile etc. Although invigilators can be a bit rubbish too... In a criminal law exam (in some law exams you are allowed a copy of the relevant statutes) a few years ago a guy stood up a few rows in front of me and shouted at the invigilator whilst pointing at the bloke next to him "He is using a copy of flipping Nutshells [law revision guide] For Flips Sake - are you Flippers flipping Blind! "

Visual Education Project has posted here - and their aim is the creation of beautiful machines with interesting histories and no claims of perpetual motion. Some of the mechanisms built are quite amazing works of craft

This is just a repeat of your poker thread in which you couldn't really tie in your objections to actual bell experiments. Now please - especially as this is main fora - be rigorous. How are we testing (electron spin, photon polarity) and what are the experimental (not Alice and Bob Gedenkan) process you believe to be logically flawed. Please do not try to (wrongly) represent Bell and then point out the flaws. You have to show a Bell's Experiment (no need to drill to messy data yet) and why its (ideal) set-up is problematic.

! Moderator Note Winds - your post is hidden until you can show that you have permission to publish an entire article or such a large chunk. The post made was far beyond academic fair use. PM member of staff if you do have permission (or if preprints are available on arxiv or similar). Thanks

! Moderator Note We do not need an extra thread for you to publicise your mistakes. thread locked.

A neutron binary tends to be a fairly inhospitable place - the dense neutron star sucks matter from the partner, the matter spirals in towards the neutron star in a disc, as it gets closer it spirals faster and bumps into itself getting very hot, the superheated material gives off nasty radiation, and every so often a section of infalling matter impacts the neutron star in a certain way giving off a huge blast of gamma radiation which fries anything towards the pole / axis to a distant of many AU - maybe even things Lyrs away. That's before any inspiral or black hole formation

! Moderator Note As you have signed up and agreed to the rules on more than one occasion I am surprised that you did not read the rules you were accepting. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Yeah - the lists are still available as of January. Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne seem to have wielded the boot to great effect - "hey let's silence the critics with threats of legal sanctions which no one can afford to question/defend" Damn - you're right. It just looked so perfect that I didn't zoom in enough to check the number closely. Confirmation bias strikes again! It does show how easy it is to swoop on an answer which fulfils one's expectations

! Moderator Note Thread locked. This is not your blog nor a place to advertise your youtube videos. As this thread was opened within minutes of a very similar thread being locked the staff will discuss further sanctions.