imatfaal

Frankly any architect that didnt design a few doors that failed safe in event of a pressure drop should be shot - it is an obvious design feature. Frankly a standard door resting open on a gentle hinge that is able to swing shut would slam shut with the wind - it would then be held tight shut by the pressure. If every junction between rooms was a small (10cm) space with a door opening into the room on each side - where ever the pressure leak was one of the two doors would slam shut and be held shut. The room with the leak would be isolated by the wind rushing from the two adjacent rooms and slamming the doors into that room

They are reactionless - or at least claim to be. They have become wise to the fact that this requires them to explain how they are circumventing the conservation of momentum so they don't go on too much about this - frankly their explanations as to the theoretical reasons are balderdash. Think about it this way - they claim that if you threw an imaginary sphere around the contraption in space that it would move forward with nothing leaving the imaginary sphere. That is to say that the system would undergo a net change in momentum with no external force; this breaches the conservation of momentum. Personally I think a decent amount of the thrust is of thermal origins (that is not reactionless), that some is due to magnetic interactions with support apparatus (that is external to system), and other things that have not been taken care of.

I think I have adequately shown that it is complicated Even if I was trying to do so much more »Hvis man kan sætte sig ind i kvantemekanik uden at blive svimmel, har man ikke forstået noget af det,« Bohr I have posted this in Danish as it seem this is probably about as understandable as my example

Whilst sometimes it is necessary to ask complex multifaceted questions it can be highly instructive to try and break these down to "component parts" to find out if there exists a nucleus of ethical objection on a far more basic level. It would seem to me that your question has three important parts 1. Is it ethical to use embryonic cells? 2. Is it ethical to create animal human hybrids / chimeras? * 3. Is it ethical to utilise animals to provide medical cures for humans? These are answerable separately and if (big if) one can answer them then and only then can you move forward to a synthesis and provide an argument that the specific combination of your original question is also answerable. *I also think this is a highly emotive usage and think fiveworlds made a good point about limitation both within the animal and the species

There is no connexion - exactly as you said. There is no reflexion in poker. Sorry I was unclear. I was attempting to show how far from an unknown pair of cards that an entangled pair would be - obviously my analogy failed dreadfully. The point of the final measurement being completely unimaginable and impossible in poker is that entanglement is radically and fundamentally different from a mere state of being unknown. I would try again without introducing cards - but frankly the best example is the Bell Inequality and Experiments and the OP has issues with that already.

The following is not true - but it gives an idea. You have two cards A and B - one is an Ace the other a King; you do not know which is which. With classical cards you could say that measure card A by pairing with another known card and then turning the unknown over. So if we measure card A by pairing with a Queen and measure card B by pairing with another Queen. If you get Ace Queen with card A you must get King Queen with card B. This would be the same if the Ace and King were in superposition But if we measure card A and card B DIFFERENTLY - ie we measure card A with a Queen and Card B with a new Ace. Then with the classical measuring that if you get Ace Queen with card A then ALWAYS you will get King Ace. But with a superposition and with a different measurement of the two entangled particles (this is the equivalent of measuring on different axes in Bell Experiment) if you got Ace Queen with card A there would be a possibility that with card B you would get King Ace and also a possibility you would get Ace Ace

[latex](cd \tau)^2=-A\left(r \right)(cdt)^2+B\left(r \right) dr^2+(r d \theta)^2[/latex] ! Moderator Note OK - So the Latex thing. ® (r ) was breaking the encoding. I have repeated the outside brackets with \left( and \right) - which allows correct interpretation by the renderer. ® is one of those annoying autotexts (registered trade box) so I wonder if something is happening before the text reaches the renderer. If I have got your formula wrong please pm me with the correction

whenever I have used expensive recording/reproduction/amplification equipment I have had to spend (what felt to me) an inordinate amount of time isolating from all extraneous mechanical, electrical, electronic, and sonic sources. Your idea seems to be introducing a dose of each sort of possible pollution of your signal

Down and Dirty SWOT. Strength - stuff your experiment does that your colleagues' experiment does not. Weakness - stuff that your colleagues' does and yours doesn't. Opportunities - easy extensions, and stuff you realized you shud have done. Threats - what you a missing that you shouldn't be but cannot easily remedy, potential systematic weakness, inherent analytical weakness

! Moderator Note Hijack by JohnLesser hidden - please do not respond to questions or discussion with personal speculations. To clarify - all responses to questions and participation in an ongoing discussion should be based in mainstream science. The only place for a new idea or hypothesis is in its own thread within the Speculations Forum.

The answer is kinda moot - if the planet is close enough to be so influenced by the central mass of two very close stars and thus become tidally locked then it will not be in a stable orbit. If it is stably orbiting a close binary at a decent distance then it will probably not be tidally locked. However there maybe be stable orbits which are also close - it is just that we can neither predict nor analyse them; so it may be tidally locked or it may not.

Khan Academy is pretty good for both linear algebra and complex numbers - this is pretty much essential. For non-technical stuff (although still pretty technical) this is my favourite blog http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 This quoted page is Scott's explanation of the Shor Algorithm with very limited maths. You could also check out some of Dr Chinese's explanations.

! Moderator Note madmac If you have a problem with mainstream physics then the debate belongs in the speculations forum - however you will be asked to defend your assertions. If you post such nonsense in the main fora you will be sanctioned. Do not reply to this moderation in the thread. You can report this message if you feel it is not fair.

From what I can gather the following scenarios will NOT be stable 1. Orbiting just one star of binary with the distance to the star not being orbited around at greater than 1/6 of the distance to star being orbited 2. Orbiting both stars if the distance to stars is not significantly greater than distance between stars - at least 2 and a half times the distance That does not mean outside that space the orbits will be stable.

Quantum computation and computing is a difficult thing to jump straight into and there is no way you can get a strong academic knowledge of the area without many years background work. However you can get a passable working knowledge by taking much of the physics "on trust" - ie here is a Hadamard gate which ttransforms thus [latex]H = \frac{|0\rangle+|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\langle 0|+\frac{|0\rangle-|1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}\langle 1 |[/latex] you don't need to have any idea of the process which in the physical world which might perform that or even the strangeness of some of the computations - you just learn with a large set of given axiomata The maths (esp. linear algebra and complex numbers) is pretty essential as is learning dirac notation - but not too difficult. The Berkeley Quantum Information and Computation Centre has lots of learning aids - but I know that stuff would have been beyond me at 13 . You could also try searching for videos by Umesh Vazarani who runs the centre and does lots of outreach stuff

! Moderator Note OK this thread has run its course. The OP started with a nonsense claim and has failed to defend it either heuristically, mathematically, or empirically; in fact, the OP's contention has been refuted with great explanations, with mathematical derivations, and through the provision of experimental data/video. The OP has now resorted to a refusal to communicate, logical fallacies, reversal of the burden, and claims of persecution. Thread Locked. The OP does not have permission to reopen a new thread on this topic without first receiving explicit permission from a staff member

back to the op - the courts have finally ruled: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/16/lack-oxford-comma-costs-maine-company-millions-overtime-dispute/BIxK837fA2C06qavQMDs5J/story.html?event=event25?event=event25

Chuck Berry - what else?

Sounds like Chicken Tikka Masala - which was not only voted and lauded as Britain's favourite food but was more than likely first cooked in Glasgow or Birmingham. But then Indian food and Indian Restaurants in Britain are a complete national institution - and almost entirely run by a particular group / caste (?) / sect (?) of Bangladeshis

Would be perfect except the order is CDE (just cos it is missing the AB doesn't mean you can switch order) and it isn't an acronym. Although my imposter syndrome is now rearing its head and making me think I have missed the joke

Required? No; not in general usage. Yes; if you are me. If you put them, in the worst that people can think is that one is a bit precious, perhaps a little nerdish, and overly concerned with correctness. If you miss them out, then people can assume that you don't care or that you don't know. Thus: Yes; if you are me.

Not sure that is the complete answer. The British tend to use CV almost exclusively - but I tend to think that American English uses both and that they have slightly different meanings. For instance a few weeks ago one of our moderators said something along the lines of "that would be OK if it were written in a CV but not in a résumé" I believe the difference in Amenglish * is that a résumé is a brief employment and experience summary whereas a CV is a fairly extensive list of accomplishments, achievements, and accolades. Academics in the US tend to have both *made-up word - now thinking Amer-English is more euphonious

On a reverse note - I have heard that the Japanese do not refer to the amazingly popular puzzle as Sudoku - the most common name for it is "Missing Number" IN ENGLISH; but to make it saleable in the English-speaking world it was rebranded as Sudoku.

Would a planet closely orbiting a binary not be a three body problem? At a great distance you can reduced the binary to a single mass and get a great approximation - but close orbit would mean that you would need to take each star separately. If it is a three body problem then there is no analytical solution and also more often than not no common outcome. Iff the planet is small enough in comparison to the star then I guess you could model the two stars as a two body problem and obtain a complex solution and then map a route for the planet - but I could not begin to tell you the mass ratios that would allow that simplification On an extraneous side note - have a read of the Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin. Chinese Sci-Fi which is very different and terrifying in its backstory. Edit - it also directly relates to your OP question