imatfaal

Alternative Maths... doesn't work of course but makes life easier... Huge H/T to Dr Paul Abel on Twitter

Exactly - it was argued in the courts and chanceries of Europe not that long ago that "common sense" dictated that the native peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa had no legitimate right to life, the land they had lived on for countless generations, nor the right of self-determination. It was also "common sense" that women could not hold property, make contracts, nor study academic subjects. To an extent, science is the art of distinguishing between common sense and that which is actually true to nature.

As Moon said you might get a little warm. A black hole with a mass of 152grams (my mobile phone mass) would be 10^-28metres radius (almost a billion times smaller than a proton) - but in the 10^-19 seconds after creation it would burn off all its mass as radiation at a whopping 10^34watts - and that flash would generate enough energy to keep the entire world going for an hour or so. At five feet away I think it might get a bit toasty - and not sure you would have much time to think about gravity

And what you are posting is like saying that both Jeter and Babe Ruth must be holding the bat the wrong way around because you personally do not understand how they manage to do what they do

It is in a volcanic region - but I must admit I am having trouble getting concavity/convexity sorted out in my head It is just a cicruclar mountain I think. There is no concavity I think. If you look at the picture of the river nearby there is very obvious stratification - that is what we are seeing and that makes it look concave . The tributary streams of the Kotuy run straight through the white band - this makes me think the white band is just that rather than being the rim of a crater. Streams do not run up one side of a caldera/crater and down the other Now I have downloaded google earth I am sure. You can plot a path from the centre to the river, then right click on the path to view elevation profile. It is a round hill on a raised platform - and there is no concavity

! Moderator Note Bogie - whilst you are inquiring and investigating you should not worry about the trashcan. If you start insisting that all we know about quantum field theory is actually wrong and you alone have the key to knowledge - that's where we start locking and trashing; as you seem to have hooked one Expert and two esteemed members then I guess you are a long long way from that.

Yes of course. You need to think of your frames of reference. You can throw a ball on a train can't you? From the perspective of the shooter the bullet will fly forward through the train at 2000mph. From the perspective of the person on the platform watching the train go past the bullet will have a speed of 2000+2000=4000mph. If you fired out the window - but in the same direction as the train is travelling then the air resistance would quickly slow the bullet / cause it to lose spin and tumble; but it would still leave the muzzle at 2000mph according to shooter and be travelling at 4000mph according to platform observer FYG - It is this form of adding / substracting speeds that stops working accurately when you get close to light speed, and doesn't work at all for light

An Increase in GPE would only be seen as an increase in the energy of the system - and I guess would increase the inertia of the system; I would see this as an analogue of binding energy in the microscale On the second point - well I would hate to think how much energy it would take to separate two neutron stars in close binary orbit. Obviously, your arbitrary distances cannot be totally arbitrary as we have universal limits of how much mass you can fit within a radius - and denser than that you have merging black holes.

I see a very marked difference between 1. What would the universe be like if gravity fell off with 1/r^3 2. How do we know that gravity doesn't fall off with 1/r^3 but rather than 1/r^2 3. Why does gravity fall off with 1/r^2 and not some other relationship with r - say 1/r^3 4. I think gravity falls off with 1/r^3 - and this is why 5. Gravity falls off with 1/r^3 and if you don't believe me it is because you are blinkered We get far too much of 5. Fun ideas are welcomed - but are rare. Personally, I think that rarity is in part real (and due to the batshitcraziness of some threads) putting off the honest enquirer and partly only a perception because you need to wade through lots of batshitcraziness to find the few gems. Yes; toy theories and new ideas are perfectly acceptable. These stop being acceptable when they are not put on the forum for consideration and discussion - but rather for members to agree with hesitation and not dare to suggest that the OP might be wrong.

From the point of view of the shooter it speeds away from him of the back of the train at 2000mph - from the point of view of a person standing at the side of the track the train rushes away at 2000mph and the bullet falls vertically to the ground. Both are the same thing - but ou must take into account your frame of reference

! Moderator Note Thread Locked This topic falls below the standard we insist upon for Speculations. You do not have permission to reopen another thread on the same topic. To be specific, assertions should be backed up with evidence - merely quoting an unrelated / tangential paper is not sufficient and in reality high-lights the lack of any real evidence

I think one of the cardamom was probably switched with something which looked like cardamom but wasn't (or more likely was cardamom plus something else). If you are willing to scam people and have the patience to practice then it is relatively easy to use the inattention or mis-attention of the mark to pull-off some audacious switches

Just to check - has a decision on this actually been made? That article was from November. Trump is doing lots of pretty scary stuff already - has he actually made any movement on this?

So we'll take that as you saying "No - I would prefer to carry on making stuff up and pretending. " Is actually learning too taxing? Admitting you don't have a fast-track to answers too humbling? Here is my Mark Twain quote - and it fits you perfectly “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”We should have taken Sam's advice and left you to fester in your delusion

We hold ions in a state of superposition in electromagnetic traps - these electromagnetic traps rely on the particle behaving as expected and one of those expectations is the mass of the particle remaining. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7068/abs/nature04251.html These are massive objects with size mass and charge - Be+ ions have an atomic weight of around 9; ie these are not photons with zero mass already or fundamental point particles like an electron. If they had zero mass the force on them due to their charge would accelerate them to the speed of light and they would not longer be confined in the trap. We know they maintain their mass because NIST scientists were able to hold six of them in a steady oscillation through a combination of lasers and the electromagnetic trap https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/11/nist-physicists-coax-six-atoms-quantum-cat-state

Think you might have pasted the wrong link - that is just using colour as an analogy not as in qcd/qft It is a very nice analogy - I have bookmarked Prof John Boccio's page for further reading so thanks

B Magnetic Field O - Big O Notation in Computation L - Angular Momentum L - Lagrangian O - Big O Notation in Maths c - speed of light k - Boltzman's Constant S - Entropy So Yes - Cruel Joke

You wanna get taken seriously? Learn some physics before you claim to have overturned the most accurate theory we have.

I think I can express your idea in an expression involving the Magnetic field and the associated level of computational complexity of the Angular Momentum vector combined with the Lagrangian and the limiting behaviour of the product of the speed of light, boltzmans constant, and the entropy

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Truth is Lies. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

Yeah - that's kinda what I meant was getting mixed up with scope and sight. I cherish my ignorance in matters of the reality of firearms; I think I am the first in about 5 generations of my family that didn't need to know

I presume from the above that rifles have their scope set up with the view angled downwards to a miniscule extent - or is it an an adjustment the markman can make? A quick think about it with g being 10m/s^2 and a projectile speed of 1000 m/s shows that some compensation must be made; whether this is in the view and choice by the firer or the set up of the scope is outside my knowledge

! Moderator Note moved to Speculations. please take a moment to read the rules and guidelines to the Speculations Forum which are stickied at the top of the thread list.

! Moderator Note Offtopic response hidden. Please also try to avoid SHOUTING and multicolours - both tend to annoy and distract Topic moved to Speculations.

What I meant by the indirect measurement is that in some of these set-ups have deliberately skewed photon paths such that the idlers travel a significant distance more than the signal - thus the coincidence checking would need to be offset as well. If you know the time offset and the additional distance travelled then you know the speed that the extra distance was crossed at. My idea kinda all falls down if the timing accuracy is low and you are relying on very few events with large gaps to make your coincidence spotting easier. Will have to read-up an actual experiment rather than just the concept to see what is what.