imatfaal

I agreed with all your post until this - do you have any proof that poverty negatively affects neural development? Culturally and psychologically (and amazing even epi-genetically) people may be impacted/harmed - but neurologically? Actually many who have western birth certificates of my parents generation have every idea of what it is like to grow up with poverty and malnutrition - speak to some elderly people who lived through the german occupation of the netherlands in the second world war (sorry godwin).

What on earth makes you think that it has to be intuitive? The maths is vital - it does not matter how beautiful, intuitive and just plain right-sounding an explanation is if it does not agree with the experimental results and the mathematical modelling. Alternative explanations that rely on hidden and as yet unknown interactions which are only posited to remove the non-intuitive aspect of qm are pretty useless unless some experiment can be designed that will differentiate. try reading up on bell's paradox as well. I don't think timo was trolling - merely highlighting the truism that all theories stand to be disproven if experimental results prove it incorrect in the future - at present our theory fits all experimental results and the mathematical model it is based upon does not depend on the equipment being inaccurate. you cannot really ask "what if future results prove this wrong?" - well then it will be wrong - but at the moment it is the best we have and the possibility of something being shown to be wrong in the future is universal in science and does not detract from a theory.

No I don't think so. Liquid helium does not solidify as it approaches abs zero (even ridiculously close), theoretically not even at abs zero - it is the presence zpe in atomic motion that means that over 25 atmosphere pressure is required to solidify helium. Similarly zpe has been directly measured in electrical devices http://prb.aps.org/a...RB/v26/i1/p74_1 The Casimir effect, the best explanation of which is the zero point energy of a quantised field, can be directly measured in the laboratory http://en.wikipedia..../Casimir_effect

whoops, my fault - apologies.

Whilst the HUP can be seen heuristically as a problem that seems akin to resolving power (heisenburg's microscope) - its basis is inherent in the maths and non-commutivity of matrices of position and momentum. it is not only impossible to measure position and momentum to absolute accuracy - it is impossible for these to be known/postulated to be, or even just be absolute. if the position is known without inaccuracy the momentum is infinite - which is nonsensical. if a model makes predictions that gives arbitrary accuracy of both position and momentum (or energy and time) then the theory is flawed. this is not zany. it is close to meaningless in qm to postulate a completely still or perfectly defined system - even in the ground state (the lowest possible energy state) there will be oscillations/fluctuations and an associated zero point energy. we can demonstrate the existence of zpe in the lab - as this is a direct consequence of strong HUP then we can be pretty sure that HUP is not merely a measurement problem.

Not sure about the white dwarf stuff granpa. a white dwarf isn't merely a cooled yellow dwarf (ie like the sun) it is the remnant after much of the outer atmosphere has been blown off - and when they are formed are considerable hotter than the sun. some very old white dwarfs will have cooled to our suns sort of temperature; but not many cos it takes billions of years and sun like stars were not common in the early universe. the electron degenerate matter (which is completely ionised) that makes up a white dwarf is closer modelled as a gas than a solid - it is stripped ions floating in a sea of electrons, and whilst dense it is not I believe solid Also I am unsure if you are stating that fusion continues within a white dwarf - this is generally not the case. The only fusion in a white dwarf is when it accretes mass to send it over the chandraseckar limit - runaway carbon fusion will then take place and the white dwarf will form a type 1a supernova and blow itself to smithereens

Has anyone ever used Tracker Video? The vid might be a useful candidate to try it on. My perception is that the flight is powered as well as controlled - it certainly appears to level off before first bounce and the upward trajectory after bounce seems driven. However John's point above that there does not appear to be any burning afterwards is weird - unless the crash was due to fuel running out and the anomalous trajectory was an attempt to use the last dregs to flatten out and land less destructively

Most logical arguments have axioms (if you wanna be swanky axiomata) - they are not proven and deemed to be self-evident. the whole of the argument is subject to the axiom being true - of course, what one person sees as self evident and plainly true in all situations another person might think is simply false or contingent on other facts. You might start an argument on harm with the axiom that "no one likes to be harmed' - and then try to make progress to 'it is wrong to harm other people'.

To an extent this seeming paradox comes down to the basic dilemma of all ethical decisions - do you work from a teleological or a deontological basis; simplistically, ends or means. An action that viewed in my moral compass is necessary may indeed have consequences that are less optimal compared to a morally repugnant action. Perhaps a more pragmatic ethical approach is needed to eschew engagement in the bentham vs kant problem. dewey would recommend social reform and development as the main priority; consequences and methods fall into place if a correct and possible model for social reform is adhered to. perhaps the loss of the concept of "us" helping "them" needs to be jettisoned, and we need to think more along the lines of common purpose, global equality, and a basic shared humanity.

On a level playing field where all actors both internal and from outside were motivated by altruism perhaps a solution would be attainable. But the different pressures acting on a fragile economy remind me of a three body problem - and not just a simplified stripped-down version; but a problem in which multiple non-linear forces act on an entity, where information is actively distorted, and the background environment is anything but ideal - and of course where people die for every bad decision. It is outside human nature (well my form of it) to view mass starvation as a necessary step to a better planned sustainable economy - even if logically this might be the case. It is the same with parenting sometimes you have to pick up the crying child even if you know it would be better in the long term (for both of you) to get them used to going back to sleep themselves. The example of parenting is deliberately patriarchal in flavour - because there is a distinct aura of paternalism in this field. Whilst one of the threats to food security in eastern africa and beyond is certainly the food aid programmes, others exist and are more important - foreign debt service, giving arms manufacturers free rein, insistence of growth of cash export crops etc on the somali clan issue - will work on it. every time i start I end up with "ctrl A, delete" cos I am unhappy with it

not really - these articles are talking about the currencies of the the Countries of the Gulf Cooperation council which are/were pegged to the dollar. There were also proposals to change the trading currency of oil - but three years down the line I don't believe anything has changed as it would need an en bloc change of OPEC and the non-OPEC producers.

I thought that it was more along the lines that the time was so short that energy had a considerable amount of variation under HUP [math]\Delta E\Delta t \gtrsim h[/math] in very layman's terms the time of existence is so short that the universe doesn't realise the energy sum is incorrect - ie the energy used to create them is paid back in annihilation before anyone can notice it is missing

man is the political animal - if evil is the root of all politics then it is so tied up with humanity to be indistinguishable from it.

This is a science forum - you just cannot assert that. in no scientific pursuit does 'my personal internal logic' trump 'observational evidence'.

Th situation in Somali is complex and not easily reduced to simple explanations accessible to the western reader. most of the mainline western media coverage is so distorted that it is hardly worth reading, that report from the black agenda is slightly more nuanced but still suffers from imprinting a predetermined world view on a unique situation. talking - even shortly - about Somalia with engagement with the clan structure is meaningless. I can quite believe that the WFP acted with gauche lack of understanding - but tying this up with a conspiracy to oust the rer abdelle sub-clan (which is basically the ONLF) is a little fanciful. It is, however, a good example of how even charitable donations and food programmes need to be looked at critically.

Agree with Rcheck - too often a sensible, grounded article in a peer-reviewed journal will be written up in sciencedaily in sensationalist terms (often along the lines of the press release which can also be massively over-hyped - which is unforgivable). You can nearly always get the abstract for free - and that will often give a better idea than any popular press article. I would go with wikipedia over the pop-sci journals or normal press

I have no problem with the creation story being taught in religious education classes. Kids should not decided for themselves - in fact no one should decide for themselves what is good science. The whole point of science is that truth is not presaged on a personal preference or choice; it is based on the falsifiable theory that agrees closest with experimental data. Differing ways of explaining the facts with testable models is the bedrock of science - what is anti-science is the retreat to myth or religious teaching. Trying to prove a theory wrong is completely different to opposing that theory with an explanation from a holy book. I presume from this you think all medical students should be required to learn homoeopathy (lots of people believe in it) even though it has never passed a single double-blind rct. Or that important national economical decisions should take astrological predictions into account (loads of people swear by it) despite it being total garbage. etc It is bad because it is equating a religious belief that, in its very nature must be faith based with a scientific theory which must be based on objective and repeatable observations/experiment. Now I could not stand a world in which people were forced to reject their religious beliefs - but similarly for proponents of religion to insist on an equation of their unsubstantiable beliefs with objective science is a negation of rationalism.

As I quoted a line which read "And it should terrify us." I don't think any of the members of the forum would think this is anything but an op-ed piece, or that the desired impact was anything but overt. I disgree with your statement that "Anti-science is different than dismissive of climate change and evolution" - leaving aside climate change (which even on a science forum is a touchy subject) - to openly oppose evolution is an anti-science position. "How old do I think the Earth is? I don’t have any idea. I think it’s pretty old. It goes back a long long ways. I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long ago the Earth is. I hear your mom was asking about evolution. It’s a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it. In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our programs." A little bit of googling finds the whole quote from Perry - that is an anti-science standpoint. Funding, Obama's view etc are chaff - the piece tries to show that one of the leading republican candidates is anti-science and I find that worrying. This is alongside the fact that Bachmann was either joking about a hurricane that killed over 20 people or honestly thought it was sent by god to "get the attention of politicians" - depending on whether you believe her or her spindoctors

[math] x/sin(x) + x = pi [/math] [math] \frac{x}{sin(x)} + x = \pi [/math] You need a frd slash \ in front of pi to make it into the greek script and \frac with the top and bottom enclosed in {} PS by the way the board seems to strip out forward slashes when you inspect others latex

You're right - I was not precise; all the really big primes so far discovered are Mersenne primes and were tested because they might be a Mersenne

sysD - I think you have more points wrong (either typos or in the question as given). Either as DocRock explained you have a question asking for high order equations, or if you are meant to be looking for a cubic (ie x to power three) then there is something wrong. On your graph - of course the x axis intercepts are correct, they are the roots that you based your equation on - they could not be wrong. The turning points are wrong! [math] f(x) = (-1/8)(x+4)(x)(x-6) [/math] [math] y=\frac{-x^3}{8}+\frac{x^2}{4}+3x[/math] [math] \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{-3x^3}{8}+\frac{x}{2}+3[/math] local minima and maxima will be when derivative equals zero - using quadratic solution when x equals [math] \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}[/math] [math] \frac{-1/2 \pm \sqrt{(1/2)^2-4(-3/8)(3)}}{2(-3/8)}[/math] simplify to (by multiplying through by -8/2) [math] \frac{2 \pm -4(\sqrt{(2/8)+(36/8)})}{3}[/math] sort out sqrt [math] \frac{2 \pm -4\sqrt{19/4}}{3}[/math] take a factor of two into sqrt [math] \frac{2 \pm 2\sqrt{19}}{3}[/math] and separate for ease of reading [math] \frac{2}{3} \pm \frac{2\sqrt{19}}{3}[/math] Now those turning points do not meet up with yours - ie (4,8) is no longer a turning point and neither is (-2,-2)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general I guess this is probably old news for the scientifically aware in the USA - but for an outside observer it is a bit worrying

Craxshot is correct - but I assume it is a typo. The y value at x=-2 is (I guess) -2 . This potentially allows only 2 turning points at the coordinates given - if the point is (-2,2) then three turning points are a minimum and equation cannot be a cubic - and whilst Dr R is correct, I am willing to bet that it is otherwise question is endless. bearing in mind that there is at least one typo - could the OP check all the points? hey, if possible put up a scan of the question Further more - and I stand to be corrected for faulty memory/intuition - are not cubics point symmetrical around the point of inflection (which must be x=1); and these points clearly are not symmetrical around point at x=1. So either Dr R is correct and it is just a portion of a higher order polynomial (of which you have found a lower order polynomial factor) - or you have more than one typo in the OP

True, but you can't have a swim in a parabolic mirror once you have taken your photos. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a bucket of water filled to the brim - wouldn't that have much the same effect, even if with less light gathering area. Follow-up - would you get enough light from starlight to take an entire hemisphere nightsky photo ie without needing to leave shutter open so long you get rotation?