imatfaal

To be clear - that's a no. I understand you have cited experts in earlier sections - but you were claiming a lack of attention to specific arguments, this was one of them that you highlighted - is there no basis for it? I disagree; to claim that uninterest implies a lack of disinterest is a slur - especially when directed at a scientist.

Damn - that's the best answer so far!

Do you have a references detailing how the non-uniformity of the earth can explain frame dragging? I will be interested in the experimental confirmation of frame-dragging around the earth which ties in with the notion it is caused by "earth's topographical and crust density irregularities". I presume that the same paper will explain a new alternative method of formation of the relativistic jets observed around black holes (and possible neutron stars), which is presently explained using the (now debunked in your eyes) Lense-Thirring effect. As blackholes and neutron stars are the smoothest and homogeneous things about, it is interesting to speculate how surface and crustal irregularities explain observed phenomena. SonT and the other mods deserve better than this sort of slur.

http://physicsworld....icle/news/46734 o xkcd

the idea is that he ascended bodily into heaven. no sj would not know that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Ascension

But Pan - Marq is correct, an object moving at the same speed as your ether will feel no force. Terminal velocity due to gravity would be the velocity of the ether - this is clearly not the case - if it was we could all have fun jumping from planes without parachutes. Even on speculations you cannot get away with "a continuous force of 32 ft. per second" - feet per second (distance.time^-1) is a speed or a velocity, and not a force (mass.distance.time^-2). Dimensional analysis is always useful when making formula/equations

Its funny how the mind does that - and how difficult it can be to stop it. Everything is clear in one's mind and there is no confusion - yet in typing/speaking the name (and in my case it is normally a name) an error occurs

Surely the Austrian Pauli rather than the Italian Fermi? I also believe Fermi was a nice bloke and very supportive of student whereas Pauli had the reputation of being a bit of a b*#'@/*

J C Mac - cool, thanks for that. Makes sense when I read it - I think I was unable to stop considering the huge mass of the train and break it down to a lift/drag weight/friction comparison, where as you point out it becomes clear you would struggle to even reach tires on asphalt.

i agree with you uncool - I was being facetious.

No sorry - as I said I am no expert, in truth I looked at it and ran a few examples to work out what it meant - whether I have ever seen it before is doubtful

No one is even suggesting that - I would give my eye-teeth to be on the ground floor of even a small advance in knowledge - its just I am pretty certain that this isnt it but why assuming this and that... - ok - well said. what I am saying is that whilst a variable is not constrained by the theory - it is possible that it will be chosen in order to fit reality. whilst this is not necessarily curtains for a theory it does mean that you need to show that this chosen parameter works through out no not all - I think your model is wrong. But I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand and not help you either prove it right - or come to understand that it cannot be right. You offered a mathematical part-proof (which is far more that most on this forum) and for that reason I engaged

No - because you have not asked him if he is a liar. You have to assume that he can make a logical thought progression in his head (ie "what would a liar say") - you also assume that he says the opposite of what he believes through that logic to be the truth Uncool Yeah - not sure it is much less convoluted than mine tho! You could argue that you question could be compressed without loss to "what door leads to heaven" - at which point it collapses. But it has that element of self-reflexivity.

Airbrush - the rate of increase was not uniform. different drivers caused different rates of expansion - as an example the inflationary period is posited to have seen an increase in universal volume of around 10^78 in the time between 10^-36 second and 10^-32 seconds

It would need some form of self-interaction in order to disperse it's kinetic energy - otherwise it would never clump it would stay in motion. The fact that the presumed clouds of dark matter give off no heat/radiation makes it possible that it does not have this form mechanism to shed energy which normal matter does have.

You got a citation/backup for those claims. They seem counter-intuitive - and whilst I realise that much that is counter-intuitive is also true - these seem to be pushing that limit.

CUP is a part of Cambridge University - so if anyone is gonna be making money out of academic work perhaps it is correct that the universities should be the beneficiaries

It definitely wouldn't catalyse a fusion reaction; in the normal/chemical sense of the word a catalyst is not consumed in the reaction. As SonT said - it often forms an intermediate step/compound, but it reverts to original form and is preserved by the end of the reaction.

the problem with this calculation is that that the one sixth figure is reached by an unexplained presumption : The squishyness needs to be tamed. My interpretation of pushing to a logical limit would be that the nucleons squich together completely approximating a sphere - then the ratio of each nucleon in contact would be damn close to half (2.3:2.5 basis constant volume). Non-squishy nucleons would have single point contact - so you have the potential to vary your ratio from almost zero to half. With that much variation then you can prove anything you damn well like - and that is a problem; cos it means you can prove nothing!

MigL - could you explain where your logic differs: 'If you were a lier which door would you recommend I take' Guard - Truthteller Internal hypothetical dialogue - 'if I were a liar I would say the bad-door which is on the RIGHT' External dialogue - "the RIGHT door" opposite - you take the LEFT door result - safety Guard - Liar Internal hypothetical dialogue - 'if I were a liar I would say the bad-door which is on the RIGHT' External dialogue - "the LEFT door" opposite - you take the RIGHT door result - tiger food The lying guard must lie

http://alsos.wlu.edu/information.aspx?id=289 I think it is pretty much an open question - that will never be able to be firmly resolved in either direction

rktpro This really isn't my scene - but to get the ball rolling and discussion going. The mode is the most common observation - but when grouped frequencies are used it is the most commonly observed category. To get a single figure - rather than a group - you can use the above calculation, but it is an approximation. in very simplistic terms you are judging how far though the modal category your single figure mode lies - you do this by taking the beginning of the category (L) and adding on a proportion of the width of the category (h). this proportion that you add on (fm-f1)/[(fm-f1)+(fm-f2)] is very basically how much bigger the mode cat is than the previous category, compared to the sum of the differences to the previous and next category. examples - if the category 9 is the modal category, and cat8 frequency is just a bit smaller and cat 10 is tiny; then the mode will be at the lower end of cat 9. if cat 8 and cat 10 are equal then the mode will be in the middle of cat9 etc. Sorry above a bit rambling - hope it gets things started. and Khaled - a link to a page on calculus purely because the OP included the word derived??

Of course! I thought I was merely giving an exposition of the actions of capitalism - rather than a criticism. The fact that one may be read as the other perhaps displays my political leanings

d4 indeed

I still don't see how to make it any simpler. I agree that MigL will get eaten by the tiger if he asks that question to a liar and then does opposite [ an imagined liar would recommend the bad door - and the liar you question will tell you the opposite of that ie the good door - and you do the opposite ie the bad door] Questions must, I think, have a degree of self-reference. It is this self-reference (or reference to the other guard - same thing really) that means that the liar and the truth-teller give the same answer.