imatfaal

! Moderator Note Farolero Nonsense post hidden - please do not respond to this moderation. Please stay on topic All members - please resist the temptation to enter into an offtopic discussion when a thread is hijacked

I have a feeling I read about the resonant frequency of neutron stars - which would be tied into the speed of sound within a neutron star. I think it was all about neutron star shattering - when a driving gravitational wave causes seismic waves within the star which resonate and cause the crust to shatter giving off a small but very hard gamma ray burst. This happens just before merging and can explain some of the early noise in EMR before the chirp and ring-down that LIGO has now detected in Gravitational waves

And it is a much better book than film/tv series. Although the book shows its age in its attitudes towards and portrayal of different races and cultures. And as the book has a 1962 publishcation date I am not sure if it was inspired by the many-worlds interpretation which in the early sixties had only acaedmic reach - I do not remember any discussion along those lines in the book; but Phillip K Dick was a real prophet so maybe it was.

The third question is quite funky - I am sure there is a straightforward way to solve this but I cannot see it. I did it as follows we know v_fast_0 = 161km/h = 44.72m/s v_slow_0= 29km/h= 8.06m/s S_fast_0= 0 metres S_slow_0=676 metres we can set up equations of S as a function of time (t) and acceleration of the fast train (a_fast) S_slow(t) = S_slow_0 + v_slow_0.t S_slow(t) = 676 + 8.06.t S_fast(t) = S_fast_0 + v_fast_0.t +1/2. a_fast.t^2 S_fast(t) = 0 + 44.72.t + 1/2.a_fast.t^2 we can then set the distance S for both trains to be equal to each other 676 + 8.06.t = 44.72.t + 1/2.a_fast.t^2 this is a quadratic in t - with a second unknown a_fast 1/2.a_fast.t^2 +(44.72-8.06)t - 676 = 0 Similar to the question 2 we only want a solution with a single point in time at which the two distances are equal - a quadratic has a single root when the discriminant equals zero. so for ax^2+bx+c = 0 the discriminant is b^2-4ac - thus in our case we set 0 = (44.72 - 8.06)^2 - 4 . a_fast . (-676) rearrange 4 . 1/2.a_fast . (-676) = (44.72 - 8.06)^2 a_fast = [(44.72 - 8.06)^2] / [4.1/2 (-676)] = -.994 m/s I did a quick model on excel and this seems right - the trains are at 1cm apart at 37 seconds and at some point between 36 and 38 will be at 0m distance apart. You notice that I did not solve the quadratic in t - just used the fact that I knew the discriminant must be zero to find out a_fast. I could then substitute in the value I have obtained for a_fast and solve for t to find the point of closest approach. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=-1%2F2*((36+2%2F3)%5E2)%2F(4*.5*676)*t%5E2%2B36+2%2F3*t-676%3D0

I also don't know where HofI is getting those results from http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.5*.75*x%5E2-35.2x%2B675%3D0 I get the same as you. IMPORTANT BIT If you are getting two results that means the car is passing that point at two points in the future - but you are told it stops there! It is only there once - this is a clue that something is wrong IMHO. I approached the problem using a different motion equation v2=u2+2as You have v0 = 0 and v2=0 and need to find v1 You also know the distance traveled between t0 and t1 and between t1 and t2 -what is more you know the acceleration between these times You can set up two equations [latex]v_1^2=v_0^2+2 \cdot a_{01} \cdot s_{01}[/latex] [latex]v_2^2=v_1^2+2 \cdot a_{12} \cdot s_{12}[/latex] Both equations should solve out to give the same answer for v_1 - they do not. I think the question is wrong

I wonder how many bits you need to implement Shor's Algorithm? Actually just checked and you can implement upto an input of 15 with 5 qubits! Fast factorisation - admittedly of number we can already do in our heads...

! Moderator Note We do not allow members to post merely to drive custom to another site

T2 I think. You are right that the belts follow the dermatomes; the names date back into medieval times - perhaps even classical - and the disease was named because the course of the blisters looked like a belt or girdle. There was an old wives tale that if the blisters came all the way around and met to form an uninterrupted belt around the torso that you would die! Frankly without modern painkillers and aciclovir and a bilateral and long lasting illness - perhaps death was possible

My Herpes Zoster comes and goes when I am ill with something else - luckily it tends to be around my back and waist; BTW the old german name is gurtelrose - red belt (in fact a little check shows me that shingles, and zoster all mean or come from words for belt). My brother and mother always got it across the face. Frankly, next time I get it, I will be glad to put some of my grouchiness on pathological psychosis rather than the fact that it hurts like hell. My memory of its vectors is pretty poor - but Function can correct me if I am wrong - Herpes Zoster when it presents as Shingles is always (?) a reactiviation of the varicella zoster virus from within your own body. So to contradict the OP - you do not catch Shingles. The VZV initial presents as Chickenpox and stays (in nerve cells of some sort) quiescent till the immune system is down at a low point at which time (many many years later) you can come out with Shingles.

It is not so much that they oscillate in space - it is that they almost seem to oscillate between three different mass-types and three different weak-sorts . It is very complex and pretty weird - but there are three mass-types of neutrino (which really is to do with their mass) and three weak-sorts (which we identify through their weak interaction/production) of neutrino (electron, muon, and tau). Different combinations of mass-type give different sorts of neutrino (one neutrino can be a mix of different mass neutrinos - I still don't really 'get' what that means) and vice versa. A weak-sort is the product of a superposition of three mass-types and at the same time a mass-type is a superposition of three weak-sorts. A neutrino which starts off - say - as a muon neutrino (we know because it was the decay product of a W boson to an anti-muon and muon-neutrino) will as it travels oscillate between forms; ie it starts a muon with a certain but unknown blend of mass-types but it will change both the blend of mass-types and its weak-sort as it travels. We can only really know either the sort of the neutrino or the mass-type of the neutrino at the same time - not both The simplistic way of putting it is that neutrino oscillation is the changing between electron-neutrino, muon-neutrino, and tau-neutrino as a neutrino travels. For neutrino oscillation to happen - and we have evidence that it does - then neutrinos must have mass

! Moderator Note OK - Timo. I am going to insist upon seeing a worked example - your equation appears in your very first post and I am still not convinced you have even defined every variable. In your next post would you please repeat your equation with each individual variable elucidated (ie what is quantity it represents, units, etc) and a worked example - we insist on rigor in this forum and without this we may be forced to close down the thread.

! Moderator Note No - Sorry. This is a maths forum not a "visual representation of a stream of consciousness" forum. Members are not here to interpret vague illustrations interspersed with mathematic buzzwords. Please post a question or debating point that members can read and respond to; do not continue with this line of posting. I will lock this thread if this form of post continues Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

Do you have any data on that? I think you might be very wrong

But isn't that the case with almost every scam? People still do fall for them. Did you know that the word 'gullible' isn't in any dictionary...? I guess even a 'wafer-thin' veneer of peer-review is important to some people. I don't really mind the true vanity publishing in which both parties realize that it is merely a financial transaction and there is no pretense towards editing, reviewing, or quality control. But some of these open-access pay-to-publish are sheer scams - they rip off old papers without permission to pad both their pages and their cite count/index, they set up fake sites with look-a-like names to real journals, and I have heard of cases in which the editorial panel are unaware of their own supposed involvement and thus theft of their imprimatur and good name

For all those who actually publish academic papers and are increasingly frustrated and annoyed by the epidemic of pay-to-publish / open access pseudo-journals; here is a lovely proof that sad huge number of these journals are vanity publishing of the worse sort. https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/20/bogus-journal-accepts-profanity-laced-anti-spam-paper/ I won't post screen shots because of the profanity

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the rules / guidelines of that particular forum which are stickied at the top of the board

Wanting privacy from an intrusive state apparatus should not be prevented merely because criminals may also desire it. That's the old "only the guilty have something to hide" argument against making privacy / secrecy the default setting. In the UK we already live in a genetic surveillance society which would not be tolerated in any other free democracy. I wish to subvert the diminishment of the private sphere at every possible opportunity And with regards to the OP - mini-vacuum cleaner on the seats of a bus or train, in a cinema, or pub; the dust bag is now your multiple dna sample

Lovely post Eise

And further to Sensei's point but on a different tack; if there were a difference between the interpretations of quantum mechanics which was so close to the surface then we would have tested it - and then there would be one theory and not multiple interpretations.

Tree-like rather than leaf-like - makes sense; although ferns are the closest. I suppose they are similar to 2d-ish fulgarites; so would it be possible to do on a surface within which the electricity created a permanent form from an amorphous or dust like substrate (similar to the sand being fused to glass in fulgarites - but that requires a lightning bolt). When removed from the unaffected material they would be beautiful.

Seriously good work. Do you have a high resolution photo so we could look at the 'foliation' * of the track. * Not sure if foliation is right word - just kinda made it fit; means (to me at least) acting in a leaf-like manner. Alternative word fernification

Who said any maths was flawed? You stated this "We have already shown that the three coins in the fountain proof is not valid" - Where? You made a few comments about a simplified version of Bell's Inequality (never claiming it was wrong) and I provided the inequality that was actually used. You cannot just come with a claim like that - you need to specify/answer 1 . where is the three coins in a fountain proof? 2 . how is it shown to be wrong? 3 . does this impact on Bell?

Again - similar to your last "discovery" - this is a simple artifact of the number system and multiplication. If you look at the basis of Pascal and Binomial expansion for (a+x)^6 to extend you get as follows [latex]1a^6x^0+6a^5x^1+15a^4x^2+20a^3x^3+15a^2x^4+6a^1x^5+1a^0x^6[/latex] If you set a to be 10 and x to be 1 (ie a is the tens and x is the units in decimal counting) this simplifies to [latex]1\cdot10^6\cdot1+6\cdot10^5\cdot1+15\cdot10^4\cdot1+20\cdot10^3\cdot1+15\cdot10^2\cdot1+6\cdot10^1\cdot1+1\cdot10^0\cdot1[/latex] simplify again [latex]1\cdot10^6+6\cdot10^5+15\cdot10^4+20\cdot10^3+15\cdot10^2+6\cdot10^1+1[/latex] and again 1,000,000 + 600,000 + 150,000 + 20,000 + 1,500 + 60 + 1 = 1,771,561 = 11^6 It works with any number and any power - it is just more obvious when both a and x are one

I provided the correct formulation of Bell's inequality as it is used - please feel free to provide anything that casts doubt on either Bell's Inequality or CHSH Inequality. These are 'just' mathematics - so they can be proved or disproved; feel free

From a quick look I see Studiots produce till n=40 where it fails (1681 = 41^2 = 40^2+41+40) and yours till n=41 (1681 = 41^2= 41^2 - 41+41) But yours produces 41 twice at n=0 and n=1 - so they are equivalent. I am pretty sure a little algebra would prove same [hl] it does