imatfaal

Just curious about the variation - here are the results from the UK jury A clear win for Ninja - polling over 50pct of the vote (no need for AV here gentlemen) Not sure if I am doing the right thing cos everyone else's results are so different

I am not up to date on modern US law and politics - but dont ask dont tell absolutely did not mandate open homosexuality - it provided a avenue of executive discretion to look the other way. The act to repeal DADT was passed in a normal way and is not a decree - the President has not yet affirmed that the enaction of the bill will not harm the ability of the armed forces to execute their duty and until he does then it will remain in abeyance. His delay might be seen as Executive power being used over the legislature - but when the armed forces are concerned that is the rule rather than the exception. Your points on Qadafi and Hitler are perhaps more apposite and I tend to agree that he and his senior leadership are in a "group-think" mode and collectively believe they have passed the point of no return. Only those with enormous confidence, personal charisma, and utter self-belief can go against the deluge in critical situations like this - but as in the past both Hitler and Qadafi were described in those terms perhaps no one can really stop the juggernaut of state once it is launched on a dangerous venture.

Di Daley (good welsh name that) - the more I read of GR (and incidently QM as well) the more I think that quite often simple problems do not admit to simple answers. And it isn't lack of knowledge or inability to explain on the half of the physicists - it's just a mound of learning, maths and mindset that is not easily transferred.

For a disease rightly or wrongly associated with the male homosexual community a more reasoned choice of words might have been preferable.

Athena - surely politics comes from polis - the city. And I don't believe, but will stand to be corrected, that polis is derived from Apollo (I think the polis predates Apollo). Apology comes from apo logos - which is basically "speech from" "words out of" and came to mean a story or account and after than apologoimai (speech on behalf of) and finally apologia (speech in defence). To equate democracy in some idealized form to rule of reason is incorrect - it is, always has been rule of the people not the enlightened.

The glib answer is that the nearly massless base stations are the things that move (they would be if they were massless) and the two massive projectiles remain virtually stationary, the two base stations do not attract each other as they are massless and the two projectiles converge with no shenanigans in the momentum. But I am being silly - I understand your problem - it seems very nicely formulated and I await a better explanation than mine.

Look at this page Tangent - you don't need to calculate angle of tangent to curve. You need to either break out the graphing and understand the pictures, or delve into calculus and algebra.

Rktpro - if you had searched Wikipedia on heat dissipation which is what I typed then there would be no confusion.

maths teachers like to give you questions just outside your experience. plot a few graphs and think about what doc rock, djb and random said above. Think back to geometry - what is a line that just touches a circle? - and what angle is it to the radius? then go back to random's post and draw another graph once you have twigged - its just algebra

[math] \frac{a}{b} [/math]

Thanks for that DJ - will try and get my head around it. Seeing the names brahmagupta and fibonacci being bandied around in the article - i think my estimate of a couple of nights to generalise might have been a little ambitious.

Is this an interesting question? - the answer is clearly 18 the numbers are 33 96 159 222 285 348 411 474 537 600 663 726 789 852 915 978 1041 1104. A few minutes looking at it and you can realise that the coincidence has to repeat every 63 - and that 33 is the lowest possible, a quick check on excel and its shown. I guess that given a few sleepless nights I could work out how to do this for any set of original numbers (or maybe I couldn't) - but it just seems boring. I am just curious - is there anything noteworthy about this?

I think - and I really don't know for sure - that temperature in a cloud of gas as you describe will tend to an equilibrium of homogeneity. But this cannot be universal otherwise no universe. I think what would happen is that heat would flow from the hot to the cold rather than the cold getting colder. because it acts on two bodies without reference to their heat loss. There is bound to be some critical separation after which two areas of a gas cloud being to act as distinct entities. The search for anisotropic remains of the early universe is an important one - our models move from an expanding but smooth to a lumpy universe, and it seems these might well be the result of quantum fluctuations magnified by the inflationary phase. With greater resolution we can now observe, use, quantify anisotropies in the CMBR.

OK Here's a quote from the book you said supports your case Leonard Susskind -"The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" Back Bay Books/NYC 2008 - Paperback edition 2009. page 45 Which bit of that makes you think that Alice doesn't cross the event horizon? Your flippant answer to my serious question of from where and how Charlie is watching the black hole evaporate makes it quite clear that you have no understanding of different reference frames and seem to think there is a privileged reference frame from which everything is uniquely objective. If you did understand this you would realise that you can say nothing about observations of blackholes without specifying the frame of reference . That's selective quoting - a few lines down the same article explains. The article also makes it quite clear that the 6.25 light hours is an upper bound based on orbital data - not an estimate on the actual size. I have quoted below a section from the article upon which the wikipedia figure of 6.25 light hours is taken - to make it clear that the weight of scientific opinion agrees with the existence of the supermassive BH A M Ghez et al "Stellar Orbits Around the Galactic Center Black Hole" Astrophys.J.620:744-757,2005. page 22 available at http://arxiv.org/PS_...6/0306130v2.pdf

ok I am giving you too much help - but here goes, from here on though it hints only ;-) your answer is correct but clumsy ( and that line starting with "so ..." is just plain bad!!!) - but this is how I would do it [math] log_2(9)*log_3(4)*log_4(8) [/math] [math] \frac{log9}{log2}*\frac{log4}{log3}*\frac{log8}{log4}[/math] change to a single base [math] \frac{log9}{log3}*\frac{log4}{log4}*\frac{log8}{log2} [/math] rearrange [math] 2 * 1 * \frac{log8}{log2} [/math] simplify the obvious division of logs to numbers [math] \frac{2*log(8)}{log(2)} = \frac{2*log(2^3)}{log(2)} = \frac{2*3*log(2)}{log(2)} = \frac{6 log(2)}{log(2)} = 6 \frac{log2}{log2} = 6 [/math] No need for a calculator. I haven't specified which base - because with these operations it doesn't matter, at no point did I need to evaluate a log If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->

During the panic about 20 years that there was a NEO that was a bit too near-earth for comfort - the leading runner to deflect it from earth was a huge array of mirrors focussing suns light on a small spot - this vapourised and expanded causing a reactive force

If you can get the time it is in the air - then you can work out the max height and the vertical speed. the horizontal speed - of course you need to measure how far away the bombs are landing. Come back with those and someone will help you out

Two things - Firstly in general, you need to learn how to convert log base x into log base y, cos dealing with separate bases is a real pain. I would convert both to natural logs. Secondly, in particular [math] log_3(9) = ? [/math] I think any multiplication or division you come across will be looking for a re-arrangement into something more manageable rather directly tackling the problem

the question was from where are you observing it - and how are you observing it.

the question was from where are you observing it - and how are you observing it. I have the book and have read the opening of it (been delayed) - he is quite clear that Alice goes through the EH.

But as Klaynos said the light year is the distance travelled in a vacuum - this is very closely approximated in space but not the same. The confusion is that a lightyear is not how far light travels in outerspace in a year - but how far light travels in a vacuum in a year. To all intents it is the same thing - but as soon as space gains a measurable density and refractive index then there is a difference; but this does not change the speed of light in vacuum which is constant, nor the lightyear, but it does change how much distance light will travel in space in a certain time.

Oh Yeah - I understood what you where doing, I was saying you should make it clear that you do. At the level I learnt up to , and the level you are at, much of the credit given by teachers is for you demonstrating knowledge of methods and understanding the implementation and the logic as to why they work. If you leave this out then you are risking the marker assuming that you do not understand the methodology especially if you make an arithmetical error and your final answer is awry.

Yes - and from outside the EH we observe Alice falling towards the EH- what we do not observe is crossing. The 'event' in question is crossing not falling towards. From where are you observing the black hole evaporate? and how? This is grasping at straws. The same theory that states that an outside observer in an accelerated reference frame will not see Alice cross the EH says that Alice's space time sends her through the EH without her noticing any local change. Well in Susskind's lectures at Stanford he quite clearly states that Alice goes straight through the EH. This is repeated in the black hole war - I will dig out a a page number. The information that Alice entails and how to deal with it is highly debatable and contested - but not crucial here. Not in the sense that you are debating it. This is covered in undergrad level text books (look at Hartle An Intro to E's GR ) . I notice you haven't bothered to comment on my notes on proper time v coordinate time and your incorrect choice of coordinates.

The current thoughts on the great prehistoric monuments in NW Europe suggested that the building of the henges and avenues was the work of the entire community (admittedly prob not the leaders) in a form of social enterprise. Whilst the early tribes did hold slaves it is not thought that the monuments were built quickly by forced labour, but more likely done over generations in a festive spirit. As someone who has saved up cash and holiday to go and build a bridge and a school - I can empathise with this concept of a community project.