imatfaal

! Moderator Note pittsburghjoe - please bear in mind that many of those you are talking to are professional research scientists with further degrees in the subject; talking about embracing ignorance and questioning whether any who disagree can be real physicists is very close to breaching our rules on slurs and insults; this line of debate is also fallacious in its logic. We are also growing very tired of the gush of arguments from incredulity, from ignorance, and via ridicule. Can you move to more constructive and critical positions or at least provide a clearer summary of your points of contention with modern quantum theory? Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

Bell's test was devised to show that EPR's idea of local hidden variables was incorrect. Simple tests that show a difference between classical predictions and quantum mechanical measurements would still fall foul of EPR's claim that the results could flow from some non-classical but still locally hidden variable. What was Bell's genius was to realise that a simple statistics test can show the possibility of a set of data ie which distribution of results can theoretically be produced from a single joint distribution. Simplistcally, EPR claimed there could be no spooky action at a distance (this was the bit of entanglement they attacked) and that all the predictions of entanglement worked just as well if you had a simple locally set and valid hidden variable. Bell's Theorem provided a way to test this - but you have to be in a regime in which the distributions will be different for a local hidden variable and for a pair of qm entangled particles; thus the Aspect experiment etc which do leverage this statistical fact

And the fact that the jpg has SCAM written in the bottom right hand corner

So my "nice answer" is definitely correct. Like it.

OK - ignoring the elephant in the room that you are contradicting basic geometry... if N = xy which I think you said it did. Then N, x, and y CANNOT form a triangle. There are no primes where xy<x+y; for a triangle the length of the long side must be less than the sum of the other two sides. There is no angle AFC. And it turns out you are contradicting even more basic geometry.

Sorry but I haven't read to the end of your longish post but immediately I would say that this is merely an artifact of multiplication and nothing deeper: 011 x 011 ---- 001 (units multiplied) 010 (top unit times lower tens) 010 (lower unit time top tens) 100 (tens multiplied) === 121 [Leading zeros added to make it align] You will always get the pattern of the unit squared + the tens time unit doubled + the tens squared ie 019 x 019 ---- 081 090 090 100 === 361

The Bobster was suspended pending staff review; following review it has been decided to ban permanently. We have very little tolerance for those who come here with an agenda of hate and division - especially when there is a duplicitous guise of a simple quest for scientific knowledge. The ScienceForums.net will ALWAYS be open for scientific discussion - but we draw the line at allowing bigots to use our good name to mask their vile and false propaganda. edit: sockpuppet of Mikemikev

! Moderator Note I have hidden the OP as it is a copy of a Danish Website posting - we do not want to encourage wholesale copying of work. There is the legal copyright issue (we have no intention of investigating the licence under which published) there is also the ethical issue (we do not want to take content out of its intended time and place). I would also ask Bobster to confirm that he isn't Mikemikev (aka under lots of other names). Thread locked pending Bobster's positive confirmation that he isn't mikemikev

Wow - I didn't think it would be possible to misunderstand a correct answer so badly. Four equidistant points are at the vertices of a tetrahedron - exactly as DrKrettin described. Your purported answer is so needlessly complex that I doubt any have even bothered to check its validity; the first sentence itself is fairly meaningless and I stopped there.

There are two answers And the first nice answer I can think of with a cursive script needs buses running to 1000. Still not perfect - but that is the Singaporeans fault for using nice digit one's

After a few normal posts. Quote it without the links?

1. If this is a round about way of asking "is everything we know of and think we know of made of elements from the periodic table?" then the answer is a qualified "no". We postulate in physics at least two things which exist in macro quantities for long periods which are not made from elements; neutron stars have no (or a v tiny ratio of) protons nor electrons - however the material did start as normal elemental stuff; dark matter is thought not to be normal matter at all - but we don'tknow what it actually is other than that 2. There is also anti-matter which is flip version of matter with opposing charges all around - the same as our table of elements but -ve for +ve and + ve for -ve 3. If this means - can enough chemists with enough resources make everything from bare materials? Not at the moment no they cannot. It is far easier to get new dna by getting two people to bonk themselves silly than by sitting down with a chemistry kit; it will remain so for a very very long time. 4. Not sure why whether the number of chemicals is infinite or not matters. The number of potential chemicals is high - but as any sensible enumeration would be in the observable universe then there is a limit to the number of hadrons and thus the total number is computable and just a very big number

Sorry SciFactSeeker but another non-answer to follow: I don't understand the topic well enough to post here (I will guess about physics and use 25 year old memories to post about anatomy - but this topic is too fraught with pitfalls to post lightly). However, I will post a cautionary note in my capacity as a netizen who spends far too much time on fora. I consider myself fairly well versed in the ways of the net, my critical thinking skills are honed, I read a few scientific journals regularly, and I have published in my own area; but, I find it very hard to discern the good science from the bad propaganda in this area of inquiry. There are too many (and damn - I mean only one would be too many) who post and write deliberately to deceive. There is a small group of erudite and persuasive racists who spend all their free time posting half-truths, deliberate obfuscation, cleverly ambiguous vile rubbish on the net. It is very hard for even an educated layperson to spot the errors, to see where they are misusing data, to understand the lie. Tread very carefully, and do not be disheartened. I would stick almost entirely to purely academic sources - I would be very surprised if you cannot join up to an open learning course that would equip fully. Please continue to ask questions here - but whilst we have experts who teach this subject at a university level they might not always be on hand. I know the above will read as patronising - but hey-ho - I think it is important to say; in physics we have crackpots who are convinced they are right - in this area of genetics, in climate science, and in evolutionary science we have devious little shits who lie, cherry-pick, and confuse in order to plant false ideas, and sow the seeds of hatred and fear.

Open Word Crtrl-N I have just typed this in word to check. This is bold, underlined, italic, and all three. Ctrl-A Ctrl-C Open Notepad Ctrl-V Ctrl-A Ctrl-C Move to Firefox click in reply window Ctrl-V I have just typed this in word to check. This is bold, underlined, italic, and all three. "Lose the formatting" - well yes. And frankly, we would prefer that. "Resulting file is gibberish" - firstly who cares (on the whole the membership want you to post ideas not attach files with ideas in) secondly, no the file is not gibberish, and finally, the paste is perfect. Now please - can we see this revolutionary idea.

! Moderator Note Sorry but SF.n is not the forum for a discussion of this topic. We are a science forum and require a factual base for all discussions. Please do not reopen a thread on similar lines Thread Locked

! Moderator Note Read the rules of the speculation before you post in here again. Thread locked.

! Moderator Note Nah - Speculations forum is not for the gathering of wild guesses. There are rules and guidelines to this forum; this thread breaches a fair number Thread Locked

Post without them. Really, links are useful as reference sources and we are just as happy for you to explain those in plain text as you would in a paper

Nothing deliberate (why would we?) You say "in the past" yet your profile says one post - which is it? I can paste from Word - although I would admit the functionality of the pasting buttons is not flawless.

yes. too much spam in first posts - posting of live links is disabled.

Surely the way to think is that the circumference is the differential of the area - just as the surface area is the differential of the volume for regular 3d shapes

In answering EPR question then yes it was entirely appropriate. The position was that a predetermined but hidden local variable could reproduce the effects of QM without the need for spooky action at a distance. I need to think more about your ideas regarding probabilistic local variables. FYG In your example, from a first (and very hungover) glance, you seem to be conflating electron spin (measured by Stern-Gerlach etc - with entangled being up / down on a chosen axis) and photon polarization (tested by transmission at a polarizer - and entangled normally being orthogonal)

well... 1. if you are talking smooth muscle then there are loads (not least uterus in just over 50pct of pop) 2. if you allow sphincters then there are more than four 3. if you are only allowing striated muscle then I am yet to see a good candidate (Function - occipitofrontalis is surely two paired muscles; look at the occipital and frontal bellies)

Five minutes whilst on a phone call - took longer to write the post. - wrote the formula in word - did multiple find and replace (ie find e replace d+k4; find k3 replace k2+m etc.) - simplified - noticed that k coeff went up with n-1 - noticed that m coeff didn't - did n=6 and n=7 to find out m coeff - could now tell m coeff was triangular number of n-2 - thought about it till was sure that assumptions looked correct But quite liked the idea - seemed horrifically complicated but resolved down quite quickly; that's assuming I didn't screw up

Muscular section of the diaphragm is not symmetric, left and right lungs are not identical, liver, stomach, intestine; but struggling to think of standard muscles. Obviously missing the simple ones... Orbicularis Oris - but apparently that is not one simple muscle but 4 quadrants The sphincters are all I can think of that are muscular and not paired. But there are loads of those: anal, cardiac, pyloric, oesophageal