imatfaal

1. Why would the local gravitational field quiver like a jelly fish? Where would the mass energy be coming from / going to to cause this oscillation? Simple planets, stars, blackholes etc just have a gravitational field and do not radiate gravitational waves. To get gravitational waves that can be detected far off you need stupidly extreme events -- like two black holes spinning into each other. I have seen the g wave calculations for a normal binary star and it is a lot lot less than expected - it can simply be treated as one star at the CoM apart from if you are very close. 2.Yes the g waves picked up by LIGO radiated away a vast amount of energy. It was multiple solar masses worth of energy lost in seconds - it was this massive amount of energy radiated away in such a short time that allowed us to measure the waves from so far away. The overall gravitational field will have been lessened by the amount of mass energy radiated away. They lost about 5% of their mass in this event - and for the most violent portion were radiating more power than all the stars in the observable universe. And we only just picked up the signal! 3. How? This event happened billions of light years away and we only have the roughest clue where it happened 4. I think you could probably use solar masses or kilograms for the change. You had (according to predictive and reconstructive modelling) two black holes which, if memory serves, had a combined mass of 59 solar masses - they radiated away about 3 solar masses.

! Moderator Note Enough. You have been told what you did wrong - you disagree. If you don't like the rules of the forum feel free to post elsewhere or start a blog. Thread locked. Do not open another thread to moan about past moderation

We don't like to discuss individual cases like this in the open forum. Things to bear in mind would be that this is a forum for debate which anyone can apply for membership of - and thus there are many levels of academic learning, many different ages, and many different reasons that people join the discussion. Whilst a moderator may step in to stop a troll bogging down the discussion with repeated and distracting questions most of the time the discussions are left to run their course - however we do not like some behaviour and will ask members to refrain. 1. When an honest question is asked of the OP it is expected that the OP will attempt to answer it (in the Speculations forum it is mandatory) - refusal to do, especially an intentionally denigrating refusal, will lead to moderator action. 2. When a moderator places a modnote in the thread and asks that no response to the modnote be made in the thread we expect this request to be followed; you can report the moderation or pm the moderator if you need clarification. If a member responds to the modnote we deem it to be hijacking the thread away from its original topic; this will also tend to lead to moderator action. 3. This forum attempts to keep all discussion friendly and polite - we accept and expect that sometimes this will not be possible and all members may have minor tantrums and spats from now to then - but when a poster starts with an overly aggressive attitude and within a handful of posts is insulting other posters then staff may step in.

Damn - they tell me Einstein was a theist over in the Religion forum and I don't really believe it, but I could cope. But Einstein as a Numerologist - please tell me it ain't so...

No - I'm President Obama

No - because you also have every possible spelling, typographical, mathematical error and every combination of such, of every file in existence, and all of them backwards, and all of them written in every known language, and every cypher, and in pirate speak... The problem isn't whether they will be there - they will be there; but, you can never find them amongst all the chaff

I am pretty sure that I mentioned above that Bell's Inequality is purely mathematical and it is the experimentation which leverages a combination of the inequality with the results that will be obtained from a state of entanglement - ie the statistics / mathematics allows you to say what distributions of results can and cannot be produced from a single joint distribution. Are the pairs of pennies in an entangled unknowable state of superposition? (hint: No) Yet again you seem to have just cherry-picked an equation. You need to show that this actually happens. Or you need to accurately model what happens when a flying disc hits a bar and how that varies with the angle of discs axis with reference to the bar.

I hate the phrase post-factual world; it is so correct and so depressing all in one frightful package. I was maybe being a little idealistic. Perhaps just a few journalists asking those who are baying for blood "Senator, can you just confirm that you never held any confidential emails on a private server before we carry on..." -- that's not gonna happen either is it? At one point, before this story broke, fiverthirtyeight was giving Clinton a 20pct chance of winning Texas - which would just be so funny. So iNow, as the man on the spot, I guess you can now confirm that's another thing that just ain't gonna pan out.

! Moderator Note This thread has taken a turn for the worse. If members want to discuss the shielding effects of various materials then please open a new thread. We cannot allow the discussion of an illegal act - even if only hypothetical. Thread Locked

Seth - I think you are being too dogmatic. As an example take a re-read of Einstein's original formulation of his Special Theory of Relativity. He deliberately sets the scene with two postulates and works from there to create conclusions through a series of mathematically and logically consistent reasoning. Science must work on axiomata because - as you correctly point out - the highest level of evidence we have is objective repeatability; this is a good standard but it is not proof. Thus all new scientific work takes as axiomata (intial postulates which are accepted without further evidence) large amounts of work and theory. It then uses mathematics and a logical framework to advance new ideas which can then be tested empirically. That said; Eise's points above still stand and even more importantly does the fact that various levels of definition have been given and all rejected

Can we agree that all those who feel this is a big deal should also call for ALL past and present holders of Administrative positions should come to SCOTUS and swear/affirm that they have never used private email servers for Govt business? And that any punishment for Clinton (as SofS) would be of a lower level to that of a POTUS or VPOTUS who did the same thing?

Save your money - it comes up with three "mistakes"; two of which are debatable and the third of which is wrong. The problem is that as soon as sentences become at all complex any grammar checker is going to struggle to understand which part of speech is which, where the main verb is, who or what the subject is, or even the obvious flow of the sentence.

If we are talking about possible universes then yes - for our observable universe no. At present and with our best surveys so far (which is one of the Planck surveys IIRC) the universe is flat (angles of triangle add to 180)the bounds of the error inherent in the calculation and measurements. This is not to say that the universe is not curved at an even larger scale - but from looking at the scales we can measure then the most likely scenario is flat, it could be positively curved (angles add to greater than 180) but unlikely or on a huge scale, or negatively curved (angles add to less than 180) even less likely or on an even larger scale. On a local scale there is curvature due to mass energy etc - but on a global scale we cannot see any evidence yet

Yes indeed. All points agreed Which "point is only an argument"? The existence of ingroup superiority, the fact that this superiority could be a religious teaching, or the tendency for this superiority to wane. In total the sentence seems to say that the presence of and/or rationale for ingroup seniority is not an argument against occurrence of ingroup inferiority. This would seem tautological - the creation of a superior subgroup necessitates the remainder being inferior. It is very popular to use long recondite sentences but this must be done with care. Complex, layered sentences should only be utilised when the expression of the ideas is impossible, or at least very cumbersome, if spread over multiple sentences.

BTW - after 10 picks also a perfect square

A balance and a scale I believe - they are depicted in the picture and OP mentioned just those And thanks for reminding me - I had forgotten this puzzle

! Moderator Note Nothing works on paper if you do the sums correctly - there are NO over unity machines, all real world machines are under unity, and even zero friction theoretical models can only reach unity (like a wheel) DR P Open a new thread if you feel you can provide a rigorous calculation giving over unity This thread is now locked.

Yep - I was fantasizing about putting the whole sorry lot up in the dock. Our legislature here in the UK is essentially a rubber stamp of the Executive - a famous jurist once styled UK government as an Elective Dictatorship; once the general election dust has settled and a party with a majority has taken office in government then parliamentary oversight is sorely lacking. The United States seems to have reached the other far extreme - in which a directly elected (remember uk prime minister is not directly elected) President is hamstrung for purely partisan party reasons (ie not policy based but party based).

John McCain who has just said that he will block ANY nomination for the SCOTUS that Clinton might make - in what way does that make him fit to be part of government; let alone POTUS? It is a shame there is not a version of impeachment for Congress - they are palpably failing the American people and deliberately making matters worse in order to throw democratic President into a bad light. I reckon (in UK law only) you would have a fair chance of judicial review of his actions (if he did follow through on his threat) - he and his colleagues would be ultra vires; they have the right to vet and interogate candidates - they do not have the power to remove the responsibility of appointment from the POTUS which would be what they are doing. The immediate and preordained blocking of a proposal would seem to be unreasonable and not rational in the context of their responsibilities - ie no reasonable person acting in a reasonable manner would follow that course of action. Pretty sure this form of judicial oversight is even harder to get done in the USA - and it is unimaginably hard to get in the UK

Glad you said that as I hadn't heard the phrase in actual usage either. My mother (of Southern Irish stock) would also give me an earful for using either - my father ( a Geordie) would just look at me as if I were mad; but then he does that quite a lot anyway.

! Moderator Note Last chance to do the maths and provide a bit of rigour - it doesn't have to be right (in fact if it is right it will show that your OP is incorrect) but it does have to be provided. The devil is in the details in perp motion machines- you can even avoid engaging with friction and just look at the torques. A normal wheel (in the absence of frictions) will continue to turn as it has an angular momementum and has zero external torque - see if you can provide a full (and it must be full) list of the torques on any wheel that you claim to be overbalanced. This must be your next post or the thread will be locked.

I am shamefully aware of being a monoglot. I do remember when working for an elderly Egyptian gentleman (who was more a mentor than an employer) that he started addressing me regularly in Arabic - once whilst the pair of us were trying to find the angle within a recondite shipping dispute I said to him "Mr. Amir you are talking to me in Arabic again" and he replied with a twinkle of laughter "That's because you are thinking more and more like an Egyptian"

I am noticing an increased tendency of the membership to very clever, yet very groan-worthy, puns. I know our forum spam-trap is buggered beyond repair but has our pun-preventer gone kaput as well.

bowel movement

I remember not understanding how young foreign children could speak a foreign language so well