imatfaal

Nice Swiftian response +1

You should be careful of that stuff - the endochronic properties can be quite severe. And pretty sure Africa is only a concept really - and you can travel around and about in Africa

Problem for the IPCC is that whatever they say it will be attacked, holes picked in it. any mistakes blown out of proportion, all possible ambiguities magnified etc. - I know exactly what you mean but the IPCC is on a hiding to nothing trying to prepare documents that vested interests do not attack regardless of the content, layout, and presentation.

Exactly - even the large cruise ships have a maximum complement and passengers getting close to 9,000 and all the infrastructure to entertain, feed, and secure these souls. We can knock them out in a couple of years from the steel being cut to the first guests arriving (yours for a billion dollars)

This line from the specs bugs me a little. Digital zoom normally means a just enlarging a small section of the ccd image - what you want is optical zoom ie lenses. I wonder if it is a mislabelling. I presume it means a x20 magnification lens suitable for close focus and the rest is just using the native iphone zooming. But a x20 mag lens with a iphone camera backing it up sounds very nice all the same. Per others I would check other places on web. Also learning to use an old fashioned microscope is quite fun and you can probably pick up for a couple of quid nowdays - or even make a simple one

I hadn't thought of it like that - but yes; most definitely. A modern kabala

Not always humorous or even intended to be. I knew a Ghanaian once and Backronyms were almost cultural - every politician, country, sin, virtue he could list of the Backronym. He was especially proud of those that worked in both English (which he spoke beautifully) and his mother tongue the name of which I have forgotten. God Has Appointed Nakruma Already - is claimed by many to be the root of the country's name; by others as a backronym

Good - I am quite glad of that. I know these theorists do some pretty hoopy things and I was wondering if...

The glass is more than half full - therefore the liar will say it is empty. My drinking glasses all have a base - half the height of the glass in liquid: ie a six inch glass (table to rim) would have 3inches of liquid (bottom of liquid to surface). This would mean that the glass has half the volume of the base more than a glass which is technically half full Of course hinges on the meaning of this line: "A cylindrical glass has water half its height" I contend that this phrase should be taken to mean that the height of the column of water is half that of the glass itself; otherwise it would be better phrased "A cylindrical glass has water for half its height" which would imply the water stops at half the glasses height.

Yeah - but I made the same mistake EvoN made - after pointing he was using only one set of wheels I used only one wheels worth of thrust

I don't like it; from a quick glom it looks as if you have torque around the CoM - which is wrong.

! Moderator Note Thread Locked if you want a discussion open a new thread without the need for members to download a file.

And Linear algebra on the Photon frame (which doesn't even work in SR) - is there any work / coordinate system that tries to shoehorn this into GR. Or is a photon frame completely incommensurate with GR - ie do we need an entire new system if we want to consider this?

I do think so. But yesterday - Nate Silver the best poll analyst around had the odds as 50:50!! It has shitfted slightly to 54:46 - but still unimaginably close and horrifyingly on a knife edge. I think a boring no big shocks month and a bit will give it to Clinton - but she has shown herself to be anything but teflon-clad and any big problem could hand things to Trump. I hope they get the email thing dealt with at second debate - but I worry that it will be at the last debate in the swing State of Nevada with the Fox News moderator

I thought that would be enough of a hint. A quote from the question "and the normal reaction at EACH of the TWO wheels at A and B respectively" I make that four wheels. Your answer spreads a normal force equalling the force of gravity in the opposite direction over two wheels - one at the front and one at the back

how many wheels does this car have?

. It is dog latin - beloved of schoolboys everywhere (really?) - looks like latin sounds like Latin but isn't A little singing, a little dancing, and a little fizz down the trousers

I was just thinking that - but it does assume no understeer nor oversteer; ie perpendiculars of both sets of tyres pass through same point which is the axis of rotation Also I guess as the OP gave dimensions of the car he may be thinking of rigid body angular momentum of a box - which would make a calculable but probably insignifant (in the face of the other estimations) difference

Thanks for posting that Delta. Revd Martin Luther King and the Black Civil Rights Movement are not widely studied or known about in Europe; most of us - I am ashamed to say - get our knowledge from a few films and superficial media explanations. That letter showed the strength of passion and the deep resolve of Revd King allied with an incredible steely determination. But it also answered questions and refuted arguments that are still prevalent today; the raising of tension, the refusal to continue waiting, and the complicity through complacency of the well-meaning moderate.

You will get better reception if your terminology is standard - if you mean a change then use capital Delta ∆, if you mean a derivative (ie infinitesimal change) use d, and if it is a partial derivative use a curly delta ∂. And unless it is patently obvious also include what that change is in respect to - especially the first usage I am not sure what you mean - but you can run this equation [latex] \frac{t_0}{t_f}=\sqrt{1-\frac{r_s}{r_0}} [/latex] with as many different r_0 as you wish (call them r_1, r_2 etc for convenience here) . This will get you the lots of ratios of t_0/t_f - fairly simple maths can then get you ratios between different observational frames [latex]\left( \frac{t_0}{t_f}\right) \cdot \left( \frac{t_1}{t_f}\right)^{-1} = \left( \frac{t_0}{t_1}\right)[/latex] +1 Well said.

So is it gonna be worth staying up for? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/23/presidential-debate-preparation-trump-clinton http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/first-presidential-debate-0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/business/media/presidential-debate-audience.html?_r=0 http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=66&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80 Can we keep to the debate - rather than immediately rehash old topics . ===== On purely stamina terms - a 70yo and a 68yo who has / has just got over pneumonia both standing under studio lights in an unimaginably stressful situation for 90 mins straight. Will it be a slam dunk for either? I can imagine both candidates doing things that are outside the policy/presentation side of things that would be an election loser (faint under the lights, etc) - but these guys are both used to spotlight. Will there be a substantive point that scores big?

[latex] \frac{t_0}{t_f}=\sqrt{1-\frac{r_s}{r_0}} [/latex] Remember t_0 is the proper time of observer at position r_0 [latex]\frac{d}{dr_0} (t_0/t_f) = \frac{1}{r_0^2 \cdot \sqrt{\frac{-r_s + r_0}{r_0}}}[/latex] I am not sure what you mean by dRt - but the rate of change of t_o/t_f wrto r_0 is given above - it is not a simple inverse relationship. Perhaps someone can check my differentiation No problem - a pleasure so far

! Moderator Note Sorry Thread Locked. You had your chance and you blew it. Do not reopen a thread with the same topic. To be honest please read the rules of the Speculations Forum and ensure you will comply before opening any new thread here

The radial coordinate - r (I have more recently called it r_0 to link it to t_0 ) is simplisitically the distance from the centre of mass of the black hole. Remember these are vacuum solutions to the EFE and thus are not immediately interchangeable into real word situations - but the Schild Solution (around a non-rotating black hole) is very close to describing test masses around a central planet or sun. So in these more real world approximations r is the distance of the observer from the centre of the sun/earth/etc The fastest time is the coordinate time - which is proper time / clock time for a different observer who is at zero gravitational potential. This is technically at infinity - but in real world terms it is far enough from the central mass that gravity becomes unimportant. It is not infinite by any means - some poor sucker stuck on a floating laboratory way past the oort cloud will be very close (but not exactly there), an even more lonesome lab-rat stuck outside the milky way will be even closer, and some super-loner in an intercluster void will be as close as anyone gets.

In the top equation the only variable inputs are t_0 and r. ie proper time of observer and position of observer The two equations are not the same as r_0 is the position of the observer (the radial distance from Centre of Mass or more properly the radial schwartzchild coordinate) and not the schwartzchild radius. I subscripted it 0 to make it clear that t_0 and r_0 were a pair; the radial distance of the observer and the rate of proper time of the observer Measurements at the event horizon are subject to a mathematical singularity when using scwartzchild coordinates - you just cannot do it; it doesnt mean time stops, it means you have to use a coordinate system that doesn't break at the event horizon (eddington finkelstein?)