imatfaal

1. Draw a diagram - it always helps 2. Write down what you know - in terms of u1=0 u2=0 etc 3. Write down the suvat equations - uvast equations. 4. There is an equation that combines just known quanitities - as a hint it will tell you the acceleration ms^-2

Listing inputs and PE A. Start / finish at the floor 1. So you lift it to the top and if you dropped it off the side it would fall ten metres 2. it drops through the water 3. You expend energy to make it expand 4. It floats to the surface and if you dropped it off the side it has ten metres to fall 1. -100 joules 2. 0 joules (ball loses/water gains) 3. -20 joules 4. +100 joules seems to me you have expended 20 joules to end up where you were. If you are thinking of inserting ball through some gate at the base of the tank think how much energy that would take - wanna guess?

Surely the problem is that you are doing a conservation of energy audit and not returning to the same situation? You start with the ball in the water and then claim you have more potential energy gained than you expended in raising the water column / decreasing the density of the ball. But you should start and end with the ball in the same position. Let us take a start point as the ball on the floor next to the column - that either involves 1. lifting the ball to the top of the column in order to drop it in the top 2. Pushing it in the bottom which means raising the water column by a lot more than the decrease in density causes.

Whilst not the same it strikes me as very similar to the travelling salesman which is np-complete. The fact that even a simplifed version (just the four pockets of the RHS and middle) took me lots of attempts to find my preferred solution which I am by no means sure is the minimal solution makes me think scaling is very very difficult and proof even more so - which again sounds reminiscent to tsp

To be honest so am I - decided to check non-symmetrical when I split the puzzle into two to simplify. The LHS connects 3 holes the RHS connects 4 holes - one of both in common; rather than each side connecting 4 with two of each in common And can anyone tell me a nice online app / freeware that would allow me to draw that accurately and easily?

Ah - I see what you are getting at. Yes; but that is due to your choices being random rather than it being a 50:50. You have a choice with an English coin for it to land edge or face; if you choose at random you have a 50:50 but that is due to your choice being random and you will be right when you choose face and wrong when you choose edge. It is not however a 50:50 when someone has read the question and realised that it is only likely to land face. If you think it is a 50:50 choice can we play for money?

agree completely with iNow and Tar (not sure I have ever been in that confluence of ideas before). It is a temporary blip - not a failure. Make sure it increases your fortitude. You are stronger than your cravings

! Moderator Note granpa last chance - answer the question.

No. Think about it - Brazil vs Steeple Sinderby Wanderers of (NW league 2); do you seriously think that out of a hundred games Brazil would win 50 and Steeple Sinderby win 50? Cos that is what a 50:50 choice is

a = sqrt (.211^2+.789^2) = .8167 b = sqrt (.211^2+.211^2) = .2984 c = 1/[sqrt(3)] =.57753 d = 1 - 2*(1/[2*sqrt(3)] = 1 - 1/sqrt3 = .4226 2*a+b+4*c+d = 4.664

I can do it in 4.76 units Nah - I can do it in 4.66 units. Will post diagram when at full pc

It is not a 50:50 chance anymore than [win lottery]:[don't win lottery] is a 50:50. It is a process with two outcomes - it they were equally likely then the chances would be 50:50; but the chances are not equal and the odds are not 50:50. Any final position of two outcome process can be simply described - but that doesn't mean that each position is equally likely. 50:50 is a description of the likelihood of each event and states that out of a 100 trials 50 times one thing happens and 50 times the other happens; thus if the likelihoods are not even then using the term is incorrect. In essence probability is an estimation of how many times something would happen if the trial was to be repeated a huge number of times - now that is impossible with football matches because each game is different (which is why we love them). You never get half a head and half a tail when you toss a coin - you get a head or a tail; but if you repeat it enough times you get around the same number of heads as tails - 50:50. You could equally say that rolling a d6 gives a chance of getting a 6 or not - two outcomes therefore 50:50; this is clearly nonsense. If we repeat the trial enough times we get a 6 one sixth of the time

Not sure you do. Local time - ie time within the observers frame of reference never slows down; relativity changes nothing within the observer's own frame. But when a different frame of reference is viewed from a frame in relative motion then in the moving frame ( remember your frame is always stationary with respect to you) clocks will run slow and lengths will be contracted. And simplifying and ignoring lots of complicating factors the gap between each tick is lengthened when the clock is moving but the observer is stationary

I seem to recall that the amount of deflection of light that is tangential to earth's surface due to gravity of the entire earth is about 2*10^-7 of a degree - you wanna do that experiment scaled down to the mass of a plate? You wanna try and solve the equations for a system like an rotating precessing oscilating plate, on a rotating planet, etc. when we struggle to do solve for all but the simplest systems. And it won't get you anywhere in your question as it will merely be testing the deflection of light in accordance with the predictions of GR - which could be via intrinsic curvature or it could be via another explanation that we have not yet come across. To probe spacetime - rather than just check GR - you would need to come up with a feature/prediction that is absent from GR

! Moderator Note Hey hey - criticise the arguments sure; but do not take the leap to making characterisations of other members and judging their argument flawed because of it. That is both against the rules and a logical phallusy Let's move on please

"Do you have any problem with that?" Yes. The path is contracted and the muon is unaffected in the frame of the muon. The path is unaffected and muon (if it were not a point particle) is contracted in the frame of the earth. Nothing is contracted nor dilated within its own frame

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. BTW - non-answers to simple questions will not be tolerated. Sensei asked a reasonable questions - answer it please. Do not respond to this moderation other than via the reporting system

SwansonT has written in his blogs about his atomic clocks begin so accurate that they easily discern the difference between gravitational potential at Denver lab and Washington DC lab (hopefully that is right) - and that the most accurate clocks would run at noticeably different tick rates even between being placed on the floor and the desktop. That is time dilation due to difference in gravitational potential and is basic GR and effects of spacetime / it also relies on QM with regards to the actual mechanism of the hyperfine whatever-it-is

"All that being said, I repeat: as of this writing there are no reproducible and generally accepted experiments that are inconsistent with SR, within its domain of applicability."

I have watched the TT Zero - and whilst it seems calmer than the standard bikes it is sometimes a lot scarier because you spend more time looking and yet have less awareness of the position of the bike. They are ghostly quiet once you have been within 200 yards of a screaming superbike - and yet the TT lap record is over 119 mph average (on a wickedly curving and climbing course). Wicked cool

"Because it is the SAME distance (as viewed by the 2 different frames)" No No NO! Distance is dependent on the relative speed of the frames of reference of the object and the observer. It is the same atmosphere - but not the same distance

We have had several members recently claiming to be justified in using insulting language about another member due to previous encounters at other fora. Just to reiterate the ban on insulting language is absolute - there is no just cause. We are a discussion forum and everyone arrives with a clean slate; we do not look at reputations we look only at the content of posts here at SF.net. It is probably also worth bearing in mind that if you need to stoop to insults you have probably already lost the argument and members will view those casting aspersions with a touch of scorn

So it is just incredulity born out of ignorance. I have no idea of the signal algorithms used to extract data from the measurements - but at a rough guess I would say that they were searching for signals that were replicated in both detectors and (whilst this is massively simplified) subtracted noise that appeared in only one detector. Your query regarding left side and right side would be answered in that on the left side the measurements were in both signals and on the right side it is just noise from one signal. Mechanical damping is necessary because otherwise even a distinguishable signal is swamped by noise - whilst post-observation processing can remove some noise your signal to noise ratio must be of such a level that you can actually pickup the signal with your equipment. Take another - massively simplfied - example you are seeking to tell whether an orchestra 20 miles away is playing Mozart or Beethoven; your most sensitive microphone might just pickup enough sound when the wind is in the right direction, the cloud level is correct, the orchestra is at a loud section etc. Now it is clear that you have more chance of this working in a quiet wilderness rather than placing your delicate microphones at an Airport where the first jet engine would blow their internals to smithereens

Ok - Have written a record of a inconsequential minor event from this morning. The memory test will be remembering to re-write in a few days time

! Moderator Note Blue89 Stop insulting other members - there is never an excuse. And please try to react in a more measured manner to criticism and questions. Your use of English is making it harder and harder to comprehend your posts - and your response to requests for clarification are not sensible. Do not respond to this moderation except through the reporting system - and only if you feel the moderation was unjustified.