imatfaal

250+km of start-stop travel at 40km/h + getting to start + getting from end. Need to be able to 100km/h downhill and accelerate upto from corners in just a few seconds (the bikes will go round corners 40-50 Km/h faster than cars). They are in constant investigation - but there is just no car that all the teams are happy with Electric bikes (per TT zero) would be ok for the speed handling - but unsure about the range, and you need a two seater. Electric scooters just not fast enough.

I think the only way you could come up with solutions rather than artificial boundaries (everyone in a circle = all dead -vs- everyone pairs off and the one on the right kills the one on the left = half dead) would be by simulations - At beginning you have x people on the surface of a sphere. - Each takes a step in a random direction or no step at all - When two persons are in reach of each other they i if both have killed - they carry on walking ii if one has killed and the other hasn't - the already-killer is killed and the other now walks away iii if neither has already-killed a coin is tossed to work out which dies / which kill - and one walks away - If more than two people meet then pairwise checks as above are selected randomly until one or more walks away - everyone takes another step - repeat ad nauseam

[ot] I did say I was talking Newtonian - and they only measure proper acceleration; which is the acceleration relative to the freefall. The force relative to freefall when in freefall must be zero thus no acceleration. And no one would claim there is no force on something in the vomit comet (gravity doesn't disappear because a plane describes a parabola) but an accelerometer would read zero because its proper acceleration, the acceleration relative to freefall is zero. For an accelerometer to show a reading there must be a force and thus acceleration other than gravity [/ot]

! Moderator Note disarray 1. Please do not hijack - the admittedly already nebulous - topic. 2. Do not post speculative material in the main fora 3. I have split your post off to a new thread in Speculations Thanks. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

and for crying out loud it's Gravitational Waves - not Gravity Waves (unless you are on another tangent - gravity waves are a liminal fluid effect and nothing to do with Gravitational Waves)

And correct me if I am wrong - there are a myriad of other inertial frames in which the observatory could be situated which will measure greater or lesser amounts of time dilation of the muon balanced with lesser or greater length contraction of the atmosphere all of which when the maths is done and the transforms performed will give the same prediction percentage of muons surviving the 10km journey. But there is NO frame in which there is no time dilation AND no length contraction- in that frame practically none of the muons should make it to the earth's surface - but they do! This magic preferred frame is both a physical impossibility and worthless in that it would not give the correct predictions.

Just to clear up so non time-dilation problems If you are talking about freefall - then you are not really outside Newtonian mechanics. Freefall is the state when the only force is gravity - ie there is no counteracting force (that's why you float around - no normal force from the floor pushing against your feet as gravity drags you down). In orbit you are constantly falling towards the earth in freefall - and constantly missing because your velocity is such that it takes you around. If you are talking about the moon following a geodesic worldline in space time - ie gravity is spacetime curvature - then naming your situation freefall is a bit of a misnomer; you are under no force. The situation of the moon and a satellite which has no boosters is pretty much identical - they are in orbit; you can call this free fall but why not call it orbit They have a velocity tangential to the body they are orbiting - but an acceleration due to gravity radially in towards the body they are orbiting. Because the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity then it does not speed up or slow down the satellite/moon - it just changes its course. When a satellite or moon or planet is in a steady orbit then the amount the course changes is just enough to keep it on a repeating elliptical course around the central body

Why would an accelerating body lose mass? Or are you thinking of a rocket burning fuel and throwing it behind to propel itself? Rest mass will stay the same, kinetic energy as measured by an outside inertial frame observer will change, and velocity measured by same observer will change. Remember that the moon is in orbit around the earth and thus accelerating all the time with no loss of mass, ditto earth/sun etc.

Hate to break it to you String - but you are too old for a Field's Medal. I know - but for those pesky years I am sure you would be a recipient ...

Agreed - my favourite is that for electro attraction there is attraction between +ve and -ve and repulsion between like charges Earth and Moon (+ and -) Earth and Sun (+ and -) Moon and Sun. (- and -) ! What ever you you distribute +ve and -ve this three way system cannot work - and yet we know that it does.

! Moderator Note Ok enough is enough. This thread has gone from bad to worse and the OP's descent into ranting insults is the final straw. Thread locked. SimonFunnell do not reopen a new thread on the same topic without prior confirmation from a member of staff (ie to check you have something new to offer). Please also recheck the rules on Soapboxing and insulting and levelling slurs at groups of Society (I would guess most scientists would reject the epithet of fascist cult member, little devils etc.)

! Moderator Note Klingoln - or perhaps I should say Professional Strawman - you have been banned; both of you. Please stop trolling now.

The Atlas Collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider has released data of a trillion or so proton proton collisions. You can download/access the 11 gigabytes of information at the CERN open data portal Basically you get the info from this when it was running at 8 terraelectronvolts So all the Speculators we get posting new models in the Speculations Forum can now empirically check their wacky ideas for the Higgs, Dark Matter, or new substructures beneath the Standard Model - and make sure the data back them up

kudos to Marc - the Director of the Nolan Greenhouses at NYBG for replying; I am gonna take the liberty of posting his answer Many thanks Marc.

No need to worry - the exchange rate is remarkably good at present

Yep - just lie back and watch the spondoolicks roll in whilst the late joiners do the work - sounds like the stock markets* * Not that I would ever imply that the stock markets are at present a high-end functioning ponzi with the pension funds / 401ks acting as a the payout to the old money. NO.

It is a test - you can tell from the title of the thread and the fact that it is in the sandbox. The Latin is actually dolorem ipsum

We spent the last 100k on Mordred. But from now on we cannot pay staff cos we are completely broke

You will be fine. I did fire breathing (you lose quite a lot of nasal / body / facial hair when you practice) for a while 20 years ago and my brain pan is still fine. Theoretically speaking - it is impossible. Your nose is lined with very moist membrane which will dampen any small flame, and even if you did do enough to damage your nasal membrane there is no way you could get a hot enough flame from a short exposure to a cigarette lighter to damage living bone. And it would hurt like hell

If you don't know that Irish comedy already then do yourself a huge favour and buy a box set of Father Ted - one of the most innovative and funny series ever; up there with Faulty Towers, the Office, and Cheers

Exactly - frames of reference pertain to relative movement but not necessarily physical proximity. They are a common coordinate system - any two objects which are both at rest with respect to each other - ie neither of their coordinates are changing - are in the same frame. They can be distance from each other and simultaneity becomes complicated x-posted

I have heard - although not from a peer-reviewed source - that incentives are ok but penalties are better. Sounds mad; but if at the same price point Customers are told that the coffee is £2 but you need to pay 10p extra for a disposable cup then you get a higher use of non-disposables than if you say the coffee is £2.10 but you get 10p off if you use your own non-disposable cup. It is exactly the same financially - but... Starbuck already do plastic cheap reusables (they do expensive metal ones as well) - but I do not like their coffee and I am not sure how other shops will like me using a starbucks cup; will report back. Over-wrapping - Yes entirely agree. Over-packaging for online purchases another

Not my area at all - I have asked the NYBG; let's see if they answer

! Moderator Note Prof. Strawman Which bit of 'stop trolling' did you not understand? I have hidden your post. Do not respond to this moderation.

Perhaps that is why the AllBlacks are so damned good - the rest of the world trains on empty pitches whereas the NZer have to dodge weave and push around 1760 lambs on their training pitches