imatfaal

So if a car going down the motorway from North to South has 700kJ of kinetic energy does a car on the opposite carriage way have -700kJ of kinetic energy? As both the cars started from being parked - with no kinetic energy the car travelling south must have somehow used its engine and petrol in its fuel tank to gain 700kJ of KE; but hang on, the car travelling North has 700kJ less energy than it started with - has the fuel tank refilled itself?

How are you measuring your speed - you are measuring with respect to the road. There is no such thing as intrinsic velocity- ie velocity which can be measured without reference to something else.

To be honest the fictional works of the SA magic realists will provide an astonishing overview* - and, IMNSHO, it is the very best reading around. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Luis Borges ... move up to Central America with Carlos Fuentes. * This could be why my history is a little patchy edit - and just seen "21st century" whoops

! Moderator Note I agree with Daedalus - this looks a bit like homework. You have been given an excellent start - now it is your turn to use the ideas given to develop an answer. Members will be happy to give advice, corrections, and feedback - but we don't do answers

More interesting - to me at least - is how the ancients worked out the edge length (as a relation to the given side obviously) given the internal angle and one side. I can do it with trigonometry - but I wonder if they had geometric rules and tables that were worked out in another method. For instance - a six sided polygon is made up of equilateral triangle and getting the edge lengths is easy, I could probably work out a few others with nice divisors; but from memory greek scholars were using 100+ sided shapes to work out pi constraints

You can uniquely define a circle by the edge-length and number of edges of any regular polygon; ie only one circle will touch all the vertices. The clever bit is that you can also define a unique polygon which fits outside the circle - with the centre of each edge touching the circle. You can thus place a strict constraint on the circumference of a circle - ie it has to be greater than the sum of the sides of the polygon within the circle and it has to be less than the sum of the sides of the polygon outside the circle. As a regular n-polygon can be deconstructed into n isosceles triangles (with two edges the same length as the radius of the circle for the inner polygon OR a perpendicular height equal to the radius for the outer polygon) the edge-length can be calculated exactly. Thus with just a pen and paper and a huge amount of patience pi can be estimated to any arbitrary accuracy

! Moderator Note Mikemikev 1. Scienceforums.net is not a public body and is not bound by any obligation to allow free speech - you have been allowed a platform to discuss science and I think you have abused that privilege. That you have an outside agenda is obvious and that ulterior motivation is obnoxious to me and, I believe, the spirit and membership of SFN; so whilst we will continue to allow such discussions when they deal with science we will rapidly stamp down on them once they stray from science to soap-boxing. Your posts are increasingly sounding like the words of a soap-box speaker shouting-down and mocking those who disagree. 2. You seem to believe you can insult the membership with impunity - this is incorrect. You also seem to believe that you are the victim here - this is also incorrect. From my reading of the threads you have been involved in - you have been told you are incorrect, it has been stated that your arguments are unsupported and unsupportable, your assertions have been refuted, and referenced evidence has been brought to bear to support the counter argument to yours; in response - admittedly few posts from many - you have called the membership moronic and called the staff biased and intellectually dishonest. This is against the rules. 3. A regular feature of your posting is the use of logical fallacies - you might want to look up the definitions of a few of the more obvious ones as you have been misusing the term ad hominem. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index . The use of logical fallacies is also banned by the rules 4. You have also accused the membership of the use of logical fallacies to avoid answering their questions, to argue moderation notes, and to bolster your own point. This is sophistry - an avoidance of substantive debate and also not allowed. 5. We also prefer it if members do not publicly argue with moderation notes - I am fairly sure I have seen you told this on at least one occasion. You have broken numerous rules and our patience has grown thin. The staff have decided to suspend your posting privileges for three days. I will be locking this thread for this period as you are the OP and it will allow you to take some time to deal with the excellent points already raised in refutation of your argument.

Not as far as I can tell. A quick look at a table of satellites shows only a couple of satellites with semi-major axes even close (ie within a couple of thousand km). There are lots of low eath orbit with figures in the 1400 and below and lots of mid earth orbits over 20,00km; but only a handful in between - none close to your figure

I do not know of a project like that - but it is a vision. My Brother and my God-Father have both been involved in projects that took lots of tools (mostly very old and much more basic than those you envisage) to very poor, previously war-torn communities. These were immensely satisfying and rewarding from both sides - I think even my God-father (of a very long line of skilled carpenters/joiners) learnt more techniques than he taught. It is the old "necessity is the mother of invention" truism - Stephen had learned one simple but near perfect method which required the right tools which he (and his father, grandfather etc) had always had; but the guys he was there to teach had to improvise a new method each time as their tools were so inferior and kept changing. Have you seen the film about the man who travelled South America installing old water bottles in the roofs of Shanty Town huts to provide daytime lighting? It is inspirational

My other forum is a cycling forum - and it is only a matter of time before some wingnut there finds that paint and does his bike in it; cos nothing says "sensible risk minimization" like painting your bike with a super-light-absorbing black paint.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fHskcfO5nJy13S8EH1hN4QXd13eIcX6Xkfq4O8U7W1E/edit?usp=sharing Here is a google spreadsheet. The curve is y=x^2. You can change the increment of x in cell B1 ( 0 is fixed and you get 20 numbers either side). It is initially set at an increment of 1. That looks pretty horizontal to me at the y axis. Feel free to zoom in by changing the increment to anything you like (the graph will not change shape - is that a clue?) That you do not know immediately that the slope of 45 degrees is a slope of 1 or -1 and must MUST MUST correspond with y = x or y = -x is crucial. If you move one space left to right and one space up to down then the slope MUST be -1 and the angle MUST be 45 degrees. This is very simple and not even pre-calc. BTW - you have never plotted y=x^2, it doesn't look as if you know where the y-axis is, don't understand basis graphs, and you have no idea of current knowledge/notation; yet you have the bare-faced temerity to claim that calculus is wrong; that is so arrogant and blinkered to transcend silliness and become bizarre!

Indeed - look at a newton's cradle if both end balls are dropped from a similar position at the same time

Can you talk me through the above? [latex]y = x^z[/latex] and you say that [latex]\frac{dy}{dx} = (x^z) - ((x-1)^z)[/latex] ok so call z=2 and look at when the graph crosses the y axis graphically we know that the slope of the curve at that point is horizontal (draw it if you do not believe me) ie zero but your formula would have the slope as -1 (which is 45 degree slope from top left to bottom right )

Damn - I had never noticed that; it's quite profound. You can even pair off the Dwarfs with the days; Sleepy on a Sunday/Day of Rest, Grumpy on a Monday cos it's back to work, Happy on a Friday cos it is the weekend (ok so I need to work a bit on the others). Snow White is obviously Christmas Day and thus is Jesus - dies and comes back to life providing salvation, the apple is the fruit of the tree of forbidden knowledge ... but that should be eaten by man not Jesus and the whole thing would make the dwarfs the apostles and there aren't twelve. Nah - sorry you are barking up the wrong tree; there are seven dwarfs because Noah was told to bring 7 pairs of each creature to the ark (genesis 7:2) and unfortunately all the female dwarfs got pissed playing strip poker and got thrown overboard for being rude and unclean

! Moderator Note We have explained why the substantive thread was locked. The rules of the forum have been rehearsed. There is nothing more to discuss here other than that which is not allowed. Thread such as this descend rapidly from outwardly seeking an explanation of the moderator's action towards a restatement of the substantive OP (against the forum's rules) and self-justification by the OP; neither of these form a proper basis for the thread. Thread locked. Please do not open another thread questioning the moderator decision - nor another thread on the original substantive question; I will just lock and hide them. An honest and scientific discussion on these topics is difficult - as both AJB and Mordred have alluded to above - because the vast majority of those who start them are not willing to debate but only to preach. Whilst I am not commenting on the OP's thread in particular - the OP might take note that his rapid resort to insults, rhetoric, and dismissal of opponents will ensure that moderators will err on the side of closure rather than continued discussion.

Because the man in the observatory - ie you - sees a clock in a rocket running slow and a clock on a spacestation a long way from the sun's gravitational potential run quickly; that is to say that you are T_prime in the first equation and T_one in the second. The equations make sense but are confusing if you try to equate as one single observing position what would normally be denoted as T_zero in both equations. In my example of the scientist/you observing a clock on a speeding rocket and a clock on a very distant spacestation you are T in the relative velocity and T_zero in the Gravitational potential T = T_zero (1/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2) T = T_zero(1/(1-2MG/c^2)^1/2) edit - missed out sqrt. Thnx Dima

! Moderator Note Do not post your own ideas in the main fora. Please take a moment to read the rules of the Speculations Forum. Thanks Do not respond to this moderation within the thread .

! Moderator Note Brief advert for the Hodge Experiment moved to speculations.

! Moderator Note This thread will be locked unless the OP's next post is concerned with the methods he will undertake in order to make his experiment approximate science most notably through isolation. Your last thread on your psi wheel was 24 pages of suggestions on how to actually prove or disprove your contention - you steadfastly ignored all ideas. Re-read that thread and put some of the ideas into practice - or ask for elaboration but do not continue to post worthless anecdote and unsupportable assertions Next post must be science based or we lock thread. There is no hurry for you to post - but please ensure you do not provide more of the same drivel.

could I rephrase perhaps to " Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people would happily piss on as long as he wasn't burning in which circumstance marshmallow toasting1 would be more the order of the day..." I presume you have seen this piece of prescient journalism from over 3 years ago... From, of course, the Onion 1. I might toast but I would not ingest - a bit too icky

After months of pundits telling us that Trump couldn't win the nomination, of members here being categorical that it was a passing phase and that trump would be easily overhauled once the race sorted itself out, of being informed that the gop grandees would not tolerate trump, and that it was gonna be Bush, no Rubio, no Cruz... We are now at a situation were these same pundit and funnily enough same members of SFN are confidently saying (presuming his nomination is ratified etc) that he is already as good as beaten in the Presidential election. Wake up America. Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people wouldn't piss on if he were burning, an arrogant narcissist, a racist demagogue, a duplicitous bully - then you need to understand that a huge portion of your country feels (possibly wrongly - but more likely correctly) that they have been sidelined by the present political process. Trump has cleverly (and quite wrongly) convinced these political impoverished that he is their man. Trump has carried the game with those who can be bothered to get out and vote in the primaries - these are a self-selecting group who tend to be more politically active. Come the presidential election we will see the result of the decision making of a larger and different self-selecting group - those who can be bothered to vote in the Presidential election. The primary-voting group tends on average to be more politically involved than the general-voting group - this is not good news... Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually.

1. Yes - basically 2. It is far from crucial for the experiment - I would expect that they used results / calculations from highly studied similar clusters. The point of this observation is not the ratio it is the separation. 3. Are Supper Massive Black holes the sort that you eat in in the evening. The mass of the black holes of each cluster will be very very small. If as I expect they used current best estimates for mass of cluster etc then possibly these best estimates will have treated BH mass distinctly but I rather doubt it. The mass portion would be around one part in a million - that's like worrying about a paperclip's mass affecting your cars acceleration. 4. No. The mass and external interaction of a black hole is well understood (whatever you may believe). Black holes will interact with each other - very spectacularly; surely you saw all the news about the gravitational waves discovery caused by merging black holes. To an extent (which is very small) the baryonic mass and blackholes will bump into each other and the dark matter will not - this is the very simplistic explanation of why you get a separation of the local of the total mass and the location of the baryonic

I had to do the same sort of thing - although starting from a much fussier point; I was a pretty boring and picky eater. As part of my job I regularly entertained foreign guests and soon found it was politic to sometimes ask if they would like to see and taste what London could provide in terms of their own national cuisine. The London versions of international cuisine is always pretty palatable - but by second or third trip my guests would often respond with glee that they had found a truly authentic version of their cuisine here in London. This lead to some very very strange experiences - at the beginning it was touch and go with some cuisines; real South Korean is very very different to International South Korean. But now I can happily eat practically anything and enjoy it. And I have never tried rock melon but I will seek some out.

[ot] Welcome back! Long time no post. Hope the self-schooling is still progressing - it was already pretty amazing. [/ot]

Nope still completely wrong put 2 and 1 into your first expression and you get a different answer! The problem is that you move from a numerator of (a-n) to a numerator of (a+n) - what simple multiplication does that? Multiplying by -1 would change (a-n) to (-a+n). When moving a minus sign from applying to the whole fraction to just the top OR the bottom - you do it like studiot has explained; you need to read through his stuff again [latex]- \left( \frac{(a - n)}{(a + n)} \right) = \left( \frac{-(a - n)}{(a + n)} \right) = \left( \frac{(-a + n)}{(a + n)} \right)[/latex]