imatfaal

Hmm - Nate S currently has Nevada at 38-39 Trump and 19-20 Rubio. Does it really make sense that ALL the support for Bush et al once they sod off will home in on Rubio? Cruz / Carson / Trump (the wingnut group - the cringe fringe) got about 60pct of the vote in SC - if those voters were gonna toe the line and vote for a mainstream party candidate wouldn't they have done so already. Rubio took a beating the first time the ire of a demogogue was turned upon him (25 secs) - could he survive a debate with Trump and Cruz both kicking him? Cruz might reasonably think that whoever is left in a one on one with Trump will have a fine chance when everyone wakes from the trance

Do you not realise that it is not positive to further the cause of the false appearance of understanding? Knowledge and comprehension of a subject is good - the pretence (via an over familiarity with the jargon but not the concepts) is potentially worrying. Learn the formulae, concepts, rules and stuff like that from Khan Academy, Hyperphysics, Paul's Math Tutorials etc. and the rest will follow. There is NO easy route. And being able to give the outward appearance of knowledge without undertaking the hard yards is merely deception

Not for Real number answers. The Imaginary answers have been given further up the thread.

do the next line and sort out the signs and you will see that it does not [MATH]1(pq)+(1)(-1)-(pq)(pq)-(pq)(-1) = pq -1 -p^2q^2 + pq[/MATH] your two pq terms are +1*(+pq) and -1*(-pq) they both equal +pq

The fact that ZF is well-founded, accepted foundation for virtually all mathematics does not and cannot rule out the future possibility of other set theories/model theories which together can also create a foundation for a different mathematics. I would provide historical (far far simpler) examples - the belief that all objects were once seen to obey commutative law, the root of -1, irrational numbers, abstract algebra, and the parallel postulate. Any change would be on a far more complex level that these examples and it is possible the human race might never get there - but we cannot rule it out. We already have satellites whose purpose is to measure by how much if at all the angles of a celestial triangle vary from 180 degrees - it's a triangle equality rather than inequality but it was founded on a postulate which was later superseded

[latex] (1-pq)(pq-1) [/latex] forward outer inner last [latex] pq -1 -p^2q^2 +pq[/latex] the pq terms do not cancel. One of the most famous non-factorizable (with real numbers) phrases is x2+1 - if it were factorizable then we would be able to find solutions to y=x^2+1 , which is equivalent to finding the roots ie t 0 = x^2+1 , x^2 = -1 . Your expression is similar -1 -p2q2 = -1 * (1+p2q2) = -1 * (1+pq.pq) and if yu think abut it if pq has a solution then we can replace pq with x and there would be as solution to this simplified equation

How can you do something without having to learn it first? Seriously? 1. latex is actually pretty simple to learn. I have learnt it just to allow me to interact here and at other fora - mine is pretty basic and laboured compared to others, and i would guess that active researchers have the use of it as second nature almost and with very little mental overhead. 2. The actual symbols we use and Letters that abbreviate terms and constants are simple - for instance v is always velocity - except when it is a capital in which case it is always Volume, or Voltage, if it is not Sheer Force, or even Vunda; or it is curly in which case it is a nu and thus is clearly a symbol for frequency unless it is kinematic viscosity; or it is actually an upside down A in which case which mean for all; or it is a nabla with the top misprinted in which case all bets are off. 3. Try the tutorial - it is really not that bad and members will always put you straight when you get that horrid latex syntax error 4. click on any latex and you can copy and paste the unparsed code

! Moderator Note Scotty This is a science forum and we react strongly when confronted with trollish arguments and when anti-science formulations are parroted in lieu of argument - you are being given the benefit of the doubt at present. That is to say we are hoping you are here to dispute not proselytise, to argue not troll, and to join all of us in learning/teaching. Your posting style is insulting and argumentative - we do not accept such tactics. Calm yourself and moderate your interactions with other members This thread is going nowhere - it was a flat-earth troll at its inception and has mutated into misrepresentation of a paper. I am locking the thread -- if members wish to discuss the Article referenced in a non-sensational manner and without the preconceptions that the OP brought to this discussion then a new thread can be opened. Thread Locked. If you feel this moderation is unfair please report this post - Do not make threads or posts to complain or argue the point.

It is quite ok to think of Energy (and mass energy) as not being conserved in GR - although there are other ways in which one can avoid this (the energy of the gravitational field ). GR does explicitly talk about Energy Momentum relationships in saying [latex]\nabla_{\mu} \cdot T^{\mu \nu} = 0[/latex]

But the purely mathematical cannot be inviolate - they can be perfectly self-consistent and one can show that no other result can be found that isn't self-contradictory; however, they rely utterly on the foundational postulates. Maths is axiomatic rather than empirical - and any axiom can fail or we can just decide that this week we shall use a different axiom. Special relativity is one of modern man's highpoints and is beautifully consistent mathematically - but we set limits of operation outwith it no longer holds; and similarly Euclidean Geometry is one of early mankind's great achievements - but it relies on the parallel postulate and if there are two more lines through that point then you get elliptical and if there are none then you get hyperbolic. Empirical theories fall down on limits of applicability and the vagaries of absolute proof rather than likelihood - Mathematical Theorem fall down because they must be based on axiomata as there is nothing that is agreeably self-evident.

I make that 6 unsupported and potentially unsupportable assertions 1. I read and have subscriptions to Nature, the Modern Law Review, and Granta amongst others. 2. I have finished college and love reading journals - I can bet a decent percentage of those here do to. 3. I enjoyed college so much I spent over 10 years on under-grad and post grad studies in 4 distinct areas 4. One of my colleges was for mature students only - around 50% of the student body were there for pure enjoyment and around 35% were already retired. 5. No - quite a few prestigious and well paid jobs require a degree. But many more don't - not least the blue-collar jobs, the skilled artisans, all those jobs that "merely" require professional qualifications... 6. It can still be free - in some countries, for some age groups, for some income groups, for the exceptionally gifted... I realise that examples do not refute your claims which were couched as "most" - but they cast doubt on them, and they do refute those you cast as absolute.

The rise of open-access journals which take a new funding route has been anything but an unqualified success; whilst there are great journals such as PLOS-one there is also a plethora of unscrupulous and even downright criminal enterprises which con researchers out of money in order to publish. These unregulated and predatory open access journals have little to no peer review, no editorial control, no history and tradition of probity, and no reputation to defend. This increase in dodgy journals has - perhaps unfortunately - re-affirmed the need for the old-fashioned journal publishing model - and as John says above these publishers need to get cash in to pay for the work (over and above printing etc) that academic publishing entails. This will sound terribly elitist (as I am outside the elite maybe I can be forgiven slightly) - the main barrier to public access to academic journals is the fact that a vanishingly small fraction of a the population have a chance of understanding any given academic article, and that an even smaller portion actually try. If my local central library (this is not so much of an oxymoron as it seems at first glance) were to receive a steady stream of requests for access to certain pay-walled journals then - like the university libraries - they would pay for access. The most popular science journals ARE already held at central libraries I can however tell you that in the three years I worked Saturdays at a decent public library just outside London that the number of scientific journal requests was exactly zero.

Just a small selection of the sophistry, insults, snide insinuations, fallacies, terminological kincker-twists, and rhetoric in this thread so far; not surprising after all the rubbish which is posted that

Nah - not even close. The most famous of all postulates - which exercised geometers and mathematicians for centuries, maybe millennia, was under constant challenge and finally it was shown that alternative theories could be founded on the basis that the postulate as not true. Thus we had Euclidean Geometry in which the parallel postulate holds and non-Euclidean Geometry in which the postulate does not hold but an alternative does.

Surely that's just the number of ways one can choose n elements from a set of x elements if repetitions are allowed. You are just working out the number of ways that a set of numbers can be arranged - this is sometimes called the multiset The Fundamental Theory of Arithmetics states that each number has a unique set of prime multiples (or is prime) - you are looking at using combinatrics to count the unique sets of primes and then multiplying them - same thing. Fraid this is not new - Euclid knew about the Fundamental Theory

John (nothing to see in Belize) McAfee, of those annoying programs you delete from new computers, has offered to decrypt it. Whether he can do this is unlikely - unless Apple actually did build in loopholes. And how, in his drug-addled mind, this ties in with being a frikkin LIBERTARIAN presidential candidate - does that fool not even understand the barest minimum of his own political stance.

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408 Just in case anyone thought he might be the best of a bad bunch

Some people bemoan this - but frankly I see it as progress. We have moved from being able to do things we don't really understand (which must open the door for dreadful unseen consequences if we had been unlucky) to being able to understand things we cannot yet do (and thus being able to predict dangers and avoid hazards). This will eventually undermine the empirical side of cutting edge science - but any stalling in progress will lead to a self-correcting move of researchers from theory to experimentation to re-narrow the gap. Scientists are curious and will gravitate to the area of most "wonder" - which will be where the greatest leaps can be made; at some points this will be theory, at others experiment, and most of the time groups of both together in unison

The speeds the op is talking about will take red photons and blue shift them all the way to green photons You would have to be up at just one millionth away from the speed of light to get visible light into the proper hard x-ray band

The problem, Dan, is that you make a statement, get challenged on it, and rather than responding come up with a different statement. 1. You seem to flip without hesitation between actual atomic clocks (which work on a hyperfine transition - a spin flip of a single electron) and purely hypothetical photon light clocks. 2. No matter how you phrase it - there can be no absolute simultaneity between mutually moving frames. 3. Your argument on the speed of electromagnetic interaction is in need of some work

The photo is a measurement within the rest frame of the clocks and yes - all observers would view the photo the same. BUT and it is a humongous BUT; if rather than take a single photo (which is a purely local measurement and thus frames of observers are irrelevant as the measure is taken locally) you have the three clocks in a row aligned north south - the man in the lab notices that they are not synchronised (datum, datum + x, and datum - y) when he takes his snap, the man in the spaceship doing 0.5c heading north will not agree with the offsets of the clocks and will take a photo with a different result, so will the man in the train doing 0.25 c southwards. That difference of datum, +x and -y is only measureable from the rest frame - the only photo with those offsets. All the photos will be different and the offsets will all vary - however the rest frame result is calculable from all frames because we, the man in the spaceship and in the train all know how to boost and transform frames of reference.

You need to read Apple's statement - if you have already looked at it read it again critically This is the meat of their argument - 1. They have cooperated in the San Bernadino case 2. The Powers that be have decided to use this scare of internal terrorism to get what they had before mobiles and hate the fact that they have lost - access. They have been pressurizing the large tech companies in USA to grant them access to your data / contacts / photos / email / browsing whenever they fancy it It is easier and more palatable for Apple to couch the argument in terms of someone else getting hold of the back-door key - but in reality it is worse that the government might have it. And whilst everyone would surely agree the Government would only use this ability once...hang one a sec - no they would use it all the time String - Look at any freedom of expression website in the UK and see who the government has now admitted to wire-tapping, spying on, intercepting mail ... "back in the bad old days". Well they are still at it - but the current stuff is still hidden and won't be released for years - and I for one do not want my government to have an immediate unfettered access to my personal communications.

I thought they felt that over logging had rendered the islands unable to sustain a viable population (which relied on timber for many crucial needs but used it for the creation, moving, etc of big stone heads). Is it possible this is a revisionist hotshot making a desperate bid for his 5 minutes

You are completely correct - my initial equation was just wrong by a factor of 1/2 and that carried all the way through dunno how I missed that. Thanks

Are you talking about when you are driving a car? Because that is a totally different matter (it is a privilege and done under licence which allows different rules to apply) and seems like suddenly moving the goalposts. Any way Offtopic - let us desist