imatfaal

If we stopped at 2.76 Au from the sun (ie on Ceres orbit) we would likely get a dwarf planet in the back of the head at about 18km per sec. We would need to scrub off about 11-12 km/s orbital velocity to be able to be steadily in the same orbit as Ceres to get an accurate answer you need to use the vis-viva equation and the v - hyperbola . you work out the delta v via the visviva and then the transfer orbit. Rough envelope says around 25 days at constant tenth of a g - which is pretty close to what you would get if you used Janus' equation too ( well 25 and 35 are fairly close)

[ot] Everytime I see this thread from the view of all the fora the software (and my settings) truncates the title to "How to define the speed of nons..." and my brain fills in the last word as nonsense. I think my subconscious might be right...[/ot]

! Moderator Note I have posted rule 2.7 below, with the especially relevant part bolded. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. So could you post a summary here - cos at present members have to click a link that they might not want to in order to take part in any discussion

x-modnoted with swansonT

Firstly Rob - it is hubris of the worst sort to be told what a type 1 error is earlier on in a thread and later on start to argue definitions with people who actually know what they are talking about. From Strange's participation here I know he really knows his stuff and from Arete's blog I know he runs a lab at a very prestigious US University - and within a few days of learning a term of art you presume to be able to lecture them on the reality of the meaning. And Second - "blinded" has been explained before. This is stop the bias of the experimenter - and this is not a slur everyone does it unless it is taken into account. If EE can see the psiwheel then he can "decide" that he was trying to move it everytime the breeze moves it and "decide" he wasn't trying when nothing happens. If EE cannot see the results of his effort then a proper comparison of him trying to move it and it moving can be compiled.

As Sensei pointed out you really need to consider gamma rather than gamma minus 1 which is what you are doing - but yes gamma minus 1 will quadruple when v doubles for values where v is lots lower than c. This ratio will increase as the values get closer to c and is never actually as low as 4

I made a suggestion about flipping a coin every so often - but two crucial things; it was the same undisturbed apparatus and secondly it was blinded. Which I think was exactly what Arete suggested That's not a type one error - it is spurious or unwarranted accuracy. The null hypothesis is that the wheel is just moving naturally with air currents and/or vibration and that nothing the wannabe psychic is doing makes any difference. We are looking for evidence that the null hypothesis is not supported and that the experiment tends to make one favour a different hypothesis. Type one errors are the incorrect rejection of this null hypothesis - ie someone is too easily convinced that the boring explanation is not the correct one. Occam's razor is a kinda qualitative version We would look for results where the chances of the data being consistent with null hypothesis is less than 5% or less than 1% or less than .5% etc. When we have achieved our desired level of improbability of the null being true but providing those results we can say that we no longer give credence to the null hypothesis.

There were two statements possibly illegal. Cos it is specifically illegal in quite a few EU countries if the manufacture leads to a high enough concentration. And could easily be interpreted as illegal under countless other pieces of legislation and belgium. Cos Belgium and France are going through paroxysms of panic after those horrific attacks in Paris.

There could be an interesting side line in prime number theory - tests that are completely accurate, provable, not able to be easily to be reduced to a simpler test, YET are completely useless also known as doing a wilson

Precision and care is needed in maths. Firstly, in your two quotes above of the science geek the formula he refers to are different. Secondly, surely that is what he says; if the answer is an integer the number is not a prime. Your number is a prime and the answer is not an integer. If you do it with 9 you get 8!/9 which must be an integer (there are two factors of three [3*3]on the bottom and two [8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1) on the top. Thirdly, John has already explained that this must work but that it is not interesting. To know if the division gives an integer we have to do the division which is more time consuming that other methods of checking for primes if done in full, or relies on the knowledge (like my explanation above) of what the factors are already (ie that it isnt prime)

1. This is a fool's errand there is a wealth of beautiful mathematics on prime numbers - your time would be much better spent following the work of some of the greats of the past than floundering around here. This study might in turn give you a firm base to move forwards 2. If you really want help here (and that will be an explanation of what you are doing wrong / how you are mis-thinking) I think you need to state your questions in a more accessible format - the mixture of pseudocode and formulae is pretty impenetrable. 3. You might want to look at the complexity level of your calculations - ie how many steps / much computer time you would take to find out a prime - and then compare it to some of the now fairly rapid prime factorisation methods. It is possible that your system (which will not work) would be slower than current algorithms even if it did work. The fastest deterministic algorithm works by multiplying together blocks of integers modulo your test number and if that set of integers contains a factor then the greatest common divisor of the product and the test number will be greater than one. the non-deterministic algorithms (ie using vast arrays of random numbers which are processed alongside the test number) are in fact quicker but do need more computation space due to the need for random number feed (not seeded pseudo random) - it is beyond me to say what these actually do

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework help. Even though we are not sure it is homework per se this question should get a better answer here What do you know about buoyancy forces? Remember you do not need to quantify the forces to answer your question - just provide a rough answer to whether it sinks or floats or lies steady in the water. The simple question of whether something sinks,floats, or sits in equilibrium is answered by a simple expression with only two parts. BTW - when dealing with questions like this it is best to be really precise with terminology - weight is not the same as mass, the kilogram is a unit of mass

Don't fuel-air bombs do a significant part of their damage (to living animals) via the creation of negative pressure / rarefaction?

Whilst cladking is clearly talking crackpottery of the finest order - just to show that members are reading and taking note; 163 - (81.25)*2 = .5 or in older school 163' - (81'3")*2 = 6" The maths is correct as he does state a "multiple of" - still rubbish of course.

If the bowl is interfering - then put the psiwheel the other side of a curtain where you cannot see it. Put your smartphone video recording on viewing the psiwheel. Spend 10 mins (or how ever long your recording time is) taping whilst flipping a coin every 30 secs or so, everytime you toss a coin and get a head then start to try to move it & say out loud "moving now", and get a tail say "no movement", leave a good 10 seconds or so between each cointoss. This will not convince anyone else as you could have pt the soundtrack in later - but I am willing to bet that given say 20 attempts to move and 20 attempts to stay still you will not achieve any notable success; that will at least mean you can spend your time on something more productive. You need to prove to yourself that this is/is not in your imagination - because at the moment you have taken it for granted that it is not in your imagination. ie Find a way that your desire for it to be true cannot overrule your rational sense of investigation - unfortunately I am pretty damn certain you will be disappointed.

[ot pedantry] E = mc^2 + pc surely not Sqrt(m^2c^4 +p^2c^2) DNE mc^2 + pc [/ot pedantry]

Why are we persisting on this off-shoot about inheritance and universality? I think it is agreed that explanation of why gene pool does not include more of a supposedly beneficial trait is a side-issue to the question of existence of "the ability" - it would be needed to say we understood "the ability" but not to say we know something exists. And secondly it is the work of a moment to get to a scenario that would limit spread of beneficial genes - "the ability" could be linked to a mutation on the y-chromosome. About one in three thousand men are rendered infertile by new y chromosome mutations. The mutation that causes "the ability" might be inextricably linked to infertility - there would be new men with "the ability" every generation but they would not breed. BTW - I still claim that nothing of this nature has ever been shown - and that "the ability" is make-believe. But I think we can argue against it from a logical and empirical standpoint rather than stooping to fallacy and dogma.

! Moderator Note OK - Back on topic EVERYONE! Discussion of modnotes or other members from this point onwards will get hidden and earn the poster a warning point. We have a reporting system for disagreeing with modnotes and pretty strict rule about sticking to the topic and another about not making things personal

"requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp." Oh we wish that minds today were so unprejudiced - 150 years later too many minds are still so bigoted as to refuse to accept this recognisable fact. I agree he seems a real character

Are you sure this is legal in your jurisdiction? If your country of posting is accurately listed you live in a regime that is undergoing severe and rapid changes to certain areas of enforcement (in this very area) even if not actual statutory change.

I think it is work place density as well* - whilst lots of the people I know live a decent distance from work, on roads they might drive, with pretty crumby pubic transport - they just cannot park their cars near their work place in an economic manner. I would pay about $11 dollars (just under £8) to get the underground to work and back - whereas the only car park I could guarantee close to work (abs central London) would be close to $30 per day and I would have to pay petrol and congestion charge on top of that. I think I would struggle to get in and out of London for less than $40 per day - and a huge amount of aggro; its 18 miles so over $2 a mile! So of course I cycle to work - I get sweaty but I love it. * to elaborate; it doesn't matter so much how spread out the population are - it matters more how tightly packed the jobs are. About a couple of million commuters descend onto London every morning - they cannot even manage car parking spaces at the stations in the suburbs let alone car park space in the few square miles where all those millions work edit - it is actually 18 miles each way so closer to a £1 a mile than £2

I thought a little about your last paragraph and looked up wikipedia - according the Modal transport share page 92% of journeys to work in Indianapolis are by car! I rant about there being too many in London at 34%. Forget about Phi's analogy (I think that was how we got onto cars) - surely a decent problem for USA is the lack of good public transport in some major cities. NYC is good on its percentage (29%) - but then the public transport there is better than London (those being two big cities I have worked for extended periods in) but some of the other places in the States; wow - is it just the cheap fuel or more to it than that (need for independence, unbelievable powerful big oilco, being brainwashed about the dangers of socialism...)

OK let's not turn this into a discussion about selective pressures (they are way way more subtle than you seem to propose RobBob) We work on testing things - we can test, replicate and predict quantum teleportation (amateurs like me can get a handle on the steps, the mathematical model, and the potential of it). There is NO testable, replicatable, nor predictable telekinesis or teleportation. And please don't say we are not looking for it. There is worldwide fame and a name that will last as long as Einstein, Mozart, or Shakespeare for anybody who could actually repeatedly demonstrate it under laboratory conditions. Even being the physicist who helped conduct the tests on someone else's behalf would be accolade-laden. People go into science because they have rampant and unquenchable curiosity - and NONE of them have ever found any basis or hint for telekinesis or teleportation; it is a crucial error to hint that scientists have found no evidence because they are blinkered or stolidly unimaginative. The evidence is not found because it is not there

Agree with all the rest - but this sentence is not, imo, correct. All anyone has to do is to objectively demonstrate (repeatedly and to the satisfaction of sceptical and experimentally trained investigators) that one of these telekinetic or telepathic phenomena exists in a way that cannot at present be explained by established science. I don't believe this will ever happen - but that is all that is required. The investigation of the new science (because that is what it would become) will almost certainly not be done by the single person who had demonstrated it - let alone the explanation of why this has only recently been able to be documented in an empirical manner, nor the highly complex matter of understanding the differential selection pressure of this phenotype. These questions would have to be answered in the fullness of time - but we value empiricism and the thus the repeated demonstration in laboratory conditions (which has never happened and I don't think ever will) is the crucial part.

! Moderator Note OK - this is mystical nonsense which neither tallies with the evidence around us nor with the science we use to investigate the natural world. You may wish to promote your religious agenda of some mythical creator or prime mover; but we do not give house room to that. If you wish to discuss religion - in a non-preaching and non-proselytizing manner - you may do so in the Religion forum but not in the main science fora nor in Speculations. Do not respond to this moderation. This post can be reported if members feel the decision is unfair