imatfaal

Double-marked water / doubly-labelled water - great way to establish overall metabolic rate. Resting Control to find basal and then demonstrate what increased percentage of basal is required when a period (length would depend on size of animal) includes short, moderate, and prolonged walking. Sorry - to explain why not any of the methods. Double-marked water can be used in animals easily whereas lots of the breathing monitors can not

"exactly like her mother" - No. Very like - yes. "have personality after her" - just no. Some (very narrow) traits work on a dominant gene so by definition you follow one parent. But most are a complex mixture of expressions taking from both parents. I think your question is based on a false premise that complex features are from one parent alone - this view can come from observer bias; one recognizes a small similar trait and expands that into a complete copy.

Whereas we in the UK have an established Church which we almost completely ignore (except for weddings and funerals so that we can have a good sing-song). The Cathedral/City thing is not important any more. The last two towns to be granted City Status by Royal Patent were Chelmsford (boring - see Dickins) and St Asaph - and the last one to lose status was Rochester cos of an enormous administrative cock-up. IIRC in France you need to fulfil certain tasks to move one step up the ladder - some important (at least for Tourists) requirements are a Camping Municipale and Piscine; which is why there are so many lovely cheap and cheerful campsites in France.

Read up on the Alcubierre Drive. It is way way hypothetical at present - but it provides a convenient idea to hang a story on. it might be sci-fi at present to talk about an actual drive - but it is fiction backed by some chunky (if yet unproven) physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

I think it is a new bug with IP software - lots of software has trouble with special characters and spaces in web addresses and they try to parse it and fail. It used to be OK to manually paste it in or type the tags - but even that fails now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox It is fine just pasting a link with an apostrophe and space - just not enclosed in url tags

The CMB is homogeneous isotropic (thanks Strange - Mr 7000+ posts) to IIRC at least one part in a thousand. And the foregrounds which are deducted are the results of theory, found experimentally, and removed once sure they are an artifact

I think the more extreme problem would be that day length (not in terms of the planet's rotation - but in terms of sun in sky) would last nearly as long as the seasons. If we set a situation in which the "North pole" is in complete shadow and with the "South Pole" having the sun at the highest point in the sky. Even though the planet rotates about its access every 17 and bit earth hours - the North Pole will not see the sun again till the whole planet has moved around in its orbit for almost 21 years! And it will be a whole 42 years before the sun is over head at the north pole. When axis on to the sun there is only a small moving region of the planet that is diurnal

! Moderator Note puppypower - that post is not going to be approved. Be aware that speculative answers to mainstream physics will not be tolerated in the main fora. Worse still - those parts in which you gave concrete "information" were blatantly incorrect. Either post this sort of message in speculations or do not post at all - but do not guess answers, make up stuff, and post it in the science fora. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Frame_of_reference

Clive - we don't need a different more complicated explanation which doesn't fit the facts; to advance an alternative hypothesis we really need you to be able to show where the current model fails and the proposed model succeeds. And that would need to happen in the Speculations Forum. We can predict where Lagrange points (L1 L2 L3) will lie using geometry and the results of a fifth order polynomial and L4 and 5 are more easily worked out (they are on point of equilateral triangles with the two large masses at other points - ie simple trig). We make these predictions using simple Newtonian gravity - and we have confirmed them by looking at the motion of natural objects there and even sticking satellites into place there (we have at least six in Sun-Earth L1). What is wrong with this picture which requires a new, exotic, and untested hypothesis

Damn you iNow and your continued use of facts and figures - why can't you rely on innuendo and slander like most decent folks.

I had to re-read this but upon a bit of thought it makes sense. If the force was zero then any object would continue in a straight linear fashion at a constant velocity - whereas at a Lagrange point the object can maintain a stable position with respect to the two major object (ie an orbit) which is a state which requires an centripetal force

We are still looking for the evidence - I am not sure we are happy to say we have completed the search at current levels of technology for the tell-tale signs. The inter-cluster voids are very very empty and - purely speculatively - any annihilation would produce radiation which would provide a net radiative pressure against the tiny amount of matter on either side (ie any annihilation at boundary will produce radiation that leaves boundary and thus any pressure on particles getting close to boundary will be net back away from boundary). This pressure would be tiny tiny - but the big voids are very sparse.

! Moderator Note Horrible news about your family member - I really hope that their physician and medical science can help. We will discuss this matter only in impersonal scientific terms - we really cannot give, nor allow our members to give, any individual medical advice. Why not post a summary and a link to the studies you are referring to?

puppypower has been placed in the mod-queue for 30 days for failing to heed warnings and modnotes regarding hijacks and posting speculative nonsense in the science fora.

As the Kerr is best approximation of most of the real black holes from the 4 black hole solutions to the EFEs then I would have thought that people were trying as soon as poor Karl Schwartzchild finished his work

What you really need to look at is the distribution of mass-energy etc. in the stress-energy tensor whilst utilising a Kerr Metric - this is a metric which forms this basis for the solution to the Einstein Field Equations (rotating and not charged black hole) . If you find a copy of the Kerr Metric (in usual notation) then the Angular momentum is instrinsic to every term in the metric. Now you might be able to visualize how multiplying or dividing a term by the angular momentum alters the overall value - but I can promise you that I cannot. So you really have to stick with the maths - which is pretty fiendish. Remember that much of the later work on black hole singularities was brought together by Hawking and Penrose - probably the two greatest British mathematicians of their generation.

If two particles are indistinguishable and when the loss of the first particle is strictly followed (ie the action is determined and the sequence cannot be reversed/changed to allow both to exist at the same time) by the appearance of the completely indistinguishable second particle - why must we consider this a non-original; what is the difference ontologically? This is a simplistic description of what quantum computation academics sometimes call quantum teleportation btw

[latex]\epsilon = \frac{A^2 s^4}{kg m^3}[/latex] [latex]\epsilon = \frac{\frac{kg}{s}^2 s^4}{kg m^3}[/latex] [latex]\epsilon = \frac{kg s^2}{m^3}[/latex] [latex]\epsilon = \frac{\frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}[/latex] [latex]\mu = \frac{N}{A^2}[/latex] [latex]\mu = \frac{kg \frac{m}{s^2}}{\frac{kg}{s}^2}[/latex] [latex]\mu = \frac{m}{kg}[/latex] [latex]\mu = \frac{m}{\frac{E}{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}}[/latex] [latex]\mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E}[/latex] [latex]\epsilon \mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E} \frac{\frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}[/latex] [latex]\epsilon \mu = \frac{1}{c^2}[/latex] [mp][/mp] My good turn for the day. BTW - your oblique (or slash) in the closing latex tag was in the wrong direction. Even correcting this there are too many lines for a latex translation on our site; use one equation per set of tags if possible. Also every frac declaration must include the slash otherwise it writes the word frac

South African African Airways S223 Jan 13 1830 Local time Sao Paolo to Jo'Burg.

Lazarus - I have amended my above post because I was too hasty and trying to make the point too simply. As you had already replied I have made the changes obvious. I think you will be better off with wikipedia than your resource. The Classical (it is classicAL not classic BTW) configuration does not exist! If it did we would get the results that it must predict. Instead we get the results predicted by quantum mechanics. You can read up on the Aspect Experiment - although I would recommend being completely au fait with Dr Chinese's explanation of Bell's Theorem first. Not wishing to sound nasty - but both Dr Lorenzo's (which you have read and not grasped) and Dr Chinese's (which is brilliant and I would recommend) elucidations are very very simple compared to the heavy-duty maths and statistics required when you get down and dirty; if you are struggling to get to grips with the logic I cannot see how the measurements can help.

! Moderator Note Shelagh - please see my modnote here before posting in this forum again. Thanks.

! Moderator Note Shelagh We do not work like that. You either discuss matters with all members or you bow out completely. You do not get to make an argument for all to see and then refuse to answer those who challenge you. By the way - "agreeing to disagree" is pretty nearly the antithesis of science; we agree to follow the evidence not to stick to our prejudices in the face of it. Your attitude in the two global warming threads leaves a lot to be desired. Your arguments have seemed to consist of a foul admixture of straw men, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and bald assertions; we will not allow this to continue - especially in a thread on a subject which is settled science. This is a science forum and we refuse to allow political and rhetorical arguments to flourish in the science fora. The attitude displayed in the quoted post will not be tolerated - if you wish to continue to post on climate change without risking sanction please limit yourself to scientific arguments founded on fact rather than personal opinion and anecdotage. Do not respond to this moderation - report the post if you feel it is unjust Everyone else let's draw and line under this and move on - please do not try to re-kindle the non-scientific argument.

This is crux of the problem with the "institutionalization" of any mindset - it becomes self-reinforcing. Because whilst what you describe is happening - we also see that lawmaking follows the acts and concerns of those who are charged with its enforcement a/o administration. This is not to say that things can never be changed. In my lifetime the United States was a light of penal reform with innovative and humane treatment leading to reduced recidivism - now it is an archetype of the opposite position with increasingly harsh and dehumanising punishment and an unimaginably large prison population. Thus I hope that some act, or actor can provide the unknown and unpredictable event that will set the course back towards rehabilitation rather than retribution

Lazarus - nearly there I hope 1. The coins in Lorenzo's experiment correlate with Einstein's idea of Hidden Variables which is a CLASSICAL explanation. Bell's Theorem uses this to set a range within which experimental results MUST fall if Hidden Variables is true 2. Experiments show that the answers fall within a range which is completely distinct to that predicted by the CLASSICAL explanation. 3. These results fall with the area which is predicted by Quantum Mechanics 4. Quantum mechanical results cannot be replicated, explained, or paralleled by Classical analogies - because the ideas of entanglement and quantum superposition are is completely anathema to Classical physics. 5. The addition of fuzziness and unpredictability is not enough to transform a classical gedanken into a QM version - you must find a way of having two entangled particles which are in a state of superposition.