imatfaal

It is an interesting and subtle jurisprudential point as to whether an opinion informed by racism constitutes a valid test for reasonability in cases such as these - surely in any self-respecting egalitarian modern state the answer should be a resounding no; but the response of the authorities, politicians, and jurors (albeit in the mad arena of the grand jury) seems to be that allowing one's perceptions to be tainted with bigoted racial preconceptions is an acceptable behaviour in the course of deciding whether one's life is in danger. Mangling legal aphorisms - but it seems that the man on the clapham omnibus in America is now allowed to be a Racist. Such a man should never be a cop (or armed with a firearm - however that's a whole new thread) - but evidence tends to show that a not insignificant portion of police in the USA are racists; thus their honestly held (offensive but honestly and deeply held) opinions areseemingly taken into account by colleagues, the authorities, and the public when judging their actions. How else could they have come to the decision that they did?

Great thinking Keen. I haven't thought this through deeply - but following your line of reasoning wouldn't most Mersenne Primes also invalidate the proposed theorem 1. For the 4th Mersenne it no longer holds 127 is the 31st prime ie 31+31 brackets 128 is 2^7 so 14 brackets intuition would tell me that no higher Mersenne would hold as the magnitude of the ordinal of hte prime grows much quicker than the exponent of 2 - eg the next mersenne is 8191 (2^13 -1) in which the 2^n would have only 12 more bracket than the previous example but the prime would have about a thousand brackets But having re-read the OP the 65th prime is not just 65 opening followed by 65 closing it is <5*13> which in turn is < <<<>>> <<><<>>> > which is 16 brackets as is 2^8 oh well - it was a good thought

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35191347 and it is now 1125.

IT ISN'T. That's the whole point It was a difference between QM and EPR - and differences can be tested And with one bound (well a few more than one) you have discovered the beauty of Bell's Inequality - by a simple mathematical inequality and through showing that the hidden variable hypothesis (of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) versus the quantum mechanics hypothesis MUST give different answers (because of the linkage to that inequality) he showed that a test was possible which would distinguish between QM and Hidden Variables. It then fell to other guys to work out how to actually test this - when Aspect and many others later found ways to experimentally confirm the idea the results were clearly in the QM rather than the EPR space

Again this is simply not true. Three orthogonal planes either meet in a point or in a series of lines. And anyway how are you intending to describe your object in these planes? Take a sphere centred at what I would call the origin - I can describe it very simply - how about your supposedly natural and simplest

Nonsense. Our perceived universe is three dimensional (there may be other per some of the string theories). There are lots of coordinate systems which we can use - claiming that we need to use three planes or that that IS the correct method of description is just madness - these are methods for determining positions when all is said and done and you use the most convenient. Volume is an abstraction just like area and length - that you privilege one over the others is your choice - but don't be fooled into thinking you are correct is this.

Это даже не неправильно

! Moderator Note moved to Speculations Forum Переехал в спекуляции форума

Don't understand your equation. There is no helium-3 in it - unless you and Wiki and every site promoting this technology all dont use/ understand Superscript 2D+3He→ 4He+ 1p+ 18.3 MeV Now that's better - but you are gonna have to have serious heat and pressure to over come coulomb barrier (you have twice the charge) and surely the Deuterium under that heat and pressure will react in a D-D fusion and give off an energetic neutron of 3.3 mega-electron volts (which you cannot easily control using your magnetic field) which is not all that low an energy contra your assertion. I must admit I would have thought D-D would have dominated the fusion reaction.

Moved to homework help please show your ideas and workings first - then members can show you right direction to take.

The circle, does not require Pi to be. It is a ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. There should be a reason for this ratio. That is all I am suggesting. That this ratio means something. Tar; on the subject of dimensionless numbers - Martin Rees the old Astronomer Royal has written a superb book called Just Six Numbers about 6 of the dimensionless (ie with no units such as metres or seconds etc) constants* that seem to govern our universe. pi is not one of his numbers as it is more mathematical in its (unknown) origins - but the other numbers are similarly mystifying. From seemingly the simple question of why 3 dimensions and not another number to questions about why 1/137-ish is of prime important to all matter. Really recommended and asks lots of the same questions you have asked about pi; no answers yet unfortunately for any of these "why" questions. * to explain the "dimensionless" bit. Constants of physics such as Newtons Universal Gravitational Constant have units ie G is in Newtons x Metres Squared / Kilograms Squared. Thus if you change measurement systems (say to imperial from metric) you get a new constant. Some constants are special though and they appear throughout physics or have great significance - yet have no units and thus no matter what measurement system you employ they are always the same. Perhaps the most famous is alpha the fine structure constant (which is close to 1/137) and governs the strength of electromagnetic interaction. pi similarly is dimensionless as it is a ratio of one length (the circumference in metres) to another length ( the radius in metres) and so the lengths cancel and you are left with "just" a number

Surely that would be an orbit - the atomic and molecular orbitals are the quantum mechanic spatial functions which describe where an electron is likely to be found. It is the orbit (per the SFN logo) which is a fiction - as usual in science we used a word which seemed to be the same to describe a radically different concept.

Per Strange - and what ratio is no imaginary to an extent. I don't like the use of imaginary in this context as it both clashes with the non-real components of complex numbers and with the notion of subjective flights of fancy; numbers are non-concrete and abstract, but I would hesitate to call them imaginary No - not at all. I have just flicked the pedal of my bike and the brand new reflecting patch on the back tyre is describing a perfect circle; it's continuous. If we are going to subatomic levels for you to prove graininess - then I would posit the electron orbital; that is pretty continuous. The path of a flung stone is a continuous parabola (or possibly a hyperbola if you are a pedant), a lightwave is a superposition of two continuous sine waves - sure you cannot weigh out a pound of pi and stick it in a jam jar but that does not imply a chasm between an ideal smooth manifold mathematical world and a lumpen quantised reality. The points you are making are quite clear - and in my opinion totally incorrect. Let us not get bogged down in the ontology of mathematical objects - pi is a very useful tool in the explanation, prediction, and understanding of the physical world; pi is vital in almost every area of physics and crops up almost everywhere; pi, along with e, and i are (for reasons beyond our current understanding) special and interelated to most maths; and whilst pi might seem to be unreal in some lights we have seen enough times in the philopsophy section that extreme solipsism can lead us to that conclusion with anything. To an extent as tetrahedrons do not fill space - but I think that any arrangement of tri bi pyramids would be interpreted as a collection of tetrahedrons; we tend to be reductionist when looking a shapes like that

Brilliant. +1 (actually -1 cos I hit the wrong button - sorry)

Me too - the surface will eventually settle perpendicular to the resultant force I presume your third acceleration you refer to is the one prior to the experiment which causes the liquid to form a free surface in the first place. I also wonder why the scenario doesn't use g/sqrt2 - which is an easily physically realisable frame rotation and makes the answer much more intuitive

The closest stars are gravitational bound to us in the Virgo Supercluster (which includes us and Andromeda amongst others) - we are destined to stay together because gravity is strong enough between the components (because they are close enough) to overcome any background expansion. Background expansion and the accelerated nature of it that is more recently discovered happens on the Cluster/SuperCluster level - ie galaxies will never be ripped asunder as they are gravitationally bound; but on the largest cosmological scales the gaps between the great agglomerations of galaxies (and thus stars) are all increasing and increasing at an accelerating rate. If you put 16 people in a rough circle and each of them walked off in the direction of a compass point (N NNE NE NEE E etc) the gaps between any two would increase - but the atoms making up the person would stay in the same relation to the body they comprise. all the stars we can see with the naked eye are in the Virgo Supercluster and will remain local - but all the stars outside our petty vicinity will eventually leave us forever. Thus the physics theory predicts exactly what we see - until it stops doing that (or we come up with a viable alternative theory) we will work on the assumption that it is correct

Nope: pi is an irrational even transcendental number (ie it cannot be represented as either a fraction of two integers nor as a closed algebraic formula) - it has no imaginary component. Objects have length - really they do; I can measure it, depend upon it, objectively agree it with my colleagues etc. Same applies to area This is pure Euclidean Geometry and not remotely alternative. Spheres do not actually fill space very well and don't even have an immediately/easily provable densest packing state. What are the 7 planes associated with a Tetrahedron - their are four faces and yet you claim there are another 3 planes intrinsic to the object (another 4 I could understand). * read your followup - a triangular bi-pyramid has 6 faces not 7 Traditional Cannon ball stacks are just as likely to be square-based pyramids from memory (at least in the Royal Navy) - larger stacks were triangular prisms Calculus is the limit - and is smooth and continuous. I draw a circle in ink on a piece of paper using my compasses - in what way have I needed to use a whole number of building blocks on either the radius or circumference

! Moderator Note Hijack regarding real vs ideal nature of spheres split off to new thread Fred Champion - from memory you have been asked before not to interrupt threads with your own speculations and new ideas; instead open a new thread (you can include a link to the old thread that prompted your branch in the OP. Do NOT just go off at a tangent and post new ideas and supposition No need to respond to this modnote - report if you think it is unfair

Strange - bit confused with your terminology; in my mind imaginary numbers do not merge with real numbers - they are orthogonal on the number plane and only converge at zero. We have complex numbers which have a real component and an imaginary component; but real have no imaginary component nor vice versa. On the visual interpretation the real are the numbers on the real axis, the imaginary are those on the orthogonal axis, and the entire plane shows the complex numbers which have both components.

21 December Xzavier Zane Robinson Age: 3 14 December Two un-named siblings in Kayenta, Arizona Age: both below 10 11 December Sienna Dusk Owens Age: 11 11 December Kaden Nagel Age: 3 09 December Unnamed Child in South Buckner Boulevard, Dallas, Texas Age: Below 11 07 December Name: Colton Johnson Age: 5 06 December Kenacia Amerson-Straughn Age: 2 03 December Connor Evan Gappmayer Age: 10 03 December Emma Watson Nowling Age: 7 So that we do not lose sight of what this thread is about - here are the latest CHILD mortalities. Unfortunately this will be an under-reporting - other children WILL have been killed and the news of their deaths will not have reached the archivists yet. There are many more serious life-changing injuries and I haven't included the deaths of those I would still consider children who are over the age of 11. Happy holidays everyone in this season of goodwill to all!

Agree entirely - but just to nit pick for a toy universe model. If you collided many sub fusion masses - that would be not only massive enough together to initiate fusion through heat / pressure via self gravity (and per your above blow away the other stuff) but also massive enough to form a black hole - THEN the event horizon would propagate outwards at speed of light whereas the explosive nuclear detonation would propagate at speed of sound. It would never happen in nature as the growth is incremental rather than sudden - it would look like the initiation sequence of the fat-man atomic weapon played out on cosmological scales

! Moderator Note Mike This thread must take a scientific turn with your next post or it gets locked with no chance of you reopening the topic. You have been given numerous warnings and moderations notes and should, by now, know what we mean by stating that this is not at the present science. The topic MUST involved objectively agreed definitions, SHOULD lead to a possibility of a logically constructed argument from the known to the unknown with evidence (or the possibility of same) that is acceptable to the community, DOESN'T need bandwidth hogging copies of your snaps and paintings, and MUST NOT be based on your incredulity or failure to understand the topic. This is the public science forum - not your blog; if you wish to simple write your opinions with the possibility of comments then use a blog. This forum is for SCIENTIFIC debate. I cannot be more clear - failure to put this thread on a sound footing will result in it being locked.

After the big bang the universe was opaque to even radiation and full of hot charged particles - thus any such pairs would have struck a different charged particle within the tiniest fraction of a second. It was like this for about 380,000 years 1) They don't have infinite momentum. 2) Well yes - in fact the whole attractive force by definition not just a component 3) Not necessarily. Negative and positive curvature give different results - in real world space time who knows Yes - but how many such pairs exists? I can think of no mechanism which would eject an electron and a positron on parallel paths

! Moderator Note Moved to homework help. Please make a start on the problem and show your workings and the members will guide you to the correct answer

! Moderator Note Lazarus Can you begin to back up your arguments with both citations for the works you quote and a bit more rigor. Your interpretation of Lorenzo Maconne's very simple explanation of the mathematical basis for Bell's Inequality (which I knew from here) is wrong in all important respects. I am close to believing you are trolling the community with deliberately misinterpreted ideas. I really hope that you are not - and that is why I have made the request for links and rigor; you will note that so far in the this thread that whenever you have provided chapter and verse that Members have very quickly been able to show the flaws in your argument. This will continue to be the case when you present Lorenzo Maccone's proof (or more an explanation for non-mathematicians) and the reasons you think it is incorrect. This thread will remain open and you will suffer no opprobrium whilst you are honestly challenging mainstream mathematics (even such a widely accepted idea) - but if we believe you are deliberately mis-stating your position to elicit a response from the forum then we may call troll and sanctions could follow. Do not respond to this moderation - please report the post if you feel it is unfair.