imatfaal

The problem with that is you risk spending 3-4 years on a topic you are only vaguely interested in - but because it is your supervisor's pet idea they are loath to let you vary your exact target or approach.

Wasn't Captcha (or its progenitor) written as a way of getting wetware* to read numbers, letters, script that was too difficult for computers to read *ie us

Technically vivisection is the cutting open and dissection of a living animal or person - now it tends to mean any experimentation on live animals. Animal experimentation is necessary to advance medical techniques and the understanding of animal/human physiology and biochemistry. Bio-medical researchers would love to be able to do all their work in vitro (literally "in glass" - but meaning on a simple processed substrate that replicates the results found by working in vivo or on a living creature) but this is impossible at present and may remain so for any foreseeable future

! Moderator Note TheGeckoMancer To re-iterate Hyper's comment - we really do frown upon the use of divisive language so please ensure you do not use it in future. And much less importantly we also prefer to avoid the use of swear words - and whilst I agree almost totally with your comment and the need to express them with as much emphasis as possible please try to do this without using bad language Thanks

That one is normally faked I am afraid. It is a spring loaded quarrel/bolt that either hinges down or shoots backwards out of the target/backstop - most of those sort of tricks are including the knife throwing stuff; the real cleverness is in the misdirection and legerdemain which stops you spotting the removal/change of the quarrel on the bow or palming a knife from the hand whilst pretending to throw it

Actually it is on my resume - not that I have actually sent out a copy for years now; but when you do have to be interviewed for jobs it is very useful to have some mindless distractions on which you can easily chat about for 5 mins. The fact that I learnt as a street performer whilst living in Palermo because my father was in the Ospedale recovering from a holiday heart attack - will normally tick all "are we sure this guy isn't a boring salaryman-drone" boxes. Back on the point - being able/unable or unwilling to do something that looks dangerous and frightening separates young men (and according to reports more and more young women) into US and THEM; it seems a huge amount of our time at that age is spent doing this - many years later I struggle to remember why. And the molten lead sounds cool - will have to yootoob that episode.

Frankly as long as it is the fuel burning quickly and you smother before you get much transfer of heat then it isn't that bad; and I am sure the press report are miracles of hyperbole - it is probably lighter fluid on a coat sleeve and as long as it is wool not nylon you are fine. I have done fire club juggling acts and fire breathing that looks a lot worse that it is - the whole point is controlled danger. Like a huge number of teenage games it is highly dangerous if you get it wrong or are hesitant - but if you know the trick and act with speed and certainty then most of the time you are ok. Yet another hazardous teenage shibboleth - isn't the first won't be the last; we used to ride on the outside of tube trains hanging off the back door... stupid, highly dangerous, and mind-bogglingly exciting

You had plenty of chances and wasted them on posturing/argumentation. I will repeat: there is repeatable and documented experimental evidence for delayed quantum eraser and all its variants. Arguing hypothesis against empirical evidence is not a valid approach

Delayed quantum eraser experiment can have extended photon paths and show that interference drops/appears quicker than possible by a SoL communication between the two detectors. NB this is not a FTL communication - all information transfer is well below SoL but we can time measurements of signal and idler photons whilst other still "in flight" and disrupt/allow pattern with delays that do not concur with a SoL signal between two edit - Not to say this is instantaneous - nor communication. But it is weird.

you could try running cyanogenmod take it very slowly and do lots of backups tho

Which it wouldn't do without friction - in the (admittedly confused) OP the term "freefall" is used which is normally taken to mean only under force of gravity. As JCMac pointed out this was an odd formulation for an inclined slope; obviously you need the normal reaction for the slope to be taken into account. But including friction as well... But in getting ready for a physics competition I would have thought that the use of the term freefall should actually mean something - and the set of friction coefficients to get a perfect roll with no sliding (per SwansonT's message above) should be an explicit part of a question. It would not be beyond the bounds of teachers and quiz setters to deliberately fool competitors by asking a trick question for a sphere, a cylinder, and a ring and thus tempting students into assuming rolling (cos of the different moments of inertia) when they should be assuming sliding

just noticed the value of G is given incorrectly in your paper as well. It is too big by a factor of a hundred billion

Just out of curiosity - if the only force on the ring is gravity why is it rotating?

From PDF (which we would prefer you post in abstract on the site) Well F=GMm/r^2 So if we look at that in base units/dimensions you get [kg][m]^-2 = G [kg]^2[m]^-2 divide both sides by kg^2 multiply both sides by m^2 and you get [m]^3 ^-2 [kg]^-1 = G you can even sub in the defintion of Newtons [N] = G [kg]^2[m]^-2 and get G = [N][kg]^-2[m]^2 which is the SI units for G So no - you are incorrect. getting Newtons grav constant dimensionally wrong in a paper on gravity is not cool

Just to nitpick a/o clarify and to check my understanding - whilst atomic clocks obviously do not function at absolute zero when the measurements are made at a fraction above abs zero the results are transformed to give the values as if at a limit of abs zero (the ground state). The famous number (which one of our moderators would love as a telephone number) 9 192 631 770 is the number of transitions at caesium's ground state at a temperature of 0 K.

! Moderator Note new thread regarding Martian Vulcanism here - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92696-martian-plate-tectonics-or-not/

I think the parabola is technically only an estimation - reliant on the (completely reasonable) assumption that compared to the length of the throw the earth is flat and gravitational attraction is unchanging in direction. When you get to silly lengths of ballistic trajectories (paris gun etc) you have to treat the earth as spherical and the equations are - IIRC - hyperbole (or is it a section of an ellipse) because the object is actually attracted to a point rather than in a constant direction.

Your answers are showing that you clearly do not understand the Bell Inequality. At no point are choices made nor are indivudual predictions required for Bell to be shown to be correct - the experiments work on the overal probibilities for multiple iterations of a test at different angles. Bell's breakthrough was to realise that the Classical/Hidden Variable vs Quantum Mechanical could be shown to produce different predictions for overall matches/mis-matches over multiple varying tests over numerous tests at different angles of receptors and that an already castiron mathematical/statistical inequality must apply. The experimenters then found ways to measure incidences of matches and mismatches - every time the quantum mechanical answers (of match/mismtch under certain circumstances) have been found AND by Bell's impeccable logic these answers CANNOT come from Hidden Variables It would be better for the other members for you to read up on Bell's Inequality, then the Theorem, and the experiments which have come subsequently before claiming to challenge it

! Moderator Note Please post abstract/summary of argument here. We do not allow OP to force members off-site in order to be able to follow argument. This applies to request to download and open a PDF file. If you wish to have the discussion here then the basis for argument must be made here. I would also be happier if you could work through the clear errors in your other thread first. There is nothing approaching an agreement that the basis for your argument is correct - let alone that your hypothesis might have merit

! Moderator Note ascinuk you've been told NOT TO SPECULATE IN THE MAINSTREAM SECTIONS. If you continue to refuse, the next step will be to put you in an approval queue. If this happens your posts will need to be approved by staff before they'll appear to everyone else. We don't want the reputation for giving students bad information. No more speculation outside of Speculations, please.

Are all the methods you guys use to create photon sources in essence probabilistic? So when you get down to one photon you don't actually know when it will pop up. Re the beam splitter - iirc delayed quantum eraser uses the matched timing of signal and idler photons to match pair and thus give which way information and thus destroy interference; so I presume that spontaneous parametric down conversion will have a fixed or predictable time match between the two photons produced

OK - that makes much more sense.

Difficult - and possibly one's conceptualization will be completely flawed - but by no means unapproachable. One's own lack of existence is a harder pill to swallow - but Frank Capra managed a conceptualization (even if it is too saccharine for my tastes) many years ago. They will start showing it on TV pretty soon as Christmas approaches. I seem to have lost a post - if it turns up then hey-ho It seems it is Arabic and not Hebrew from everything I can find on the internet; I would have sworn-blind it was Hebrew. Moooey! Where are you when we need an expert on ancient Hebrew? My chain of thought was as follows - Sephiroth are the bits of the kabbalah, they take their name from the Hebrew for counting Sephira which is turn comes from the word for zero . But I can find no back up for this

Irrational numbers do not terminate nor become periodical - they do not have a final digit in contradiction to your assertion that they do

This is an interesting book on zero (is that nothingness?) in mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea Odd that in some pronunciations the author's name matches the hebrew for zero.