imatfaal

Cannot see your video. But anyway surely the Bieber vid is all new footage? Pretty certain you cannot copyright idea, shot selection, cinematography etc. and what else is there if it is new footage. Unless that bloke in shot nearly all the time isn't Bieber and is your friend - and I really don't know one way or the other. If it is your friend it will come down to the licence under which the video was made available on the internet. BTW with the volume down it is not a bad video

Agree almost entirely - the one reason a quick clean closure is sometimes preferred is that our regulars can get so jaded with the same questions being asked again and again that their responses can become overly dismissive, uninformative, and downright rude. This is admittedly rare and from a long term viewpoint not a problem (ie I see all the amazing answers that are given in addition to the brief dismissals) - but from a one-off visitor's perspective it can appear that we are not interested in having our theories challenged.

Just sing them and keep your fingers crossed There is an Atheist get together near me where we sing hymns just cos they are very good to sing in company - everyone feels uplifted as it is an easy and rewarding joint enterprise. Whilst there are also other songs to sing - the Internationale, folk songs, and pop songs - the religious hymns go down very well as they (especially Wesley's) are brilliantly written with crowd participation in mind. are there humanist songs? Give Peace a Chance, Blowing in the Wind, most of Billy Bragg...

Two interesting questions - neither of which can be answered with certainty. To add to Strange's point on the smallest space it is worth noting that there are no signs that space is quantised at the levels which we can measure so far - the theories which relate to quantised space are at unimaginably small scales that we do not have the energy to probe and may never do so (ie current tech cannot just be scaled up - we need newer ideas). Your nice illustration of the gaps between circles is a sort of fractal and reminded me of Sierpinski Carpets and Menger Sponges - both of which are worth a look at; they are pretty great at a physical / realisable level but it is when taken to non-physical / theoretical levels they become seriously weird.

! Moderator Note Branch with new idea about use of infinite mass to allow teleportation moved to Speculations http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92336-teleporation-with-infinite-mass/#entry893699

! Moderator Note Split from main topic Please try to stick to the topic - or at least answer the question of the OP with accepted physics. Can we also have a complete cessation of name-calling - if you get a basic law back-assward you must expect to be told so in no uncertain terms. No replying to mod notes please. report this post if you must. Joatmon - long time no post nice to see you back

! Moderator Note Donnybrook on Ohm's Law split to separate thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92335-ohm-law-again/ The OP is fairly specific so could we keep to the question. Thanks

! Moderator Note Hijack split to its own thread. For members' guidance - an argument against evolution (and a terribly misguided one at that) is not per se an argument for the existence of god; at best it is a challenge to a scientific theory and thus logically it can say nothing about alternative replacement theories. No responses to mod notes please - report if necessary

! Moderator Note John 3 16 Do not hijack threads! I have split off your hijack into a new thread as it had received some replies - please ensure that your next post in this thread is a progression to your argument or a counter to the differing viewpoints expressed. To forestall problems remember: Preaching will not be tolerated from any participants so please make sure both your arguments against evolution or your counters are science-heavy and dogma-lite. No responses to mod notes please - report if necessary

I would say that is a description of classical physics and the opposite of QM. If you can factorize a state into a product of basis vectors then the state is not entangled. The important difference of quantum mechanics is that there exist superposition of entangled particles which can only be described by non-product states - for example the singlet state which I quoted above

And Hoyle's doggedness in trying to prove what he believed was correct did lead to great insights in parallel areas (solar nucleosynthesis) . I do agree with your initial contention that the tales of scientific ridicule halting progress are - when taken in a post-enlightenment perspective - massively over-stated. It seems that many of these arguments are founded on the assumption that scientific community follows the lead of the those who persecuted the scientific community hundreds of years ago. Many other seem to think that the scientific method is a concrete, unchanging rulebook which can be encapsulated, wholly-defined, and critiqued without caveat by a few 20th century philosophers.

We changed our system of currency on 15th Feb 1971 (two weeks after I was born) moving from an amazingly arcane system to a decimal (new pence) system - so there was a huge influx of "new pence" coinage. We stayed being able to use old shillings as five new pence, old florins as 10 new pence in addition to similar sized new coins - but the copper coinage (1/2,1, 2 pence) was all new . Before that our coinage had changed little - all had the monarch of the day on - but other than that and the smaller coins dying out (the groat) there was little change; people my elder brothers' age remember having handfuls of change and none would be younger than 50 years and a lot of the pennies victorian. Terry Pratchett has an excellent passage describing/eulogizing the old system - I will see if I can find it

! Moderator Note Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. This looks a bit too much like homework so would you explain where you have got to in solving this problem and what has stopped your progress - hopefully members can then help you to overcome your difficulties yourself.

Not sure there are many people in history who could reasonably claim that both Euler and Ramanujan are confused. No one claims it is a universally applicable result nor comparable to the summation of a normal series nor that the concept doesn't produce contradictions - but the reality is that these counter-intuitive results are not only repeatable through different methods of analysis in some cases they explain/reproduce physical situations that otherwise are a mystery

G. H. Hardy "Divergent Series" Oxford University Press, London 1949 Reprinted - 1973

First off - can I re-iterate Mathematic's remark above. And add one of Hardy's at 13.17 "The formulae (13.10.11) give examples of the R [gothic-script] summability of divergent series of positive terms. We can use such equations, as did Euler and Ramanujan, to define the sums of series, such as 1-1+1..., of the more usual type; but the definitions which result have a narrow range and demand great caution in their application" -[my emphasis] He then goes on to show a quick source of internal contradiction if these sums are taken beyond applicability. It also states on page 333 13.10.11 that incidentally it is possible to show that 1+2+3...=-1/12 I have neither the knowledge nor the wit to explain Ramanujan summation to members - it is something "I know of" rather than something "I know about" if you can see the distinction. Here is the link to a skulls in the stars blog that I think was my first brush with the idea http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/05/25/infinite-series-are-weird-redux/ I understand Ramanujan's heuristic but regarding the formal derivations I would have to bow out - there are loads of explanations on the web but my understanding is such that I would be weary of even recommending one over the other

I think it was Ramanujan rather than Euler (who did a lot of work here but is never shown to have written that equation) - but the equation is right, for a particular usage of the word right In general you can manipulate divergent series to get all sorts of results. This.

The talk of relative densities allows predictions of roche limits without knowledge of the mass of the objects just knowledge of what they were constituted. Saturn's rings might be (in truth I think the consensus is this is not the case) the remains of moons that were within the roche limit - but we know this cannot be the whole answer as E-ring is too far out for a satellite ( we don't need to know mass just that it was made up of the same stuff as the e-ring) to be within Roche Limit of a gas-giant. The use of relative densities allow us to say what the roche limit (albeit as a multiple of the Radius of the primary) is for any water ice comet in orbit around any white dwarf - because whilst we are not given the masses we are given the densities

Except for the giant space weevils hiding till we send live food astronauts

Actually old and cynical enough to know that some politicians are actually bat-shit crazy. And worldly wise enough to understand that writing everyone in politics off as a unprincipled pragmatist is foolish and dangerous - unfortunately lots of them have strong, deeply help, and highly dangerous principles which they would not hesitate to act upon to the majority of humanity's detriment.

Surely the Banach Tarski would only violate common perceptions of a conservation of volume - there is no viloation of the conservation of mass. The paradox "works" because the porosity ends up screwing with the everyday notion of volume a/o density; there is no contention that I have seen that extra mass would be created. This is not saying it is not strange and counterintuitive.

Casimir - surely you need some form of constraint limiting the standing waves that can arise. Hawking - don't you need a horizon (rindler, event, etc.)? Unruh - if you are accelerating yes if you are not no.

[latex] \vdash(p \vee \sim p)[/latex] does not seem commensurable with [latex]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\uparrow \downarrow \rangle - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\downarrow \uparrow \rangle[/latex]

that's very intriguing and delightfully good to look at on the page. Thanks for mentioning it