imatfaal

You can do this with no further information Volume of Cone = 1/3 pi r^2 h so we know [latex] V= \frac{\pi r_1^2 h_1}{3} [/latex] [latex] 2V= \frac{\pi r_2^2 h_2}{3} - \frac{\pi r_1^2 h_1}{3} [/latex] [latex] \frac{9}{4}V= \frac{\pi r_3^2 h_3}{3}-\frac{\pi r_2^2 h_2}{3} [/latex] As V is just a constant we can divide through by pi/3 to make it look nicer and rearrange [latex]r_1^2h_1=W[/latex] [latex]r_2^2h_2 = 2W+r_1^2h_1[/latex] [latex]r_3^2h_3= \frac{9}{4} W+r_2^2h_2[/latex] but we know that [latex]h_i=r_i Tan (\alpha)[/latex] We then have 3 equations in three unknowns (r1 r2 r3) and W - which you can rearrange to give ratios of r1:r2 and r1:r3 etc. This allows you to get relative sizes of the r1 r2 r3 and via the tangent function of the three heights I do not get the same figures as you. But that would make sense as you cannot simplify to triangles as the triangle's area varies with r whereas the cone's volume varies with r^2. As the information you give us is to do with the volume then we must stick with that. I can finish of the calcs if you are still confused [latex] r_2^2h_2 = 2(r_1^2h_1)+r_1^2h_1 [/latex] [latex] r_2^2h_2 = 3r_1^2h_1[/latex] [latex] r_2^2 \cdot r_2 Tan(\alpha) = 3r_1^2\cdot r_1Tan(\alpha)[/latex] [latex] r_2^2 \cdot r_2 = 3r_1^2\cdot r_1[/latex] [latex] r_2^3 = 3r_1^3[/latex] By the same method [latex]r_3^3=\frac{21}{4}r_1^3[/latex]

! Moderator Note Jeffellis - please stop responding on the main fora with pure guesswork, speculation, or personal notions. The main fora are for the discussion of science and not for the exchange of outlandish ideas.

I think that is a false premise. Humans are inordinately interested in Astronomy, the Stars, the Cosmos. The moon and possibly even Mars are better understood than the very deep ocean trenches on our our planet. I am not sure there exists any culture that did not have a significant portion of its founding mythology based on the heavens - prehistoric humans could predict solar and lunar eclipses, the ancient greeks had used their understanding of the sun and shadows to reckon the radius of the earth and their observations had already persuaded them that it was a globe and no turtles were involved, the ancient indian mathematicians, the chinese astrologer/astronomers etc.

it looked like a bad mixture of v = u+at and s=ut +1/2 at^2. As per both above posters; whenever you reach an impasse like this check your dimension a/o units whichever you feel most comfortable with your equation was ms-1 = ms-2 s2 or [length] [time]-1 = [length] [time]-2 [time]2 which are clearly wrong

Anselm is rumbled as a Santa Claus apologist and all-around confuser Anselms Ontological Argument is an anagram of On-going Santa Claus troll meme

! Moderator Note Dima Mazin We realise that English is not your first language - but this argument is beginning to seem fruitless and I am no longer sure it is due to any language mis-comprehension. It appears that you have decided to push your own ideas regardless of current theory, counter-arguments presented, and requests for maths/clarification. If this does not change in the next few posts then the thread will be locked. Do not respond to this post - report it if you feel it is unfair.

No one has (yet) posited the finger of god explanation and from that hypothesis produced other predictions (which are amenable to observation by disinterested sceptics) that follow from the prediction. Stars orbit galaxies at an unexpected speed/radius (over-simplified) therefore GOD is a full stop. God doesn't need to follow up on one intervention with others which a reasonable man might expect Stars orbit galaxies at an unexpected speed/radius (over-simplified) therefore we might be missing some mass that does not interact electromagnetically; if that is the case then we should be able to see this through altered galactic gravitational lensing (check), differential speed of normal/dark matter after nebula collision (check), filaments of dark matter in otherwise empty voids (check) ....

We are 3d beings in a 3d datum universe - we would see the 3d cross-section of the 4d object. For instance (and dropping dimensions by one) if a 2d being was to look at a 3d object in his 2d universe; a cone would appear as either a circle, an elipse, a parabola or a hyperbola, or a point - it would slowly moved from one to the other as the object moved. There is probably a simulation of what a tesseract would look like in 3d on the internet - rendered in, of course, a 2d video

"Exotic matter" means you have entered purely speculative and hypothetical territory - so sure there will be some ideas but none of them will be accepted by a long stretch. Physical situations - none (I think); within the laws/theory at present the barrier is insuperable. Dark Matter interacts gravitationally (that's about all we know about it) so no it will not be able to escape across the EH in the outward direction - because as Strange pointed out above there is NO outward direction. All paths within the EH lead to the singularity (or whatever it is) at the centre - even those which seem diametrically opposed to the direction of the singularity

! Moderator Note Split regarding how life/conscious actions renders examples of entropy invalid split off. If a post has been inadvertently moved or missed let me know by PM Michel Please try to avoid taking threads off at a tangent to explore a personal view of a topic or to ask questions that are not part of the OP. Please do not respond to this moderation. report the post if you think it is unfair.

! Moderator Note OK Guys - no more talk on conspiracy theories please. Scary Truth - please keep posts based on reasonably accepted/checkable facts; hidden truths, secret governments, and shadowy organisations are (by their nature) not discussable in these terms. There are many sites to discuss these ideas - this forum as a whole is not one of them; even in the non-science fora we insist on members being able to back up claims with normally accessible information. No need to respond to this moderation. Report the post if you think it is unfair. was that ok? I think I managed to stop the truth coming out... Let me know if you need to bring in the black helicopters... hail hydra!

Because this is a science forum. There are a limited number of fora that deal with non-scientific topics - but they are, by their nature, auxiliary to the main project which is the provision of an internet forum for the discussion of science.

And you must be aware that distillation of alcohol - even for personal consumption - is illegal in some jurisdictions. Please take a moment to check - whilst any prosecution might be very unlikely it could have totally unforeseeable consequences such as jeopardising security of tenure in rented housing for example

I know a family called Slaughter - I will tell them that the Chinese branch of the family has a Nobel Prize winner. The burdens of working under the terror of the Cultural revolution (being in the field away from home for so long that her daughter failed to recognise her upon her return) had terrible parallels with a great novel I read called The Three Body Problem. Amazon have it very cheap on kindle and whilst the sciencey bits annoyed in places the depiction of a female scientist working in the throes of the revolution and afterwards were most compelling.

Tomas Lindahl Francis Crick Institute and Clare Hall Laboratory, Hertfordshire, UK Paul Modrich Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA and Aziz Sancar University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/advanced-chemistryprize2015.pdf Hey Moon - A good day for NC!

The wiki page for the gun showed two or three different rounds - one of which was a lighter bullet with the amount of energy listed in the OP

Her dedication and work ethic are a bit scary to be honest - but then I suppose that is what is needed to get Nobel prizes and really make a difference in your chosen field

Takaaki Kajita Super-Kamiokande Collaboration University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan and Arthur B. McDonald Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Collaboration Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada “for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass” http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/advanced-physicsprize2015.pdf

the rewards can be educational, inspirational, or financial. Nice to see that at least one academic educational writer did fantastically out of his work. http://www.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/oct/05/maths-palace-built-by-calculus-rock-star-on-sale-for-14m

! Moderator Note I understand why this thread was placed here - but the Suggestions, Comments, and Support thread is its more natural home. Thread moved. Title modified to make sense now that I have moved it

The fight against parasitic disease. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015 was divided, one half jointly to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura "for thier discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites" and the other half to Youyou Tu "for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria". http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2015/press.pdf Here's another picture of Youyou Tu ( at the front of the queue for personal pronouns?) - she is apparently in the United States at present and DOESNT know she has won the Nobel Prize. If you see You tell her! Si tu vois Tu lui dire!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/28/nasa-scientists-find-evidence-flowing-water-mars Not checked for hype, inconsistencies, and over-inflated journalism yet - only checked to make sure it isn't April Fools Day (it isnt) http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-mars-mystery-solved

This seems to be a rehash of your previous posts with precious little new to warrant a separate thread. If you wish to seriously discuss the impact of self and the subjective environment on wider philosophical questions then I would recommend a quick read of the Roman Stoics and their concepts of autarky and ataraxy which in modern terms could be thought of a positive positive feedback loop (and yes I meant two positives). This is a self-reinforcing (ie positive loop) idea of using the ideas of philosophy to enable the person to practise mental exercises through a regimen that is beneficial to clear thinking and decision making (ie positive ends) - this in turn allows the person to gain greater understanding of their personal philosophy and the freedom to act on this, which in turn... To be honest the Stoics ideas were pretty bleak and involved meditation on death, and the worse things that could happen to you - reality was bound to be better (although in the court of Nero I am not sure this was actually true). If you are thinking on this as personal project in reality then please do search on hypomnemata - the idea of a journal of notes in which ideas, conclusions, faults, etc. are noted before polluted by time, over-thinking, and reflection. And an unofficial word to the wise - if this thread continues on the same topic as your others then it will almost certainly lead to closure due to redundancy. You can take up my ideas or throw in new ones; but a change is necessary.

I didn't say it was the cut-off activating - I was thinking it was the cutoff resetting after cooling The heat-activated cutoff switch is at rest-state normally - the steam heats it up and it changes state which then stops the power (that is at the beginning) and flicks the kettle to auto-off, then after a few seconds of cooling the switch flicks back to off to allow the kettle to be reboiled. It is a very weird sound and isn't anything like my kettle resetting the thermoswitch - but then my kettle doesn't have such a positive load click for the initial trip of the thermoswitch. Remember that sone of these switches use bimetallic strips under pressure that flicks back - and the noise could be the ping of metal flicking back