imatfaal

! Moderator Note David Levy I am pretty sure we have already closed your threads comprising arguments from misunderstanding purporting to cast doubt on the existence of dark matter. Please make sure that this does not head the same way. No need to respond to this moderation - report the post if you feel it is unfair

its not the sound of the heat activated switch popping back into rest-state is it?

there is a latex tutorial around here somewhere. will dig it out and post link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

! Moderator Note OK so whilst this is the religion forum and a certain amount of non-empiricism is to be expected - we are still not here to provide a platform for numerology nor for preaching. The Religion forum is provided as a "Forum for the discussion and examination of the rational foundations of religion." Either move on from the numerology or this thread will be locked

! Moderator Note We are not a repository for copy'n'pasta - this text has appeared in several fora over the last few days. Please ensure your next post is a point for discussion or a question rather than a lengthy exposition. I have removed your link. Thread locked.

per the above two responses. In my example - you were influencing what I was doing, my greek colleagues were influencing what I was doing but there was no interaction whatsoever between you and my greek colleagues

"But for the forces to meet, they must interact, no?" - No. If the forces interact (rather than both act on a single object independently) then we should be able to show this interaction by its effect on the forces when a third object is involved; we don't see this. F1 interacts with the object, F2 also interacts with the object - F1 does not interact with F2. As I type this I am on a conference call (too much of my life is spent merely being tele-present on calls) - I am interacting with the guys in Piraeus, and I am interacting with you; but unless you now work in Iassonos Street it is unlikely that you are interacting with my Greek colleagues.

I don't know about tablets as I have never used one but I am pretty sure you are gonna have to "fully engage" with latex sooner or later; it gets much easier with practice and I can now just type equations into this website without really thinking (I am a shipping lawyer so not much need for it professionally). Hopefully AJB will see this thread and comment - he teaches Mathematical Physics so would be best to advise; maybe PM him before purchasing if he doesn't post here. OT - I now use my ipad for lots of notes, drafting, and quotes; some the handwriting display apps are really great and I still produce better initial ideas with a pen than a keyboard and I can email off to colleagues without effort http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87763-series/#entry853316 The extra colours and ability to seamlessly delete cut paste etc just appeals to the inner geek

Units? Science is meaningless without units - 4500 what?

You beat me to it. I was just trying to actually rationalise/formalise this - after rushing to post last time I wanted to be sure - when I noticed you had posted. Nice One. It is the notion that you can cancel prime factors without worrying that this stops you cancelling other factors that I needed to get my head around

Of course it isn't. Doh! I am comforted that you didn't see it straight away - makes me feel less bad about it. The fact that it was rubbish kind of makes it clear it was devised for your query - just badly devised Was just gonna hit the sack and now I am gonna have to think a bit. You saw the top lines I guess about binomial coefficients of (1+x)^n? Unless I am having another brain fart then that bit is sound - just less easy to formalise

Show us what you have done so far - we don't just give out answers Maybe start with showing conversions to metric and whatever you need to use for BTU

Yes - most certainly. You get to post - that is a privilege. You do not get it by right - it is at the discretion of the administrators and staff, can be withdrawn, and only arises after you have completed certain prerequisites. We most certainly are not in a popularity contest nor in a rush to realign our ideals to compete with a different forum; both fora offer distinct and somewhat incommensurable features - who is to say which is better? I will say without fear of contradiction that it is better to have diversity of approach rather than slavish mimicry. Your final point is also very dismissive of those who have been here longer than me and far longer than you, the holders of multiple post-graduate degrees, the acknowledged experts in their field, and the eloquent and educated stalwarts of the forum when you state that only your ideas will get the "Brains" involved and thus by implication most have already left for pastures new. Why not forget about the rep system and concentrate on science posts - you know, what this forum is all about. Stop getting tied up in the administrative details of protocol and dive into the substantive wonder of science.

Pretty much the functional definition of a head is that it attaches differently and has a altered somatic action. Take a look at the different motion created by the long and short head of biceps brachii - it is a good example as the head end is fairly simple mechanically (the tendon connection to the lower arm is less simple) . Actually triceps might be a better example as it is almost alone as a single muscle group - but the connexions and thus functions are less easy to follow. I mentioned Triceps as it is fairly isolated and can act solely - but this is very rare; muscles do not tend to be stimulated as individuals - they are stimulted in functional groups. This is particularly important in complex areas with numerous muscles many of which are complex in of themselves - such as the area of the face and hands. there are very few movements that can be tracked to the certain stimulation of an individual muscle - most movements are a combination of agonist muscles often with antagonists thrown in to stabilise.

What makes you think this is a democracy? SF.n is not even a polity but if it must be pigeon-holed it would be somewhere between Benign Dictatorship and Enlightened Oligarchy (in the correct usage not the recent corruption of the word)

In rough and ready practice you can treat the ln(-x) as equal to the ln(x) +i.pi - It is the output of the complex logarithm function when the imaginary component is zero. And yes the complex logarithm function can have many answers with any multiple of 2.i.pi being added in turn . The answer to your simple question is ln(1) is zero - when you ask about -1 you are using complex logarithms and the principle value is 0 but any integer multiple of 2.i.pi + 0 will also be a logarithm

Isn't it amazing that every thread people just answer the wrong questions. Nothing to do with the fact that maybe you are rambling and imprecise in your OP and intolerant and waspish in replies. A negative value is easily dealt with as I think you might have been getting at in the OP [latex] ln (-x) = ln (-1 \cdot x) = ln (e^{\pi \cdot i} \cdot x) = ln(e^{\pi \cdot i}) + ln(x) = \pi \cdot i + ln(x) [/latex]

The easiest way to prove it to yourself is to remember that n choose r is the rth binomial coefficient of (1+x)^n. And there is no way expansion of brackets and gathering of like terms by simple addition can turn the coefficient 1 into something that might be a fraction To see how this must work with the factorial representation of it [latex]\frac{n(n-1)(n-2)...(n-(r-1)}{r!}[/latex] is equivalent to [latex]\frac{n!/(n-r)!}{r!}[/latex] rearrange to [latex]\frac{n!}{r! \cdot (n-r)!}[/latex] Remembering that n>r and that n>(n-r). When r=n-1 you end up with n!/r! which is clearly wholly divisible It then helps to visualise with numbers say 10 chose 4 10!=1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 4!= 1.2.3.4 (10-4)!=1.2.3.4.5.6 [latex]\frac{1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10}{(1.2.3.4)*(1.2.3.4.5.6)}[/latex] rearrange (and you can always do this once you think about it [latex]\frac{1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9*[10]}{(1.2.3.4)*(1.2.3.4)*(5.6)}[/latex] [latex]\frac{1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.[5*2]}{[2*(1.2.3.4)]*(5.6)}[/latex] cancel out the two by multiplying top and bottom by 2 [latex]\frac{1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.(5)}{(1.2.3.4)*(5.6)}[/latex] Every number on the bottom row is duplicated on the top row - must be a whole number. Whatever size r is you get two smaller than n factorials on the bottom row. This bottom row can be thought of as two multiplied by the common section of the factorial in turn multiplied by the higher singular parts. The top row (because n>r and we dealt with n=r-1 above) will always have a even digit multiplier greater than r. This allows a cancellation of the 2 in the bottom row - and after that you only have one instance of each digit in the bottom row and at least one instance in the top row; that must be a whole number

[latex]ln \left( \frac{a \cdot x^j}{b \cdot y^k} \right) = ln(a) - ln(b) + j \cdot ln(x)- k \cdot ln(y)[/latex] The above variables are positive.

"(is there illegal clothing in a democracy?)" Nazi Uniforms are, I believe, still illegal in Germany. Wearing a Military Uniform one is not entitled to USA is tbomk illegal. I am sure there are exemptions, excuses, and justification to both laws which render them less draconian - but they are laws which prohibit articles of clothing per se not merely as part of a larger exercise to mislead

If you are being pernickity; I guess it could be any point that is on a line parallel to the axis of rotation and which passes through the Centre of Mass And the more I think about it the more I think it might be only very likely to the centre of mass rather than always the centre of mass

There are methods which allow the experimenter to determine which slit each invididual photon/electron went through without disturbing them - but as soon as you do this the interference disappears. You can read up on this (it is the first stage) at any good write up of the Quantum Eraser Experiment. What is really spooky is that you can measure the route each photon took (and lose interference) but erase the information after the photons have hit the screen and get the interference pattern back - Delayed Quantum Eraser Experiment I have just noticed that Wiki calls my first stage as the second stage - here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment Will have a look for a better one as I seem to remember this write up is pretty poor (wikipedians competing to be erudite and knowledgeable and failing to be either)

! Moderator Note I am pretty sure there is a computer help forum a little further up the page. And a certain moderator will probably ban you with extreme prejudice if you go back to posting all of your threads, regardless of the topic, in the lounge. Thread locked.