timo

What makes you think the points were supposed to reflect your reputation for writing good posts?

Planet X is a guy not to be underestimated - I think he could easily beat Batman in a fair fight (i.e. without Batman using all those nasty techno-gadgets). But when it comes to the end of the world, I recommend listening to people with a little more competence than the Mayas - Scientology, for example. Sidenote: To be fair, Mayas have some advantages over Scientology, though. They're not gonna brainwash you and cost less money.

What he does is: 1) Assuming the two bound nitrogen atoms can oscillate, as if they were connected by a spring. 2) Describe the oscillation as a harmonic oscillation with V~x², where x is the deviation from the equilibrium state. 3) In a classical harmonic oscillation, you can have any energy state, including E=0 (which you get for x(t)=0). 4) Go to a QM description. In QM, the possible energy states are quantized to [math] E=\hbar \omega (n + 1/2), \ n \in \, \{0,1,\dots \}[/math]. 5) Calculate the lowest possible energy for N (independent) of such oscillation (see it as the limit T -> 0 K if you want), where N is the number of nitrogen molecules you expect in 1m³ of air for common conditions. It's supposedly just some homework to get used to do such calculations. I see little to no real point in it, except perhaps comparing the result to other energies (e.g. the energy necessary to boil a human and understanding why we're still not boiled by air or the examples I proposed).

Apart from [math] \omega = \sqrt{s/m}[/math] which I cannot verify off my head and the minor inaccuracy that you forgot the units on omega, it looks fine to me. There is nothing wrong with the zero-point energy being big; you only measure offsets from that energy, anyways. Two possibly interesting findings that could be deduced from that result: 1) What would the mass-equivalent of this number be? It's probably little compared to the masses of the molecules. 2) If all of the nitrogen molecules were excited to the 1st excitation level, you'd have an additional energy of 2E. You could compare that to the average energy you expect for the gas (at room temp) and from that draw an estimate to what extent the molecules are vibrationally excited (my guess would be that it's little). EDIT: vv "4.39*10^14/s" doesn't look too bad to me . In fact, I personally favor 1/s over [math]s^{-1}[/math] for frequencies.

I assume that "amount" is to be read as "density" in the context of the quoted half-sentence, it seems to make more sense if BBNS is influenced by a local density rather than a total amount.

Nope.EDIT: vv I see, also explains the strange "sorry". vv

Most (all?) journals are available on web pages. You supposedly meant a page that does not use a peer review system - arxiv ? On topic: Would be interesting to know what field Prof. Braben is in. I think if he really claims to have a good overview over all fields of science (or even just natural sciences) he might be overestimating himself. I'd also not be surprised if people in e.g. atrophysics or genetics would disagree with the statement that all great discoveries were made till ~1970.

I would go as far as to say that contrary to Germany, France, Spain and Great Britain had colonies in Africa during the Nazi time.

I think I understand what you meant by "infinite solutions" now, so here goes an example: Equation system: equation 1: 1*x + 1*y = 0 equation 2: 1*x + 1*y = 0 Of course, the system of equations is solved for any x=-y, meaning there is an infinite number of solutions (x=-y=1, x=-y=2, ...). Applying Cramer's rule, you get [math] x = \frac{\text{det} \left[ \begin{matrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right]}{\text{det} \left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{matrix} \right]} = 0/0[/math].

From \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} a & b & c \\ d & e & 5 \\ 3 & g & h \end{array} \right] you get [math] \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} a & b & c \\ d & e & 5 \\ 3 & g & h \end{array} \right] [/math]

You have to hit it from a distance of 27 km (which is also where the previously-mentioned LHC@home comes in)

I don't think LHC@home is running anymore. Afaik, it was supposed to help designing the storage ring, not for analyzing the data of the detectors.

I remember you said that matter was composed of energy but still I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

Ok, above comment was a comment from solid-state physics, where you try calculating properties of materials from their sub-microscopic structure (but often have to assume idealized forms of solid states called "ideal crystal"). So you possibly don't need to bother. What would you think the equations would look like if resistance was a vector? Particularly, what would happen if you reverse the direction of the current? Just play around with the thought, see if you get any sensible results and post them here. My guess would be that as soon as you relate resistance to some frictional force in some sensible way, then the "vector part" is taken by the current, leaving resistance as a simple pre-factor.

Conductivity in general can be/is a tensor relating electrical field and current: [math]\vec j = \sigma \vec E[/math]. In the case of (simple?) cubic crystals (due to symmetry) and poly-crystalline matter (due to statistics) you can describe it as a scalar number. I'd assume you only define resistance in this case, but that's just a guess. For many practical applications (electrical circuits), the direction should be a given, anyways.

According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm, the (US) casualty count dropped from ~90 / month during the time 01/07 - 09/07 to about ~35 / month. Total count agrees with http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ and http://icasualties.org/oif/, so it seems to be a reasonable source (they might be copying the number from each other, though).

Sure, waves can be visible. Not sure if you classify that as mechanical or matter waves, though.

- Agreed with DrDNA: Just go for it. Even if you don't end up becoming the world's most famous physicist for the next 500 years to come, if you manage to complete the education you will have a solid education in things that seem to interest you and at least the possibility to find a job like producing micro-chips with Intel, producing and/or designing solar cells, ... (things that, to me, sound more interesting than selling cars). - Drop the idea of thinking you were "extremely intelligent" until your achievements reflect it. - Rather than reading the stuff on the internet, consider buying a book or two. - It's absolutely possible to teach yourself a lot of things. To some extent, one could even say that that is exactly what you have to do in university (although US and UK universities have the reputation to be a bit more school-like). I know people that managed to get degrees in physics and mathematics with barely ever visiting a lecture - it's not a generally-advisable approach, though. - The fullfillingness depends on what you find fullfilling. You can have an ok life with a job as a physicist - it probably earns more than selling cars unless you happen to own the shop. If money is a prime concern, then consider going for computer science or a banking career instead.

Dunno, but the ordinary matter of our galaxy isn't clumped to one giant black hole, either.

E=mc² is an equation, not a theory. Your theory/hypothesis/idea/thought/whatever is not any more or any less or equally plausible as any other theory/... just because you give it the same name. Plausibility is judged by how many people think your theory/... makes sense. Plausibility also is not exactly the most important criterion for a theory/.... Correctness, applicabilty and the ability to make predictions are usually more important.

You must be using a newer or newest, but neither the new nor the latest style (-> style choice bar on the lower left).

Not really, especially not when you think this understanding was what you supposedly mean with the term. Examples: - People presenting their theory of magnetism/everything being made up of pure energy/discrete time/... . - The famous Big Bang Theory that I always hear about in forums. - I'd spontaneously (never really thought about the issue, though) use the term "theory" as more or less interchangable with "framework". So I surely do not have a problem with String Theory being called a theory (it's even part of the name of that field, after all). It's surely a framework, probably quite a large one, but surely nothing that has been well-tested experimentally. I even have no problem calling Newtonian Mechanics a theory, even though we know that applying it can be wrong for some problems. Or in other words: I would not attribute too much judgement about the value or applicability of an idea to the term "theory" (but certainly neither the negative "just a theory" evaluation). I'd see it as a value about range/size and internal consistency, at best. On topic: - I agree with Swansont's statement that "a scientific law is a subset of a theory" - that would have been my first thought, too. - Thinking about it a bit further, there seems to be no reason why a law must be part of an existing theory. It seems to make perfect sense that you make observations that seem to hold true but that no existing theory (meant in the sense of "framework") explains why they should be. - Just as with "theory", I wouldn't read the term "law" as inherently being a judgement. Bottom line: I do not see a clear scientific definition of the term "law", especially not in an evaluating sense. Given that scientists are supposed to know when and to roughly what extent a statement applies, I also see little need for a clear definition.

Perhaps you should think about a different distribution form than a (windows-only?) executable. Many people will refrain from downloading and running an executable provided by some anonymous person from an internet forum. Perhaps add a download for the source, even if just as an additional option.

Just claim your work would shed light on the origins of the universe and add some pretty astro pics .

The only formula you need is the relative probability for a particle to be in a state with energy E as a function of the temperature. It is [math] \rho(E) = n_E \exp (-\beta E) [/math], with [math] \beta = \frac{1}{k_B T} [/math] and n_E being the number of states with an energy E (you probably want n_E = 1 in above). EDIT: Please note that this forum has a "homework help" section where your posts are probably more appropriate. Also note the rules applying for this forum (should be written in a pinned thread inside that subforum).