Mr Skeptic

Sorry, I meant realm. Heaven, Mount Olympus, that sort of thing. Not sure if all gods have one of these that humans can't get to, but all the ones I remember do.

You should be able to do this from the definitions of empty set and subset. Show your work and we can help you find the answer.

What if the ether were contaminated with DNA?

Alternately, one can ask about the properties that every god must have: A god is immortal (does not age, although I think gods can kill gods) A god is (significantly) more powerful than a human. A god can physically affect this world (if only during its creation). A god is sentient and intelligent. A god has his own realm inaccessible to humans. I think those properties are common to all gods (excluding the folks that call everything god, since that makes god a meaningless word)

Giving correct results is no guarantee that either the problem is what it purports to be, nor that the calculations done were correct. In your case, you also give the wrong result which definitely means you did something wrong. No, I know I know better than you. Also, I have run out of patience. It's a simple fact that without understanding multi-dimensional calculus, you can't really properly use multi-dimensional calculus. I do encourage you to continue trying to figure things out, but I will allocate my time to someone who actually wants to learn rather than inflate their ego pretending they know more than they do. Spoon-feeding answers to people who don't want to learn is not why I came to this forum. Why don't you take a break from arguing, and maybe wait for a reply to the quarry you sent to the standards folks, or perhaps you can review what we have said and compare it to other sources.

For metal mining there are two aspects: 1) The price of the metal 2) The amount of metal that can be mined and refined at below that price For uranium, there is an additional factor: 3) Whether the uranium is used in a breeder reactor (that produces new nuclear fuel but has nuclear weapons concerns) So if we do the pessimistic calculations, there is little ore that can be mined at current prices and we will use it up in non-breeder reactors fairly quickly. Note that the price of uranium is a very small percentage of the total cost of nuclear power (unlike, say, oil or coal).

Turns out that there's an exception for biological weapons as well, so all our silly arguing is kind of moot. John Stewart covers this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-8-2010-david-remnick

Also the elements composing human bodies get recycled.

From: [math]\mathbf{F}_{12} = \frac {\mu_0} {4 \pi} I_1 I_2 \oint_{C_1} \oint_{C_2} \frac {d \mathbf{s_2}\ \mathbf{ \times} \ (d \mathbf{s_1} \ \mathbf{ \times } \ \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{12} )} {r_{12}^2}[/math] Define wires of various lengths, parallel and separated by one meter: [math]\frac {\mu_0} {4 \pi} I_1 I_2 \int_{<0,0,0>}^{<1,0,0>} \int_{<0,1,0>}^{<1,1,0>} \frac {d \mathbf{s_2}\ \mathbf{ \times} \ (d \mathbf{s_1} \ \mathbf{ \times } \ \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{12} )} {r_{12}^2}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{2} \frac {\mu_0} {4 \pi} I_1 I_2 \int_{<0,0,0>}^{<2,0,0>} \int_{<0,1,0>}^{<2,1,0>} \frac {d \mathbf{s_2}\ \mathbf{ \times} \ (d \mathbf{s_1} \ \mathbf{ \times } \ \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{12} )} {r_{12}^2}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{3} \frac {\mu_0} {4 \pi} I_1 I_2 \int_{<0,0,0>}^{<3,0,0>} \int_{<0,1,0>}^{<3,1,0>} \frac {d \mathbf{s_2}\ \mathbf{ \times} \ (d \mathbf{s_1} \ \mathbf{ \times } \ \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{12} )} {r_{12}^2}[/math] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And just so you know, this is not the equation for two parallel wires -- it is a bunch of gibberish. You're taking the integral of a constant, a funny looking constant that bears no relation to electromagnetism nor to the above equations. If you don't know mathamatica's language well enough, you can do the cross product by hand and insert the proper trigonometric functions yourself.

Here's something that will compute: make the wires longer (but still finite), and then divide by the length.

Right, but if that is so, then the researchers would have to be pretty dense to expect anything but "copying" (since that is the only data available).

Wade actually is correct usage there. Think of this argument as a muddy bog. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well they are essentially doing the same thing -- judging one as worse judges the other as better. I think I actually prefer people looking for faults, since there is so much of that. But yes, faults can be balanced by virtues, and that too should not be forgotten. Hm, on second thought I think I see where you're coming from. There are countless politicians, and if we just kick out the ones we don't want we aren't assuring quality in the ones that we get to replace them. Whereas if we focus instead on the ones we do want, that's a much smaller number and the others have to show themselves to be better rather than just hide their faults long enough to get elected.

To clarify what I said earlier, the thing about the infinitely long wires is this: if you calculate the force between two wires 1 meter long, then the force between two wires 2 meters long, then 3 m, and so on, each time dividing by the length of the wires, each time you will get a different result. This is a result of how the magnetic field is generated: the current 10 m away contributes to the field at 1 m away. Eventually (I assume based on the different answers), this difference comes out to double.

But is that really copying? This simply shows that the data shows the berries to be safe. Is there a way to tell what berries are safe independent of watching the other players?

Showing you the work has been done plenty and doesn't seem to help much. Mostly because you are trying to do the wrong work. http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/ampere.html See the infinitely long wire? The problem is that you aren't using one. Nope. Infinity is perfectly easy to deal with. Read the definition carefully, it uses infinitely long wires. So then go ahead, do dimensional analysis: is your answer in force per meter or not? If not, you are solving the wrong problem. Correctly solving the wrong problem, but that doesn't make it the right problem. Infinite wires, my friend. The wires are infinitely long. Your answer is a correct answer to the wrong problem. You have to solve the right problem correctly, then you will get the right answer to the right problem. --- If you have trouble working with infinity, we can help with that (probably best to do in a new thread)

Interesting. However, code is something that is very easily copied and much harder to produce -- the real world is rife with copied, recycled, repurposed code. I'm not clear on the details of the participants' coding skills, nor on how exactly the copying is done.

Other fun stuff you can do with hydrogen peroxide: http://www.tecaeromex.com/ingles/peroxidoi.html Tell your buddy he's drinking rocket fuel

Which is why when doing dimensional analysis I have avoided using named units and instead used generic units. Dimensional analysis gives you energy, force, mass, not Joules, ergs, Newtons, pounds, kilograms, stones, or any specific unit. The number in dimensional analysis is also irrelevant, which is why I never specified it when doing a dimensional analysis. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs for your computation, it seems, as I expected, that you are using 1 m wires instead of infinitely long wires. Yes, having a different length of wire means you get a different result.

#5. ...he actually went with retroviruses in similar locations are proof of common design? Oh, and what of the * and **? Was there something more on the bottom, did he forget to add it? Anyhow, I take issue with that answer. In science, when we say something "explains" a fact, we usually mean that said fact can be predicted from the explanation, rather than merely being consistent with it. Does his hypothesis have predictive capability? Can he, from the hypothesis of common design, and perhaps some additional measured data, predict the presence, absence, and relative abundance in different part of the genome of the various types of mutation (insertions, deletions, frame shifts, single nucleotide polymorphism, silent mutations, inversions, gene duplications, translocations)? More generally, what does he think of the idea that the theory with the better predictive capability is scientifically preferable to one with poorer predictive capability?

I thought the teabaggers were protesting people shoving stuff down people's throats.

And if you had read what I said, you'd know that t is not time -- it is a generic variable. Also, if you use l(t) = t (ie a straight line) then it turns out equal to a regular integral, and if you have your function as a conservative force then the path doesn't matter (both give the same answer). If you have a closed loop, you will easily notice how very different it is to do a path integral or not. But what are C1 and C2? Are you using infinitely long straight wires, or 1 m straight wires, or a loop the shape of the milky way? You can't get an answer without defining your paths. As for your results, you must not be using infinitely long wires because if so you are getting the wrong results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_integral In short, convert f(l) * dl to f(l(t)) * dl/dt * dt and integrate with respect to t. You need to know the function of l. The t need not be time. Oh? What's the distance between a point and itself? (let's say you measure it in meters).

Among populations for which it is an invasive species. Seen any natural diseases invasive for the whole world? Diseases produced in artificial conditions need not play by the regular rules. We humans are doing a fairly good job at wiping out other species. (We're biological BTW). The trouble with a biological agent is that they don't have a half-life nor are there disease counters to measure exposure. Quarantine can only last so long before it is likely to be broken -- hopefully there would be a vaccine by then.

Why allocate neurons to even ponder this question?

Sure it works. You just got to tell it what path it's integrating on. You gotta find what dl is. You don't even need math to prove that this has to be a line integral. Consider current flowing in a closed loop: does it generate a magnetic field, or doesn't it? If you don't use a path integral, you integrate over zero distance and get zero, which doesn't make sense.