Mr Skeptic

No. If that were possible, you could just divide the rational circumference by the rational diameter, and you would get pi and pi would be rational. But you can't do that because pi is not rational.

Farsight, much as I think your theories are interesting, they are too vague. Perhaps your paper will clarify some points, but I could not access it (and what happened to putting it on arXiv?).These are also just the vagueness with respect to your theory of electromagnetism to stay on topic: 1) You say electricity is twist, along which axis? An answer to this would clarify many of my questions. 2) Can you explain why charges are multiples of e? Why would it twist such a specific amount? 3) How do you explain conservation of charge? Yes, I did read about your examples of strings (twisted along the string's axis) and Falaco Solitons. I do not think these are good analogies; one is one-dimensional, and the other is a fluid. If you answer 1) I can clarify this better. Your string seems to be the only place you can separate two twists and let them join to cancel each other. How do you separate your twists? Actually, answer 1) first so I don't have to ask a bunch of misinformed questions.

Thanks, Spyman. So they really did demote Pluto then. Wasn't sure they would do that. Now we only have 8 planets

Pi can be calculated as close to perfectly as you want using various methods. Your measuring method is not one of them, though. Because you cannot measure precisely, your result will be inaccurate (you need to measure both the circle and the radius, and have a perfect circle). One way to approximate pi is by modeling it as a regular polygon with infinite sides. Calculate the circumference of the polygon as the number of sides increase, and you can get as close as you like to pi.

Pretty much everything makes vitamins (especially plants). No biggie, unless they made GM algae with extra vitamins.

We're both right. 50,000 in the US; about 1/2 million worldwide. I didn't know smoking deaths were so high, but I checked and you are right (the figures I saw were about 400,000 in the US). There are much bigger fish to fry than pit bulls, especially if their tendency toward violence is a result of owners who want a violent dog choosing a pit bull. I disagree that we should try to get them banned because that would serve as a distraction from other more dangerous things (you know how politicians, media, and average people are), not because I particularly care one way or the other about pit bulls (but others do).

Careful now, there are lots of things that cause waaaaaaaay more than 66 deaths a year. Here, in no particular order, is a list of things that cause hundreds or thousands of deaths a year but are not banned: cars, alcohol, peanuts, cars, guns, knives, cars, stairs, unhealthy food, cars, obesity, smoking, swimming pools. Did I repeat myself a bit? Cars cause about half a million deaths a year. After all, 66 deaths in (oh, I just noticed you said 20) in 20 years is 66 too many.

Since you have them in very small quantity and fine powder, there are lots of options. Depending on the variety of mica, it might float in water (might need a little salt). That would be your best bet if it works. If you want to be creative, maybe static electricity could do it but I don't know.

I'm kind of suspicious of infinity in that way. Pi and e and all the other irrational numbers can be approximated as close as you like, but you will never get anywhere close to infinity. No matter how close you get, you are still infinitely far away. In more mathematical terms, you can converge to an irrational number, but infinity diverges. Does infinity have a use other than for taking limits or counting sets?

We have not completely eliminated disease, nor is that the only form of population control. Disease, famine, war, these are as relevant as ever. Though we can heal most diseases, if a new or particularly virulent strain breaks out it could still kill many of us, overload hospitals, etc. There are still diseases that we cannot cure, too. Though you do not think of famine, it is occurs in some countries, and has a chance of happening in ours. The reasons could be the same as ever; drought, pests or disease killing our (now overspecialized) crops. Better transportation mitigates those now. Also if our petroleum infrastructure were destroyed, we would have trouble farming (worldwide or local). Also, killing each other is still a popular sport. Be it homicide or war, the more people there are the more likely we are to kill each other. Even in just the small wars. The trouble I foresee is that we will do so well and grow so much that we may drive several species to extinction. We are only beginning to learn biotech and don't realize just how valuable these creatures and plants are. (Not to sound coldhearted, but that is how some people think, and you already heard from the people who do care for other reasons.) I forgot to add the most obvious, that we are also lazy creatures and the more comfortable we are the more annoying it is to raise children. In the old days children were a bit like slaves, now they are mostly just a pain. If anything this is the biggest change in natural selection as applied to humans, those who can afford to have many children, don't.

It's just the nature of my little project. It feels like cheating to just grab the electron and proton from the particle list and not explain why they must be so. Maybe you should have a look at it, perhaps you could contribute.

Yeah, I'm still missing something there, the way that we measure the "basic" thing that all the other measurements are made of. What I am missing is particles and their interaction: for example the Hydrogen spectrum can give me a photon of known energy/frequency/wavelength as a law of physics. I could use that for my ruler, but then I need to explain where Hydrogen comes from and describe it.

[math] 0 = (1 - 1) = 1 - 1 + (\infty - \infty) = 1 + (-1 + \infty - \infty) = 1 + (\infty - \infty) = 1[/math] This would prove that 0 = 1. Do you now understand why [math]\infty - \infty[/math] is undefined rather than zero?

Hm, I thought that the zero was arbitrarily chosen, which is slightly different than arbitrary. But if the only thing we can measure is the change in potential energy, then as you said it cancels out anyhow. There is a difference, though, if the total potential energy ever comes into play. So its unavoidable for the e+/e- to radiate as they annihilate. I was hoping to avoid that, but I guess it is just entropy taking its toll. So if you stopped the e+/e- pair before they annihilated, they would have less rest energy than if they were far apart? And that would be due to having more negative potential energy? I guess I was equating rest energy with potential energy to avoid negative energy. I don't see what the difference is, except that my way you don't have to believe in negative energy so it seems to me more Occam's Razor-friendly.

Well if you want you can look at my attempt to explain everything in terms of just one variable (either distance or time). You do need to know some calculus though.

Infinity minus infinity is undefined, as is infinity divided by infinity. This means that you can get any result from it. Infinity is just a tool and not a number. There are also several types of infinity which you would know if you knew counting. Other than counting, the only use I know for infinity is taking limits where things tend toward, but never reach, infinity.

Yes. Normally the effects cancel out, but not in a magnet.

OK, say you have 3 electrons moving along the x axis at .1c, .2c, and .3c. From what perspective can you look at this and say there is no magnetic field?

I don't think that you can eliminate all magnetic fields by simply changing your frame of reference. What about an electron's magnetic dipole moment? That's due to angular momentum.

Good enough, and as other people have noted, a "redesign" is likely to exterminate all the freedom that people don't realize they have on the net. There are powerful interests in conflict here, and no one is going to trust some schmuck to do the redesigning. About the only problem with the net is the number of IPv4 addresses, which IPv6 will fix for the foreseeable future, and NAT can crudely patch for now. What does need a major revamping is the email system. Mail servers should verify that mail comes from where it says it does. And why don't people use PGP signatures?

Certainly. Ferromagnetic materials have magnetized domains, which are like miniature crystals that are magnetic. The magnetism is due to the way electrons are arranged in the atom. In non-magnetized material, the domains are angled in all sorts of directions, and cancel each other out. You can draw this as little arrows in all sorts of directions. In magnetized materials, the domains are aligned in (more or less) the same direction. You can draw this as several arrows all in the same direction. You can temporarily magnetize something ferromagnetic by doing the following: place it in a magnetic field (temporary) leave it in a magnetic field for a while (stronger magnetic field for shorter times) heat it and let it cool in a magnetic field. rub a magnet across it in the same direction (or opposite direction with the other pole)

Magnetism is created by moving electrical charges. Electrical charges are monopoles, whereas magnets are always dipoles (they have a north and south but you cannot separate them). Electric field lines look like rays emanating from or ending at an electric charge; magnetic field lines look like closed loops.

foodchain, Just think of humans as a more advanced sort of predator that doesn't necessarily derive nutrition from its prey. We're all part of nature, and, like kittens, we sometimes play with our prey for educational reasons.

Looks like a homework problem... Otherwise you would know you are talking about a circle.

Also, the distances that the two men apply force is not necessarily the same. The stronger man might basically throw his weight upward, and at the top it slows to a stop due to gravity. So he applies a stronger force over a shorter distance (and for less time). Note that both men actually throw the weight upward to some degree, as gravity, and not the men, is stopping it from moving upward. It would be clearer if the men were pushing a cart forward till they reach the same speed, the one who pushes harder will get done sooner.