Dave

Sorry this is taking so long, but I'm having a bit of trouble identifying why the system is doing what it's doing. I thought that by removing that particular problem, it might admit the solution. However, obviously that didn't work. I shall look into it.

That's wierd. We don't even do identd checks on there anymore. Is your ISP blocking ports or silly things like that? You can try any port 6660-6669, they'll all connect you.

No, a plane is 3-dimensional. A line is 2-dimensional

How would you have a hyperplane in 3 dimensions? Do you mean the projection onto 3 dimensions?

According to MathWorld, a hyperplane can be more than 4-dimensional (it's an n-dimensional object), so you can't really say what it would "look" like.

The more pertanent question is, what do you want to know about them?

Hey, don't forget the BBC Basic. I had one of those when I was about 3

You're not stating the entirety of the postulate. The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames - if you observe a photon when you're travelling at 5km/sec or just standing still, then it will appear to be travelling at c.

Moved to pseudoscience. This thread is so far off-topic that it's not even funny.

Nah, just a matter of aesthetics on my part really

Linux isn't really the "easy" route, and if you're planning on running games then unfortunately XP is the way to go.

I think you also have to be on the same workgroup for that to work, so it's worth checking that too.

One little nitpick, because I can't quite resist. You say: [math]f'(x)=\frac{\sqrt[3]{x+ \Delta x}-\sqrt[3]{x}}{\Delta x}[/math] Which isn't really true. f' is the limit of that fraction. Other than that, looks pretty good (although the squared on the cube root of x towards the end should be inside instead of outside).

Cheers for the tip. It's wierd actually, I was just looking at the same article myself only a few minutes ago

When a thread is closed, it doesn't mean that you can go off and create another one exactly like it. You can create as many as you like, but I'll just keep closing them.

No. You'd have to ask blike for that information.

Indeed; all the benefits of improved dental health with the added bonus of eternal rest in pastaheaven. No more flossing for me, that's for sure.

Jedi is the true calling.

I'd also like to point out that we've been quite tolerant of your ideas so far. Generally, we don't get annoyed at people because they're trying to disprove relativity and all that; we get annoyed because even in the face of overwhelming evidence and explanation, they continue to post the same stuff time and time again.

Okay, let's deal with this. I know it's throwing the thread off-topic, but quite frankly there's not a lot of content anyway. This stuff needs to be said. Yes, forums are for discussions. This is a science forum, where we discuss mainstream science and help people to understand common misconceptions. Generally, there are two types of discussion on here from these sorts of people. Discussion A: Person: According to Theory X, this should happen but it doesn't. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, but I'd like to understand why this doesn't happen. Peers: Unfortunately, <insert explanation here> Person: Ah, I see. Thanks very much! Discussion B: Person: According to Theory X, this should happen but it doesn't. This must mean it's completely wrong and hence physics sucks. Peers: Unfortunately, <insert explanation here> Person: No! You are wrong! Peers: Nope. <20 pages of insults later> Dave: Thread closed. Now, unfortunately, discussion B is what we usually get around here, and I end up closing 97 million threads because people are trying to debunk perfectly reasonable and accepted scientific ideas because it doesn't agree with them, for whatever reason. Personally, I would like discussion A to come up a lot more. However, people such as yourself see fit to ignore everything that is said to correct misconceptions. It sure would save me a lot of work trying to tidy the place up. Yes, I do this quite a bit to those people who refuse to listen to others who have a wealth of scientific knowledge and years of experience behind them. You had, up until today, 3 threads on debunking relativity, each with their own little 2-page arguments. Please listen to what others have to say - doing so shows no respect for them or the community in general, and you'll soon find your ideas dismissed. There's nothing to stop you from doing this. And we're hardly poorly visited, frankly. We're about to hit our 200,000th post, and will have done by the end of the day. Er, no. This is a baseless accusation that I don't look particularly kindly upon, quite frankly.

The easiest way of doing it is by having a 'parent' field in the database. You might have something like this: +-------------+---------------+-----------+ | Category ID | Name | Parent ID | +-------------+---------------+-----------+ | 1 | Mathematics | 0 | | 2 | Physics | 0 | | 3 | Calculus | 1 | | 4 | Analysis | 3 | | 5 | Thermal | 2 | | 6 | Fractals | 1 | +-------------+---------------+-----------+ So here, 0 is our base category and then you can see which category belongs to which tree. In this case: - Mathematics `- Calculus `- Analysis `- Fractals - Physics `- Thermal The code for actually parsing this lot isn't too hard, but you do have to use recursion (obviously).

I really do wish that you'd stop referring to this as your thread. It's not even hosted on a server that you pay bandwidth for. Everybody is perfectly entitled to post comments, good or bad - if we didn't, then there just wouldn't be any point in calling it a forum.

What can you possibly be trying to achieve here? The MM experiment is one of the most carefully analyzed and scrutinised experiments ever performed. After a hundred years of trying, not one ounce of evidence has come up that suggests it could be inaccurate or in some way wrong. I'm sorry to lay into you like this, but the very fact that you're posting this on an internet forum instead of, say, submitting a paper is evidence enough to suggest that you're not confident your ideas will stand up to peer review. So, after all of this, why bother?

From reading the stuff in Wikipedia under Euler-Lagrange Equations: This would seem to confirm (in part) what I posted above about the various correspondence between those three guys.