ydoaPs

[math]{\nabla}{\cdot}{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\cdot}{B}=0[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\times}{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]{\nabla}{\times}{B}={\mu_0}{J}+{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}{\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}}[/math] Where [math]\rho[/math] is electric charge density, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is permittivity of free space, [math]\mu_0[/math] is magnetic permeability of free space, J is current density, and t is time. I have a general idea of what divergence and curl are, so I have a basic understanding of what most of the equations mean. I was wondering, though, how are B, E, [math]\rho[/math], and J defined? I have a decent understanding of what B and E are, but do they have functions permanently associated with them like B(x,y,z,t) and E(x,y,z,t) or do the equations used depend on the situation? In general, I'd like to know more about the equations.

When it hits the spring, it still has a positive acceleration. As the spring compresses, it adds a force countering that causing the positive acceleration which slowly makes the net acceleration smaller until the acceleration is zero. This is where the block will be moving the fastest. At this point, the block is still compressing the spring adding a negative acceleration. This will slow the block down and eventually reverse it's direction of motion. There will be some harmonic motion until the block comes to a rest.

unitednuclear.com It's owned by Bob Lazar, though.

Then it should be no surprise that you can subdivide a finite distance into an infinite number of points. That is all Zeno's "Paradox" is.

Then don't try calculus. You add up an infinite number of rectangles to get a finite area.

And in one step, you can go through a, b, and c. If one were to travel as in Zeno's "Paradox", then one would be slowing down until they are motionless. That just isn't how motion occurs.

Zeno's paradoxes are crap. For Zeno's paradox to work, your gait would have to half every time you take a step. A person walking, for instance, has a relatively constant gait.

How does the civilian world's radioactive waste compare with the Navy's? I know we are SUPER-conservative when it comes to radiation and such, so the vast majority of our waste is "potentially radioactive" and there really isn't a whole lot of contamination in it. Nowhere close to the popculture image of barrels of oozing highly radioactive goo.

Radiation is fun except all of the radcon lectures saying the same things repeatedly.

I was actually thinking the vector field would be spacetime(or space+time, or maybe even just space depending on the dimensions of your model) and the twist field would just be a twisted region of the vector field. I'm not seeing your problem. In order for the maths to describe how the cause causes the effect, the maths must describe the effect!

Gah, I was afraid of that. This would imply that there is minimum mass requirement for a given quanta of charge. The static twist wants to straight out, because, as you say, spacetime is like an elastic solid. There would, by your model, necessarily be a minimum mass. The knot has to be tied to some tightness for a given twist or else the twist would come undone. This is another BIG prediction of your model. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the cause of the twist. Could you elaborate? Is this because of how time is defined in your model, or does the twist field only occur in three dimensions? I'm not familiar with your model's view of time. Could you please give a brief overview? I'd read your latest Time Explained, but I don't have much time as I work basically 14 hour days(sometimes 16). I'm confused. From your explanation below, it seems that the polarity is the difference between clockwise and counterclockwise. With three dimensions, there are 8 distinct possible twist polarity configurations as well as the in-betweens. I was wondering how your model explains why the charge of every particle is some multiple of the charge of the electron.

From back in the good old days:

IIRC, there's not a vertical face of the mountain from peak to base, so you won't fall the whole way.

IIRC, your concentration of hydronium should be in moles/liter.

It is still too vague to tell if it is even coherent. For example, one possible prediction that can fall out of your speculations is that there is a minimum mass requirement for each value of charge. It depends on how you define certain things you left blurry. And just thinking about the needed maths, it looks like your speculations(how I understand it) necessitate a link between charge and gravity. Until you make it less vague, there is no way to know if it truly is coherent. Which is exactly why he needs to present the needed maths. With the maths, one can actually compare solutions of the equations to those of the current theories and even with experimental data to test the accuracy.

If your are thinking of the twist field how I think you are, you should be able to describe the magnitude via the curl of the field and the polarity via the divergence of the field(assuming the vector field here is spacetime itself). If you would, I have posted some requests for clarification in the Charge Explained thread that I would like for you to look at.

I was just playing with you...hence the smiley. From what I gather from the article, the conversation where he is accused of insulting students occurred AFTER CLASS, not in front of it.

It's not places that "could" use it more, they are places the MUST use it more. Your "'back to first principles' approach" necessitates DIFFERENT math than the current theories use. In order to evaluate your speculations, we need these maths from your model. Since they are different, they could be more accurate(good for you), less accurate(not so good for you), or have the same accuracy(which means the only way of evaluating your model is through the predictions). As I said in your Charge Explained thread, your vagueness is hindering your maths and your predictions, assuming, of course, that you are attempting to extrapolate maths and predictions. For example, take a look at my requests for clarification on your Charge Explained thread. Some predictions easily fall out from them. And for this reason, you must provide a "new mathematics" from your "'back to first principles' approach." As I am from the USA, I'm not quite sure what that means. Is that like Algebra 2, Multivariable Calculus, Set Theory, etc? They are your speculations, so, if you want them to be taken seriously as a theory, YOU must produce the maths.

At least some of us have some common sense. I said the same thing a few posts back. Isn't that your opinion? You also said, . So, by your own opinion, you're in the wrong!

This always motivates me.

IIRC, biodiesel has significantly reduced emissions.

It'd have a considerable initial cost if most of the country did that. I think much of the country lives beyond biking distance from their place of employment.

As of right now, what's the status? Is it go or no go?

I just get the feeling that what happened is that something similar to what I quoted above happened, and students were hypersensitive(as are many posters here on the subject of their beliefs) and they brought it up after class. I think the comment in class was just a harmless aside, but maybe I'm just being naive.

Stealth fighter tests in the '50's.