Unity+

And I would also like a source and a direct link to the information so we don't waste time with this discussion? Also, quote the article that presents the information. A hypothesis, or the concept of it, merely starts at what it is: a concept. Mathematical constructs are not formed until the concept is formed. The burden or proof lies on your hands my friend. Your sarcasm is so obvious that it seems your ability to proceed properly within a scientific discussion is very minimal. I don't see how one can some to such a conclusion without a hint of arrogance. Please, save your "tough talk." because it isn't very professional. I can see more of you not knowing what you speak of. However, I acknowledge you have knowledge in these fields yet I don't see how one's status of having a Ph.D makes you so inclined to be so rude.

It was better, but for purposes as simplicity I think Java has become the norm. C++ has become more of an alternative to Java nowadays.

Sources? But that would be the evidence needed to make your assertion... The statement is a figurative for an unknown equation that could be made.

Well, here was a post from that topic that came from Phi for All: What I was trying to say was that it is used for showing people's reputation for being able to cooperate under the environment that is in the ScienceForums. That wasn't what I meant(or at least to that extent) Dr AJB MPhys, MSc, PhD, AMInstP.

It is still a relevant coding language like most languages are. However, last time I have heard Java, Python, and some other languages are becoming more used than other languages that exist. I think companies are using Java more often because of the multi-platform abilities. It really depends on what type of software development you are doing. So, straight short answer is "No, Java is now days" and the long answer is "It depends on what companies want to develop, but if it is a tool that is meant to be used on more than one platform then Java is the norm now days." Someone can correct me on this if they want. .

I caught that statement, but it seemed as if you dismissed it even when presented. You ignored it entirely even when it rests against your case. This is in the context of the area surrounding the iron core is affected by such expansion. As an object within another object exerts a force on the object it is surrounded by, there is more instability in the structure surrounding the iron core. The fact that this is a heated element brings more instability to the structure surrounding the iron core is another factor. I would like to see some information pertaining to the exact amount of time it takes for such heat to escape, as you claim, in order to answer that question. It is a figure of speech referring to adding a specific variable to a case presented. Though, I will soon release equations when I am done. It is a very simply principle that can be demonstrated with an egg in the microwave(it may seem hilarious, but it is a good example). As we know, the egg, when being cooked, is cooked inside to out. As we know, Microwaves do not instantly produce heat on the inside of the egg. Therefore, this slow build up of pressure on the outer shell causes it to explode(because egg shells work differently than the crust or outer shell of the Earth.

Sorry if it seemed as if I was attacking the evidence. I was just making sure I didn't assume anything about the evidence.

The evidence they present seems quite convincing, but a question I want to ask if it is okay. I took a look at this graph: The evidence is quite clear, but is there an explanation as to why at some points the carbon dioxide emission exceeds the temperature while at others the temperature exceeds the carbon dioxide emissions? I think it might be due to convergence of temperature and carbon-dioxide emissions, but just wanted to clear something up.

Thank you, and I wasn't trying to be rude, if it came out like such then I apologize. I am not denying global warming(or climate change, however it is said). I admit that humans, like any other species, affects the environment it is in. However, I don't just see it as it being completely caused by humans. I feel there are other factors involved. Our Earth is not simply just a closed ecosystem. Other things affect the system and changes should be expected. What irritates me the most about climate change deniers is how it is claimed that since it is getting colder during some parts of the year that means climate change is a total fraud, and here is the reason why certain seasons get colder than others over time when working with the climate change model. If there is an increase in heat then that means there is more separation of hot and cold air, or atmosphere. If the Earth is getting warmer, this means that there will be a larger separation between temperatures during times of the year when it gets warmer and cooler. This leads to a larger instability in weather around the world. Is this completely attributed to human activity? I think there is more to the answer than just "Yes."

Thank you for correcting me. I must have been thinking of another language then.

Provide the link to this statistic. Notice how it says "peer reviewed climate articles" compared to those who rejected it. I think it would be interesting to find the statistic to those, like me, who are neither supporters of global warming nor skeptics and think more studies should be done.

I don't like being called "bro." I tend to like being formally addressed when discussing science, while leaving general discussion to some slang, but not much. Also, negative points are not a result of not being liked. It is more of a way of people determining whether the post has correct or incorrect information. It helps people determine the correct from incorrect information. Just because a scientist is a friend of another doesn't mean one would generally agree with their works(not in moral ways, but scientific ways).

The only difference(not accurately, but anyways) between C and C++ is C++ is more object-oriented. Also, C++ and Java are similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)

Yes, but this doesn't provide any point against arc's own hypothesis. All it states is the obvious. You presented the result of the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. If I understand this correctly, you are stating that the movement of plates causes cooling and reheating, which causes the Earth to 'shed' heat. I don't see this as a mechanism, again, and rather as an effect of the mechanism that arc hypothesizes. They seem to be similar topics, which are the involvement of mechanisms and the correlations and issues that arise from them. Oh, now seeing as you attack arc in the wrong way yet earlier you defined your credibility on the claim of a Ph.D without evidence of either the Ph.D or the counter evidence of arc's hypothesis. It is more productive to simply ask the question instead of instigating an unnecessary violence between the two of you. If we are to be scientists then I(and many others) would expect appropriate behavior within a scientific discussion.

I assume you mean the code required to make the program. That is basically printing out a string, if that is what you wanted.

In some ways, it is expected that General Relativity would fail in some areas like Newtonian Mechanics had with the way it described time. This is due to the fact that it only applies at a certain level as Classical mechanics had. It will be interesting to see what the new theory will be and will provide.

Instead of making a post longer than it should be, try just to clarify what you were asking for. It makes the discussion much cleaner.

But one thing you assume is that these minor fluctuations have NO EFFECT at all, which brings a flaw to your point. Minor fluctuations will always have an effect on everything whether it can be detectable or not. Objects under higher pressures(especially the iron core) are more unstable and thus minor fluctuations have a greater impact than if the iron core was under less pressure. For example, in physics objects that are larger have inertia and if a smaller object collided with this larger object the inertia would prevent the bigger object from moving a larger distance. However, there is still a force acting upon the object and it is moving at a minuscule velocity, therefore over time there would be, in fact, a detectable difference over time. Once you apply higher pressures to the equation then you have really unstable conditions where even the slightest changes can cause huge differences. In this case, you have an iron core have huge pressure applied onto it had really intensive thermal heat. Even minuscule changes in it's heat would cause minor thermal expansion in the iron core. Since there is instability, such a small change in it's size under larger pressure would cause movement in plates. Also, one should be careful to read the information about the amount of Earthquakes vs. the amount of solar activity. What many assume is that there is an initial point from each point on the graph, which means assuming that expansion always means more Earthquakes. We must realize that plates are always moving, and from this hypothesis geophysical activity(correct me on this if needed) it is due to the expansion of the iron core. One thing we must consider is the fact that events that have occurred will always stay in motion whether or not the expansion is occurring or not unless plates collide together or no longer can move in a particular direction. For example, if you drop a metal ball from a certain height and check the trajectory of the ball(graph it) and then try it again, but instead add another force that would direct it horizontally. What will happen is the ball will fall normally, but then when it reaches the force acting in the horizontal direction and the ball will be influenced by that force and change the directory during the recording of the data. If you compare the graphs you will see that the initial points are the same(or practically similar), but then later in the data there is a change in the trajectory. I will give an example related to this case: Ignoring the source of this data(I don't know if ti is completely correct), another person presented this data as showing that there was no correlation(no this was not a scientist presenting this, it was another user). His conclusion was that since there seemed to be no correlation between the frequency of Earthquakes and the fluctuation of solar activity that each was not connected. However, the flaw in his argument assumed that solar activity would cause each to exactly look the same. As noted earlier before, there is always plate activity occurring because plates move until something has stopped them from doing so. Therefore, the data may not at first seem to correlate with the hypothesis, however if one were to look closer and pick out piece by piece the connections then one can see that one may be influencing the other to occur. Plates are always moving. It is only when they collide with each other that there are Earthquakes. What the data also assumes is that each Earthquake is caused by the same type of collision, which is not always the case. The movement of a plate always varies. EDIT: One thing I forgot to add. As cracks are formed in the crust of plates, new land mass is formed. These must also be accounted for because these changes affect the movement of plates.

Difficulty is dependent on what you mean by difficult. For example, if you mean in the sense of syntax, it can be difficult because some of it can be confusing at first. However, if you learn it as your first programming language(in my experience I learned C# first so sometimes the syntax of C/C++ can be confusing because of how functions are used) then it should be easy to learn because you start in a large difficult range and then will have an easier time learning other languages. Otherwise, it shouldn't be too hard. It just takes practice. The other way difficulty can be interpreted is in the sense of accessibility. For example, Visual BASIC may be harder for developers who want to have more access to the code of the project because they want to add certain things that BASIC may not be the best language for. If this is the difficulty being referred to, then C++ isn't hard because it has a lot of accessibility. For one thing, it is efficient with processing which allows programmers to develop high-end programs(as if you were to use C# for larger projects then it becomes slow and less efficient than other languages out there). As a whole, I think it is not difficult in proportion to its accessibility and features. It may just take some practice to get used to.

You haven't even calculated(and if you have, please present the mathematical proof of this to us) how much thermal energy that would be required to expand the inner core of the Earth. You haven't presented anything at all besides stating that the hypothesis(not theory) is wrong. I am currently doing the calculations for Arc to determine whether the hypothesis is good as it stands, needs modification, or isn't valid because parts of the hypothesis don't work. Those types of examples aren't even related to the discussion. Clearly this hypothesis could be proven wrong like any other hypothesis out there. It fits within the standards of the scientific method. He has presented evidence(which you claim to not understand and yet you haven't even told me or anyone else what you don't understand about it and you won't present the post that has evidence that is not understood). I will ask you again: What is random about the evidence he has presented? You refuse to answer that question. I wouldn't give a crap if you had a PhD(and if you do, great not a part of the discussion). It seems you keep avoiding the questions presented before you and then accuse others of not answering some question(which I can't seem to find in the topic) that you keep rambling on about Arc not answering. If you are genuinely interested in find the solution then actually present the argument(mathematical proof and other forms of evidence) that his hypothesis is wrong. I am glad you are interested as you say you are. Show that you are interested.

Can't you at least quote a part of the article when presenting the news? This just seems unprofessional to just post a random statement.

What many don't realize is the original calculation that Albert Einstein had for the bending of space-time regarding to the path of the light during the eclipse was originally wrong when he calculated it, if I remember correctly. Luckily the original attempt at the experiment didn't work well because of World War I. EDIT: To add on, the whole point of presenting a hypothesis is learn from it, not just to determine if you were right or not. If you simply don't tell the person why they are wrong and go about your business with them wondering what was wrong with it then they will just take scientists as arrogant people who have no incentive to take other people seriously because they have an authoritative attitude. I would like to learn of these flaws so in the future it may become useful for something else. EDIT2: Sorry everyone if I haven't finished working on the calculations to provide some insight into inner core expansion and contraction from the effects of the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field(and even released energy from the sun). I have been busy with other projects and will be coming with arc's calculations soon. I hope they provide insight into whether the hypothesis has any good stance or not.

Someone's credibility within one field of science does not grant them the right to declare anything right or wrong without evidence, however. Simply declaring a hypothesis fraud because of one's credibility is more than just blind; it is arrogance. Since my area of expertise is purely computer science along with mathematics I am lending a helping hand to his cause. I feel there is possibly something to come along with his hypothesis and I think it has potential. If I find that there is a problem with his hypothesis(especially dealing with the expansion and contraption of the inner core due to the hypothesis of the Sun's influence of the electromagnetic field which I am still calculating because of other projects I am working on) then I will display the problems mathematically. However, the problem is there is either currently no empirical evidence against the hypothesis or mathematical proof that there is simply no standing for the hypothesis. And we do not simply have to convince you and only you, just to point it out. If we had to please every person in the world then we would have to claim the Theory of Evolution or Relativity not on firm standing because not everyone(surprisingly) considers those theories true. Most of the time it comes out of pure denial. Don't we all? And we have all worked with data types that are related to our own field that you probably have never seen before yourself. With things I have done, you probably would be clueless to such data types. This statement is meaningless and has no bearing of evidence against the hypothesis at hand. Please, present something that would be more useful for discussion. Please refer to the post(what is the post number) with the Glatzmeier's magnetic field and I can see if I can understand what his work presents. If not, then he will be more willing, if his hypothesis is legitimate, to explain to all of us the correlation. If I do understand the information presented and think it is valid, then we clearly have a problem with the translation of information. Your supposed credibility will not be the determining factor within this discussion because evidence is the only credible source.