Xittenn

You wish me to laugh some more! What browser are you using? Try it with Firefox . . . . maybe the internets just doesn't feel your music is how you say, worthy?? j/k Worked from IE . . .

Wow Jo, I didn't know you had such great taste in music!

DrRocket can be ignored, generally speaking I don't ignore DrRocket because what he says makes sense and comes from his experience which is obvious in his posts. As I said I'm patient, but far less experienced. If there is something you want to go over together I would be glad to join the conversation but you are going to have to be clear on what it is you hope to achieve. Otherwise I wish you the best!

So what is the thread about now or have all your questions been postponed indefinitely? Is Riemann Z still a topic? Honestly if the discussion of twin primes makes the conversation uneasy for you, I don't see how a discussion on Riemann Z is going to be any easier or more productive. Just curious it's your OP!

It isn't really dumb or controversial it just kind of wonders here there and no where in particular which makes it hard to follow from a readers 'POV'. Maybe you could sum up in a singular definitive statement what you are trying to go on about? You started with Riemann Z and now you are acknowledging the existence of twin primes to what extent? I had liked the title of the thread but I hadn't entered it because it seemed rather devoid of substance. But like Shadow I like to understand what individuals are trying to say and I try to have patience. What are the definitive statements that you are trying to make? And could you please relate it back to the original question because I can't find the bridge between then and now???

Makes me think of Lady Vengeance Perfume by Juliette Has a Gun!

Hilladious .. . . \o/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIo81Fk6J5g&list=FLrlYsPBAqkRAMYtIvSXgcKA&index=10&feature=plpp_video

THE PURIFICATION OF MERCURY BY AN ELECTROLYTIC METHOD Martin E. Hanke and Martha Johnson Science 3 November 1933: 414-415. Very interesting read . . .

There is some theoretical stuff that is trying to find an energy point that is created by micro black holes that would establish a 'Grand Unified Theory' between GR and QFT. They are looking at bonding of micro black holes as gravity will suddenly have a magnitude on par with the other forces. I don't see any in between where in fact we would see Quark Gluon Plasma outside of the event horizon, as DrRocket has pointed out already. But it is a very interesting thing to have gone over! : )

I'm not allowed to use the image extension on this board?? :/ **edit** thanks daddyPops

Abhas Mitra, On the non-occurrence of Type I X-ray bursts from the black hole candidates, Advances in Space Research, Volume 38, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 2917-2919, ISSN 0273-1177, 10.1016/j.asr.2006.02.074. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117706002523) If I'm reading this correctly the answer to your question is yes, but the more specific details covered are more so the lack of specific xray signatures in explaining certain matter phenomena that point to QGP as a theoretical explanation.

http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news/091107/story2.asp

Is 'spaghettified matter' congruent to quark-gluon plasma????

Issues?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16bRiH5zfOY&list=FLrlYsPBAqkRAMYtIvSXgcKA&index=19&feature=plpp_video

Just a guess . . . . maybe taking the supplements increases the amount of long chain fatty acids and your cell chemistry is intolerant to this increase. Maybe you are showing signs of a mild form of Adrenoleukodystrophy. Another guess . . . . you are already in pain you are just not aware of it and the omega 3's are reducing inflammation which allows you to regain sensation. Final guess . . . . you are overdosing on fatty acids and it is causing your brain to hemorrhage. 2 of 3 guesses say don't do that . . . . all three guesses say unless your doctor is certain about what your problem is you might want to get a second opinion from a specialist. I'm sure if you feel that strongly about the issue your doctor will refer you to somebody. ** disclaimer I am not a doctor and am only reviewing some of the possibilities based on the literature made available to me

Me? Never . . . .

My mothers side is French Acadian and I was taught in French until grade 8 where in grade 9 I opted to learn in English instead. I see you got one . . . . .

Ma pauvre petite choux!

If [math] x [/math] is the set of all members of U such that [math] a [/math] is the smallest member of the set then your initial argument or conditions make no sense. If [math] a [/math] is a member of U such that [math] a [/math] is not a member of [math] x [/math] and is smaller than all members of the set [math] x [/math] then I don't see why you couldn't have a [math] b [/math] that meets this same logical condition while not being equal to [math] a [/math]. The proofs I've seen invoke relations where the mapping of a smallest number can hold only for one member or they are equal. It's very picky . . . . I'm sure someone with a little more understanding will enlighten you or me, in either case, after I post this! ** as in there is a relation R that well orders the set, what happens . . . .

Have you tried using the share button on the youtube page Jo? Click it and copy and paste the short URL without changing it . . . . you can also test your posts by using the full editor here and clicking preview post. Hmmm shared link didn't work . . . So yeah stop using the shared URL Jo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZjmWP6tieQ&list=FLrlYsPBAqkRAMYtIvSXgcKA&index=19&feature=plpp_video