Xittenn

That's why I said two steps above normal, a full makeover is flat out lying. And again being something you are not can make you look foolish, insecure, and without confidence. If the job requires a suit and a tie, I would imagine that you should have planned for that much further ahead of time.

If you live in Canada Holt Renfrew does tailored suits starting at a $1000. I guess it all depends on what's important to you . . . . I would still argue that if you are going to wear a suit you had best be comfortable wearing them in the first place, something that many men are not these days. And, if you are not the type to dress at a more formal level in the first place, it is quite dishonest to hide yourself in an interview--not that most people won't notice if you are!

Here's something from Burberry that I had posted a couple of years ago on gamedev.net in reply to a young gentlemen going for an interview at Google. I am of the opinion that suits specifically, are for monkeys, and that if you wish to present as someone worth hiring for their exceptional talents it is best to show exceptional taste. One can show a much higher quality by demonstrating a fashion ethic (not to be confused with ethical fashion.) The idea isn't that you go and buy jeans so that you look defiant, the idea is that you dress in a similar fashion to how you would everyday, but with some extra added class. If all you wear are jeans than buy a new pair that fit perfectly. If you wear t-shirts everyday, buy a well fitting black unstarched almost t-shirt but has buttons, and dress it up with a nice jacket. It's a very complicated topic, but where most believe the suit and tie to be the most appropriate, I think you might find that in reality it just isn't so. Organizers and compartmentalized hand bags say "hi, I am a busy person and I keep my busy creative thoughts focused and on paper!" Just my opinion though . . . Modern Amusement

Science: The explicit quantification of external stimuli by living organisms, which thereby enables said organisms to react in a precise manner which most effectively maintains homeostasis--one of the fundamental requirements to their existence. Some might argue that there are plenty of reasons to observe that do not entail survival, but I feel this is in all actuality obligate to our disposition. The reason that science is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, is that it really shouldn't matter what we conclude as long as it satisfies our biological function towards being internalized entities that must defend against an externalized world. ““”̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿'̿'̵͇̿̿з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿'““

Yes, I did quote from Ryder's QFT, but is particle physics QM or a subset of QM? How is charge defined under QFT? Honestly, I will need to review much more literature before I can accept any conclusion on this matter, there is currently insufficient data, and too much controversy. Maybe I will understand a little better when I've done some work with Noether's Theorem, and more on waves in year two physics courses. Currently you are the only one who has made these complete statements because I can see how Ryder's statements fit with the paper, but I don't find any statements that are exactly equivalent to yours. The outcome of your posts over the internet doesn't help matters much either! As I stand the matter is inconclusive, but thanks again for pointing the matter out to me, I'm sure we all gained some insight from your posts. d b

I just ordered Rudin's three books on analysis today, one of which is on that list. They've been recommended reading to me here, on another forum, and on freenode! I'm sure they will be the win . . . . Principles of Mathematical Analysis - Walter Rudin Real and Complex Analysis - Walter Rudin Functional Analysis - Walter Rudin and Topology - Munkres was everything it was said to be as well . . . .

To paraphrase someone I overheard in the library today "we don't know that a Lion won't look up at one specific Giraffe and see something in that Giraffe that might give it reason to spare its life and to protect it from predators." I would also argue that we don't know whether or not on a philosophical and emotional level if some animals might believe in a 'God.' Within the context of the thread I would conjecture to say that some animals may be broken as well. I negated your neg rep because your comment sounded like a broken plea for some divine intervention . . . .

The paper really contradicts the statement above, but it makes sense of a lot of the ideas that juangrga has presented. From my interpretation of what I am reading electrons are waves exclusively until measured where this collapses the wave equation to have a definite wave packet or 'particle.' If Kets are working with measured particle systems I could see why we would drop the notion of the wave. I have heard the statement before that electrons are in reality exclusively waves, and this is the first time that I've ever heard mention that they are not, that they are simply particles. If charge is not quantized I would have a hard time accepting the postulate that electrons are particles, and not waves that when measured have definitive location--insert HUP somewhere in there. Another statement I've heard echoed in this thread is that both Ket and wave interpretations fail to explain higher order particle systems, and electron movements between nuclei and quantum states. I wish I could do the math . . . . one day . . . :/

@juanrga Neither post says much about what is actually happening, more so they focus on what is not happening. As far as I've understood for quite some time now QM is approached 'historically' as a wavefunction, but this isn't to say as an orbital model. I've had it in my head that once we move forward from Bohr's model we observe electron orbits as a transverse standing wave and then we continue to move from there. The best that I can get about the observed properties of an electron orbit are that they have 0 classical orbital angular momentum, >0 velocity, and although they have spin angular momentum the spin angular momentum is again not analogous to classical angular momentum. Some comments have lead me prior to making statements like "electrons are a standing wave with probabilities of density that see such densities popping in and out of existence through time . . . . " Prior suggestions have inconclusively concluded that charge itself is not quantized, although what we observe is quantized charge. Can you add to these statements or modify them so that they are the most correct?

I stream three shows when they are showing . . . House because the men are sexy--even the short guy ain't so bad, Walking Dead again because the men are sexy and zombies are cool--they killed the sexiest man on the show though, and Eureka which is airing again for a final season--the Canadian who plays Zane, Niall Matter, is just damn hot! In terms of content, the themes in all of them are probably the least important to the quality of the shows. They tend to keep me interested because of the relationships and the humour that each character brings to the show. Thematics are important I guess, because otherwise I would be watching soap operas and I don't readily identify with the environments presented by this category of show.

@juanrga I'm really interested in the OP, as it is stuff that I'm focusing my efforts toward. You have brought up an excellent point, one that I will be spending some time on in getting to understanding it. I think I've already said this, and if I missed a reply addressing it I'm sorry, but again, how might this be important to the behaviour of electron orbits? Also, do you have any interesting points to add about the OP? I would love to hear them, whether they are using dated methods of observation or not, as long as they convey a finer point. I know you are adamant about the idea you are trying to get across, as I've seen your same arguments elsewhere--will refrain from pointing at them. But, they are only useful in the context if they reveal something relevant to the conversation, which I'm literally dying to hear. I would prefer not wait four years until a teacher elaborates on them in a lecture!

Maybe daddyPop's can make a Tau remix >:|

You will probably find you will be very limited with what you can with the items you have just mentioned. Try this!

I once had a dream, I was running through a Japanese home and tripped and landed on some invisible worms. One of the worms ate through my hand. When I woke up I had a hole in both sides of my hand . . . . ** I'm sorry I thought this was random thoguts :embarrassed:

Mike Infinity, can you please try again to explain to me what your fourth dimension is? I know it's not love. I know that it doesn't move? What does its magnitude correlate to? How is it observed in a realistic way? What is its relevance in terms of other maths? Does it simplify something? As it stands all I see is added information that has no relevance to any real world problems! I ask because you never know right, there is always that chance that someone is saying something useful and I'm just not getting it. Can anybody explain to me what his fourth dimension is?

AFAIK the electron can achieve ground state but if they were both at rest they wouldn't combine. Now if you shoot an electron at a proton at high energy nothing will happen, or nothing in respect to what you might be thinking. The energy for a reaction is unfavorable, but if it did react it would form a neutron as the combination of an electron and a proton is a neutron and neutrons decay into an electron and a proton. Maybe if there was a bombardment of electron antinutrinos, because one is emitted in neutron decay as well! I see you added some thoughts, the fields will not create this sort of repulsion no; at least not that I'm aware of!

Some pieces fit better than others. Electrons are not observed falling into nuclei and dismissing this fact dismisses all of known modern physics. You are however correct that it is not understood how electrons move about in their orbits and you are very good to question this. I hope you do well in your studies and find answers to the questions you are asking. I'm posting a paper that has been submitted online by a professor from the University of Iceland, it addresses some aspects of the topic. It is a paper that I find very difficult to understand, but I believe I can learn from it at least a little for now. Have fun esbo! Spin and orbital angular momentum

Esbo, it is intuitive to say what you have just said. It is however common knowledge within Modern and Theoretical Physics that what you have stated is by today's standards incorrect. In fact the reason that QM exists is because we do not observe what you have just describe. In terms of particle interactions if this were true we would observe in experiments what is known as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, which I will leave for you to research as there are ample discussions on the topic already. In brief observations with respect to blackbody radiation, as well as the photo-electric effect demonstrate that electrons occupy quantized energy levels around the nucleus, quite unlike what is observed with gravitational orbits. ** I was the one who gave you at the very least the first neg rep, I think it is savy that if you are to post in a thread like this you come prepared with at least a basic knowledge--as a minimum standard. I note this as you directed your comment to the mods after I had done so, and it wasn't them!

I'm not sure I understand what your shaft size is, but anyway: http://mechanicalcarbon.metcar.com/category/s-flange-blocks-w-metcar-self-lubricating-bearings http://www.hightempbearings.com/4bolt-HT750.aspx http://www.randallbearings.com/page17.php Ctlg. pg 12 these could be anywhere from $50 - $200+ depending . . . . . I have worked with them on high speed applications, including high speed vacuum pumps and high speed steel brush finishing wheels . . . . the point is that they are durable! The brush was a 20kg mass spinning at between 2500 an 5000 RPM, and the pumps ran up to 10000 RPM. or what doG said . . . I like NSK!

Only if you promise me that in the future you will be a little more prepared to discuss the details about why something I've said is wrong, what makes your statements more correct, and accept that if we disagree its not a problem because nothing has to be concluded indefinitely. These are trademark rules of scientific discussion and they tend to be upheld by the community. And also that you won't send me any sappy emails about this, or pictures of you dancing on a pole! If these stipulations are fine by you then sure . . . . . /me shakes paw

When I said retrain--or whatever I had said specifically--I meant more like read a book, and do the practice questions. Twenty years is a long time Jo, and you might consider asking yourself what specific knowledge it was you had in the first place. It is very possible to know a whole lot about a subject and not know everything. Is it at all possible that you are taking it for granted that you know things you may have never been taught, or even had done sufficient research on in the first place to have such specific knowledge. But do feel free to plant a pole on your front lawn as I am sure you, as well as many others, would find this entertaining, if not at the very least for a little while. Also have you ever considered a less black and white approach to a discussion. Maybe instead of asserting how wrong someone is, try asserting how strong your own argument is while contrasting specific points and backing up your statements. I would back up my own statements with complete derivation if my accuser was a little more prepared to do the same, and a little less focused on taring me down with no foundation. Arguments take time and effort, as well as patience and are most productive when both parties assume their own fallibility and where there is an equal disinterested pursuit towards a mutual conclusion. If you can't take this approach my recommendation is to present your own ideas and let them stand against your 'opponents' under their own merit, without denegrating the others post.

No, I'm assuming that moving the magnet through a solenoid generates a current proportional to the magnets B-field and whose voltage is proportionate to the rate at which the magnet is oscillated through the coil in terms of frequency. I have no idea what you are suggesting by your comment. This is elementary E&M. The OP is showing no interest, and no one else is interjecting comments. My logic is sound and I am moving on from yet another thread where I have presented an elementary process and where I have been refuted for doing so. Think about it Jo, as you are suggesting it there is no simple generalized solution, does this make any sense to you at all? It sounds like an excuse to not use the tools that you have been allotted in favour of doing things by hands on trial and error--a layman's excuse to avoid math and reason. This does not have to be addressed using calculus, the equations presented were designed to remove the calculus from the problem! My steps are my final answer . . . . .

These are probably not the best sources to be citing in this situation. Quaint little slideshow, with many slides and a lot of text, on some of the history! Why was this important to the OP? How does it affect the electron orbit?