Xittenn

I hadn't seen this last post, it was added and changed or something . . . . . The following is one example of the route that can be taken step 1) define your the parameters of the solenoid step 2) input the current until the B-field matches the magnet step 3) input resultant inductance into the L parameter of [math] X_L = 2 \pi f L [/math] and set frequency of oscillation step 4) solve for voltage [math] V_L = I_L X_L [/math] step 5) adjust inputs or steps as necessary Voltages and Currents are RMS! ** I don't suggest applying current to the solenoid, I suggest that passing a magnet through a solenoid creates a current.

From a mathematics perspective numbers are defined axiomatically, from a pure sense, and used as adjectives if you will to describe the real things we see. There is a good deal of debate as to whether or not mathematics is inherently physical, and as far as I have seen the argument most preferred by the relevant individuals is that--in fact--no mathematics is not inherently physical. What this means is that mathematics is something the human mind has created to help itself make sense of what we see. The "little vector" that mississippichem had offered up was nothing more than an array of scalars. A scalar is a number that represents a magnitude, and as a concept scalars are independent of direction. By associating four magnitudes in a vector we are stating that each magnitude is linearly independent. Linear independence is what you are calling a dimension but from a mathematics point of view; so up/down is linearly independent of left/right. Essentially mathematics does not require a physical representation and actually it tends to prefer that from a fundamental level it not have one at all, in this way it remains pure and more readily applied--as opposed to applied and not so readily pure, and then applied to something else. I've studied math for a long while now, and I'm probably the worst mathematician here despite my efforts and my A in Calc I--yay me! The truth is, despite everyone else seemingly knowing what you are on about, I haven't a clue what your polytope represents. I understand the hypercube when presented as a 'little vector' and there are some objects like the Klein Bottle that I can infer the mathematics from viewing its 2D wanna be. But, I have no idea what makes your 'little triangle/pentagon' an entirely new spacial dimension? Physicists work in higher order dimensions all the time, some of them are working in eleven-dimensions, but no one tries to draw the damn things. I really like your rap and I think you have a talent for teaching through artistic form, in my opinion you would do best to get an education and expand on your abilities because as it stands your 4D thingy isn't something to go on about for an extensive period of time. If you wish to learn about higher dimensional space you will want to work your way up to Hilbert Spaces, and this is something that could take anybody a decade or two depending (obviously some do it in far less.) Feel free to continue your demonstration though, it's just my observations, and as I said I don't get what your geometry is implying!

Original rendition!

Not to add to any pseudo science, or step into a heaping pile of shit or anything, but I feel compelled to share. I had a weird dream last night. I was sitting in a cafe and was discussing world events and we were on the topic of physics. Whoever I was talking to started discussing the evolution of the state of accepted physics. He looked at me and said "they used to believe in Einstein's negative gravity, but now they believe in . . . " The thought stuck with me and so I just looked it up. It seems that there was something to the idea of negative gravity or a negative cosmological constant in Einstein's theories. I'm not sure where any of this is coming from or what it means, but I thought it was fitting to the conversation. No one massacre me k . . .

My interpretation of what juanrga was saying is that although wave functions have--at a more rudimentary level--explained some of the phenomena associated with quantum mechanics, more modern approaches have been developed that make better sense of the available information, like with QFT. Now looking through Ryder's book on QFT I don't see any mention at all of wave like particles and the discussion is limited to particles, period. The book does not however offer an explanation for this. I found this on Wiki. I do however find it incredulous that anyone would offer Wiki as an argument for or against any point made in the context at present--especially against someone who has obviously spent some time considering more viable literature. How about offering up a more formal citation michel123456? I would like to point out that the wiki article I just submitted has zero citations to support its statements, which doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it weak. ---------------------------------------------------- I am finding more in Ryder's book on waves at closer look, maybe I'll find something relevant. --------------------------------------------------- 2.2 Klein-Gordon Equation "The interpretation of the Klein-Gordon equation as a single particle equation, with a wave function [math] \phi [/math], therefore also has to be abandoned." - Ryder the explanation is deeply mathematical and requires a chapter of discussion . . .

Thanks for pointing these things out juanrga!

I think that cartoons are a great way for kids to learn to think both critically and creatively. Shows like the Wuzzles taught me as a child to look at things in a different perspective, and made me ask the questions about how organisms and diversity arises, and why we see some organisms but not others. Captain Planet made me ask how my existence affects the planet on a whole, and made me more fully aware that the planet existed. Shows like the glow worms taught me compassion and exposed me to a greater variety of emotions than what I would have been if it was left to the people around me. These aren't replacements for proper parenting or social interaction, they are tools that help develop minds in a more diverse way. In small quantities television can be a fun and productive learning tool for children. I have personally cut my cable a long time ago, but I do stream the occasional show, and do watch movies. I feel that I still benefit from watching programs as it allows me to see things from a different perspective, and this helps keep my minds eye open. If I had children I would probably buy select shows for them to watch. I would have for them crayons, paints or stuff, and I would sit down and watch the shows with them while colouring or whatever.

From jimmydasaint's link I think this type of work will be the most sought in the short term. The ability to attack viruses on a new playing ground is very exciting. I'm sure there will be a lot of hesitation in going forward however, as it could lead to undesirable mutations!

I did overlook the fact that my approach doesn't give enough information, this is still not a problem and really doesn't detract from my point (being there is nothing wrong with trying to do stuff with math.) I was too quick with my thinking and missed that we are left not knowing what either I or V will be and so we have no choice but to use the equation. Try correcting the problem next time or pointing it out, please stop shooting my replies down they are intended to open up the discussion! Plug the current in until you get the equivalent B-field to your magnet, that was really tough . . . . . .

Last time I checked this is a Science Forum and I gave a practical scientific approach (hint, hint, wink, and stuff.) The approach given is simple and is used by many. There is a reason why there isn't an emf calculator, because it isn't a simple approach. If the OP wants to know how to use what I've posted to make his predictions, I am more than happy to help walk them through the process. If not that is quite alright as well.

I would say that 32 is ideal, but biology says that 20 is more appropriate--I'm really not a fan of the biological approach. >53 is unusual and is really just a statement about not wanting to be old (with exception), somewhat akin to not being a fan of the biological approach. I think it sucks that some people who are loving and caring people, and who want to be in this sort of close relationship, never find someone.

I was trying to make the calculation as easy as possible, and there was nothing wrong with my answer!

Organic Chemistry by Leroy G. Wade had a pretty detailed chapter or two long introduction to the topic! They just released another update over the winter. I like the book, I'm not sure how it stands against others of its kind. I really like the Pearson books for stuff like this, maybe try Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: An Introduction to Principles, Applications, and Experimental Methods by Joseph B. Lambert, and Eugene P. Mazzola.

PETSc binds to python, enjoy! ** linux or cygwin

C is for production code and can be very boring if you are new to programming. Learning python will get you to a place where learning c will be less of a grind. I highly recommend you learn python. Python can also be wrapped by c so if you ever want to use your python code in c you are good to go . . .

This point here could be misconstrued if someone were to try and put the statements into a programming context. Windows provides it's user interface and this user interface is very difficult to modify as it is intended to be left alone. In terms of programming applications there are many UI libraries that target the windows platform. For the .net framework there is WPF and Silverlight. There are a few C++ libraries, Microsoft provides MFC, WTL, and Win32 or WinAPI, other cross platform libraries include Tcl/Tk and Qt. I note this because someone who wishes to program tends to want to include a UI and it would be aggravating if Windows only provided one library to do the task--something you will learn should you learn.

Windows tends to be home for commercial applications, office software, and games--really anything that people will buy. Linux tends to be for non-profit software or software developed within academia (can be quite pricey.) There is a fair bit of difference in how each OS addresses the issues relevant to software and a provided platform, I am not personally going over the details there are a lot. There is a difference because people like to think in their own way and so variety is a result, this reality has evolutionary impact. My suggestion is that you start working with python on Windows, because it is the OS you use. Python is independent of OS in terms of programming shtough. If you want to learn about programming native code that targets a platform you would probably start with c++. Start with python, it seems to be the thing to do these days and requires much less of an investment on your part!

Hence the link to the calculator . . . . Calculate the inductance based on want . . . I couldn't find an emf calculator!

You can play with this, and leave H/m as is because this is the permeability of air . . . You can calculate the inductive reactance by [math] X_L = 2 \pi f L [/math] using the L from the calculator. From this you can use [math] V_L = I_L X_L [/math] to calculate the voltage. It's really easy stuff, don't tell yourself otherwise, it's basic multiplication . . . just plug in values for [math] I [/math] and [math] V [/math] that make you happy and take it from there!

I have a youtube account and it allows me to make lists of my favorite songs, which is so awesome because sometimes I can forget what the name was . . . I've never received a youtube email, probably because I have it turned off, that said you can turn it off. I think I remember getting emails of UC's new video postings . . .

The lack of cephilization and the existence of a ventral gut opening excludes mullusca. The pores and an apparent ability to see or smell human excludes cnideria. And, the fact that it moves with such high speeds on land excludes echinodermata. But, it has characteristics of all three. This was a very deliberate creation, and a very obvious hoax!

A recent comment made by the Hat as a reply to a blog post reminded me of this thread and my dissatisfaction with what most are considering good replies to a math question. So I Googled again, but this time with the more explicit search parameter of 'bayes's theorem monty hall problem.' I found a very nice little blog entry that very simply states the problem with, what is in my opinion, a proper mathematical solution. It is a very simple read and clearly delineates the problem as having a simple solution that most individuals with a grade twelve maths credit, or even less, will understand--mathematically. It very nicely does away with any hodge podge of information, which includes the idea that the state of the emotional relationship between show host and contestant need be considered--because honestly this isn't what most people are asking when they ask the question! Bayes Theorem and the Monty Hall Problem and also the mistake that I was making was in this step We now calculate the various components: P(Open(B) | Choice(A), Choice(C)) = 1 Because the host never selects the door you choose or the one with the prize. P(Open(B) | Choice(A), Choice(C)) =/= 1/2 Statistics is not something I've spent a lot of time on . .. .

Well, due to your obvious frailty you are most definitely exempt from any experimental investigations into health and beer consumption! Please sir seek a nutritionist to ensure the future safety of your respective nation, and to secure the future of beer for the many generations of men to come. But seriously, I've watched individuals go for excessive amounts of time on limited food and lots of beer. Generally speaking however, they drink an amount of water at times when they are not drinking, like when they wake up. I think the real question is how much water will a nephron reabsorb given ADH has been almost completely shunted for an extended period of time? I don't believe the complete malfunctioning of the ADH system is sufficient to stop reabsorption of water. I would say that given the condition of only drinking beer and no water, the condition would probably balance out to death in an equal amount of time to what would be observed if the individual did drink some water. And if the individual were allowed to drink some water, I would conjecture to say as long as several months. These statements I would believe to hold up and onto the point of regular vomiting to rid the system of the alcohol. The system would still be able to rehydrate sufficiently and with enough sugars to keep someone going for quite some time. Can the beer be ingested anally?

Awful short for a man . . . beer stunts growth! You still didn't answer the real question which is, can the individual drink water? If they can't, they will probably die pretty quickly. I think the problem with this question is that it demands empirical evidence. Maybe I can ask my short alcoholic brother to starve himself for a while and see what happens--kidding, har har. But seriously, as long as water can be consumed regularly the individual would probably be able to live for quite some time, and most people will get food eventually. There is a reason why what you've propositioned is difficult to find a proper answer on, and that is because it almost never happens. There are however quite a number of underdeveloped Canadians who are alcoholics who eat very little.