Klaynos

! Moderator Note Let's make this more official. Strange's questions are not unreasonable. Your lack of answering them is suspicious. Please answer them or this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note This and a lack of a clear derivation wedged requested makes this not meet our minimum requirements for speculations so thread closed. You may not reintroduce this topic. You may request this thread reopened when you can provide a mathematical derivation of your equation. To do so please report this post.

Detailed analysis. To a certain extent overseen by WMO CIMO and WMO CCI. Understanding the accuracy of any measurement is important a lot of work happens in this area, for example there is an organisation called metrology for meteorology and climate. This not being understood is IMO a big failing of science education.

These two statements are not really compatible. How can you consider yourself qualified to comment on the highly mathematical theory of general relativity if you claim to "not be a mathematician" when asked to do a relatively simple but of mathematics? I five it very difficult to take the rest of your post seriously after that. You further seem to be ignorant of the evidence for dark energy that you're trying to explain. My best advice for you is to go away and learn the physics (which includes the maths).

That's not a model. It's not really an experiment. It's a vague observation you've tried to shoehorn an analogy for something completely unrelated. Not science, still.

What have you tried so far? Pretty sure my PhD thesis includes this as part of finding the dispersion relation for SPPs. Been a while though.

It appears you're confusing space and space. It's an easy mistake.

I remember the ban message made me laugh.

Ok, I understand a bit better now. Sorry. Depending on what your data is and what you're trying to show would something like hog spot analysis work? http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/tools/spatial-statistics-toolbox/hot-spot-analysis.htm

I'd use R for the processing (it's free, RStudio is a pretty good ide for it). My first attempt here would be to remove anything two standard deviations from the mean. That's the traditional first stab at removing outliers.

√(x) is the same as x^(0.5). The first step in the ones you cannot do is to convert into that form then use the power rule.

Google scholar?

My experience is mostly on Linux. My work involves millions of data points each with several bits of unique metadata. You need to really understand what resource you're using to optimise. I use very quick disks on boxes with 40 cores and more than 200GB ram. Without understanding when to split into multiple cores and when not is critical else you end up just filling up the ram as the processes split off and everything grinds to a halt as you start using swap.

I regularly use around 5 programming languages. Without Google I'd be stuck pretty quickly. Knowing the concepts and remembering the quirks is far more important than recalling all the functions. E.g. I can easily google the various type codes for printf in c. It's knowing that that's important that is really key. We have done study leave bans by request before.

How much delay are you getting? Even if each sting us a single byte that is 50kB. With a disk speed of 80MB/s that is around half a second. If the strings are 4 bytes you have 2 seconds of delay...

You may well be limited by the disk write speed. Get a faster disk? Not sure if mysql can do it but some dbs can be run entirely in the ram of the computer. That's my normal approach to speeding up db readwrite.

! Moderator Note Thread closed for failing to meet our minimum standards for a speculations thread (please review the speculations special rules). Do not reintroduce this topic. You may report this post and provide evidence of mathematical, numerical predictions to request it reopened.

In addition to Mordred's point. Your last statement is worrying. In physics logic is normally a formal branch of mathematics. You seem to be using logic to mean "it makes sense to me". Physics is fundamentally mathematical, and a theory in physics is a extremely well tested mathematical model of some part of the universe.

I find one of the easiest ways to think about this is with mechanics. If you know the equation of position (x) for some object with time, f(x), the rate of change of position wrt time is speed. So the differential of f(x) is speed, f'(x). The rate of change of speed is acceleration, so the second differential of f(x), f''(x). You can even go backwards so the area under the line for acceleration is the speed so you can integrate f''(x) to get the speed, f'(x). And again back to position.

You've not said what you can measure but give a couple of systems with many observables. You need a way to link your question to the answer mathematically. On these scales the answer to any measurement will be Newtonian. How can you measure something that tells you more? Your question is too broad. I'd suggest something simpler like "what affects the period of oscillation of the plates?" Your measurements are then the period of oscillation and what you choose to change, say height above the surface or coefficient of friction.

1. No, I'm a physicist and my job title includes the word scientist. 2. Vast range for both. In my workplace the pay is about comparable. 3. No, many of my colleagues don't have PhDs. But in my experience having a PhD makes you a better scientist faster. 4. Engineering is a far broader term. Lots of people who are employed in jobs called engineers might not formally be doing engineering. It's a difficult thing to judge. I don't have many friends with physics backgrounds who have found it difficult to find work. Those who have are very very picky. 5. Depends on what you actually do. It's a difficult question to answer. In my view to be a good scientist you need to be an ok engineer. To be a good engineer you need to be an ok scientist.

A fully charged battery would run it long enough to not quite charge one battery. Or not quite half charge 2.

The pump will use more energy than the water wheel generates. Friction will be the killer.

The multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interpretation not a theory. If we go with the interpretation being correct. Then I'm not sure that "you" would live an infinite number of lives, surely it would be an infinite number of "you" each living a life. What this needs is a firm definition of what makes you "you".

Can you show, on the forum, mathematically, how you're theory derives the altitude of a geostationary satellite?