Klaynos

I think everyone's point is what's the point of doing this at all? Aircraft already have their registration written on the outside, they also broadcast flight number, registration and icao address.

At times like this I like to quote the great man himself. - Douglas Adams

You can probably get there from trigonometry. Given a centre position X and Y and radius r, you could integrate tan over 360 degrees...

I'd be really weary of this route these days. You mention Gates and Zuckenburg, both of which went to college, even if they didn't complete undergraduate courses. They are also not the norm. Compared to the number of people who make a living in the IT industry there is very few of them. You must also consider how it will look to an employer. Most will look for either an undergraduate degree and/or significant experience depending on the level of role. Someone with just ms qualifications wouldn't get past the first sort stage in a lot of places. Some context for my reply. My sister in law is the chief of staff at a Microsoft business group, the science team I manage includes software engineers.

I was thinking of using trends but that's also an interesting idea. The other option might be to use a repetition of misconception after correction count.

That's a concern, I only had this thought reading a post today so am very open to improvements. I did wonder about it being a rolling scale for any given text, maybe taking the peak value for analysis..

Exactly. If it was easy everyone (or at least a large subset) would already know the answers.

I would like to propose a numerically measure for quality of post, our likiness to be a crackpot (trends of this ratio are likely to be a key predictor). The misconception ratio = number is misconceptions / number of words (units are cracks) As this tends to 1 as I tend to hit my head on the desk. I'd speculate that 0.01 cracks is a general upper limit for a post, although would value some input and analysis of real posts... I'd also like to know a warning level, no one is going to have a value of 0 cracks for all of their writings but is 1 millicracks acceptable?

Could you please define exists in this context? And then explain how you can conclusively test for what meets that definition and what doesn't? I'm sorry, but why should you be able to understand something that takes very clever people decades to understand with some introductory texts? If you're serious about this then the first step is a mathematical education, then a physics education. Most clever people take about 10 years of full time study before starting to understand (although many think they're there much earlier).

! Moderator Note We've had a last chance and no more evidence. Thread closed. If you disagree you may report this post. If you're the original poster and report this post it is unlikely to get anywhere without answers to the questions nicely laid out by Strange in the post above. Do not reintroduce this topic.

If this is so common surely someone has survives the cardiac arrest with intervention.

This appears to be hearsay. I could equally posit that any dream that raises your heart rate that much would wake you up. Is there any evidence supporting your conjecture? Even some anecdotes would be good.

To further this point. In science, theory does NOT mean a random guess, nor a hypothesis, nor just an idea. A theory is the pinnacle of our understanding, well tested against the evidence, numerical and precise. Saying something is just a theory is similar to saying, "what do you mean he's not coming to work, he's only been decapitated".

Please show how this matches the measured rotational curves of galaxies.

I bought 1.5 l on Amazon about a year ago for under £10. Bought for paint thinning but it gets used for cleaning about as much. Most glasses cleaning kits come with watered down IPA as well.

No, they're not. Entangled particles have some property (normally one which is in a superposition) which is correlated.

! Moderator Note If you read our rules carefully, then you can understand that it's against our rules for you to require someone to download a document to participate in the discussion. Please post enough information in thread for a discussion to take place.

If you are concerned about IPR then it would be sensible to have an NDA in place. I've never done medical or human trials but my understanding is that your injection of humans would be unlikely to get past an ethics committee and may well be illegal. Some have even turned to testing on themselves... http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery (not recommended)

What's your maths like? QED by Feynman is brilliant and accessible. If you want to follow the maths I'd recommend quantum mechanics by Alastair I. M. Rae, quite short as text books go but very good.

Human witnesses are notoriously bad. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(1), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.1.1 Also, witnessing something you don't know isn't evidence for aliens just that you've witnessed something you don't understand. Magic shows are not evidence for Harry potter.

Maths is the language of physics. If you're not prepared to learn the maths you will not fully understand the science. Sorry that's just the way it is. 1 a. True 1 b. False, gravity warps space, massless objects follow the curvature. This is observable in gravitational lensing. Therefore your conclusion is wrong. Given the rest of your concept is based on this mistake there is no point is further discussing it. I will say that as speed increases energy increases at a faster rate. It is easier to talk about rest mass and energy rather than muddy the waters with relativistic mass which is just energy.

I'm currently working my way through no such thing as a fish during the night. I find it's easy to fall asleep to as each piece of information is quite short. I normally listen to each episode about 5 times starting later into it each time before I think I've heard it all. For anyone who hasn't listened to it you really should.

Entanglement is an experimental result. Wishing it away doesn't solve anything. Not understanding the experiments (you need maths to do that) doesn't solve anything. Two polarised photons and to entangled photons are not necessarily the same thing.

Without the maths you cannot speak the language of physics and this discussion is probably pointless.

Because you have a different polarisation state (and depending on the situation entanglement) which changes the maths. You really need to derive the maths to understand this.