kleinwolf

Are there limit for intercourse frequency (too few, or too much, of which kind), so that it hence becomes unhealthy ? ( except of speaking of not fun with blood for example)

-Vacuum Dimensional datas of both eyes is 21 dimensional, 21=7+7+7...so we have 3 eyes... -But vacuum... - by hitting our head, mouth open, we can convince it's empty

As an electromagnetic waves ? The duality is not solved, but then need an infinite base.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThank you swansont, I have memory problems with my mobile with what I'm writing this. I thought inbetween about : given a wave, would a Fourier transform give a continuous spectrum, whilst expanding in a pure wave basis would be discrete but infinite one. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged3 independent color were a complete generating set, does this mean that the electromagnetic wave picture is completely out, and hence the wave can only be the probability's amplitude of presence ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ...then the grey text ?? if u do that, u dont turn back but you lose all your properties and maybe even the next step you should make ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCan we say that the eyes' data are 13 dimensional (2(eyes)*2(xy)*3(color)+1(time)) ?

I don't know if this is a proof : (Contraposition) : [math]e^x,e^{2x}[/math] are linearly dependent if there are constant a,b nonzero, such that [math]ae^x+be^{2x}=0,\forall x[/math]. x=0, implies [math]a+b=0[/math] x=1 implies [math]a+be=0[/math] a contradiction since a,b are constant. So those two functions are lin. independent...

Is it possible to express [math]\sin(4x)[/math] in terms of [math]\sin(x),\sin(2x),\sin(3x)[/math] only ??

Because we could write : [math]\vec{color}=a*\vec{red}+b*\vec{green}+c*\vec{blue}[/math] since those 3 colors are independent. Probably the proof it is a complete basis for color is experimental with a prism, like said above. May be asked : how to get the temperature or frequency out of this vector ?

Hi Sisyphus, If some people are 4-chromat, do they see in 4 dimension ? (Has this something to do with the 4-color colorization theorem of maps w/o enclaves ?) Weird numbers : three people with ternary logic (like colors), have a decisional power of 77.7% ?

How do we know that 3 base colors are needed to compose any color and not 4 for example ? Is there a physical proof from medical analysis of eye's cell ? --- btw : if it were a palette we would need 2 to localize the color : distance right and up from a corner for example.

Ok I thought it was because it were a sound politically incorrect word. Anyhow, this question lead me to the following case : if an elongated object of length L, moving with a parallel speed v along, is observed perpendicularly to this direction, the gamma factor would be [math] \gamma(v)=\left(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right)^{-1/2}[/math]. If observed perpendicularly, could this intuitively give [math]\gamma(v_x)[/math] ? How to get this from the 2D Lorentz transformation, knowing that [math]\vec{e}'_x=(-\beta_x\gamma(v), 1+(\gamma(v)-1)\frac{\beta_x^2}{\beta^2},(\gamma-1)\frac{\beta_x\beta_y}{\beta^2})[/math] ?

I was incorrect using this word. I beg for pardon. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(It's not the medical forum, but still, everything is politically surveyed ?)

'Projected' ? Or maybe : 'expressed in component' ?

yes it's not understandable, maybe like : "the velocity (of an object) can be decomposed [...]" ?

A good question, I thought about : what if the speed of an object decomposes in a plane (vx,vy), measured by emitting a light ray in those perpendicular direction. should we "observe" this object at those speed ?

In fact My state of widower is not easy up to now

??? Do you know my size ? I can have access only to prostitutes (due to some psy that cut of my receptor for the swedish voice)....(pros : their business is our pleasure ??...a lie...because then it remains small...and they try to eliminate suicidal people like me, giving present to them...) how about you ??? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSuppose pros were set up by castrated men, dont understand how they can care bout pleasure. $? Yes so it remains small! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd even if we put condom to see if both ejaculate woman and man we in fact know nothing about the pleasure of the other sex..it is just a game... And post coitum animal goes sad do not come to often ,maybe becoz of churches censorship or what about feelings. Money makes worries avoid a good one. In fact we can maybe find revalorization in a job?

Can this transformation can be written as the composition of an homotethy with a pure shearing ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(i made a mistake with verbs in the last post). I had a 2nd question : if one computes the norm of the changed basis vectors it founds [math]\gamma\sqrt{1+\beta^2}[/math] ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIm dumb... it was just the metric (or i coord) to get 1. Anyhow i couldnt find the definition of a shear matrix : can it be symmetric w/out 1s on the diagonal ?

Does anyone know an easy way to make cristal grow, by dilution of a chemical compound in a liquid ? And maybe too, if there is a list to which form of the cristal corresponds to which powder ?

Sometimes it is noticed with time that it's not the "(more) exact (but too long) calculation", that is remembered at the end, but more simple, schematic or short, easy to remember, version, (majority memory). For example : -SensiblerQM Postulate : Measurement of (sub)system disturb the system. (We need 5 symbols in english, and 6 in french, 7 in german) instead of long incomprehensible calculations ? or -Relativity 2+1 : instead of sheet-long matrix products with Lorentz boost, a geometrical view : 1/2 angle between both frames of reference space direction [math]\vec{e}_\phi[/math] and [math]\vec{e'}_\phi[/math] is given by : [math]v_\phi/c[/math] So, maybe just the simpler reality is remembered, even if it's not exact, because of demagogical argument ??

Yes, I'm sorry, I couldn't find out how to make matrices with the tex commands. I had several question from this out : -It does not commute, so what corresponds physically to the order of addition of speed ? -In 2D, the boost makes that Oxy is no more orthogonal (decomposition of L : [math]R^{-1}(\theta)L R(\theta),\theta=atg(v_y/v_x)[/math], where R is a rotation based on x and y component of v, and L a 1D boost with total v speed) -In the Minkowski diagram, the boosts correspond to "lean" the t-axis towards x-axis. In 2D shouldn't then t-axis be leaned over every direction, such that the space x-y should be conical ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(Add.: Sorry, not conical, but curved, by considering that the Minkowski-angle theta between the phi-direction in the xy-plane and x'y'-frame: [math] \theta=atan(vx/c*cos(\phi)+vy/c*sin(\phi)) [/math]. whereas with linear transformation of boost with rotation (see above) one gets : [math]\theta=atan(vx/c)*cos(\phi)+atan(vy/c)*sin(\phi)[/math] )

If we consider 2 Lorentz transformation along x and y : Lx gammax -betax*gammax 0 -betax*gammax gammax 0 0 0 1 Ly gammay 0 -betay*gammay 0 1 0 -betay*gammay 0 gammay Why is L_x*L_y not equal to L_y*L_x ? --------------------- BTW is it to confond with Lorenz, with his Goose (?)

I'm sorry to have confused some by my short-writing without a complete definition of the context, inducing a ???? reaction. I maybe try to rewrite it more clearly. We could use a "formalism", either redefine a scope, or a new symbol for "speed" addition : like let say [math]+_r[/math], such that [math] c+_r v=c[/math] for all v, even for v=c. Then why is this invariant speed a limit speed ? Because if you add 1km/h to c, it remains c, so you cannot go faster.

Maybe you refere to atomic units, where c=hbar=e=1 if I remember a few. We redefine the context. then formally the relativistic speed addition gives 1+1=1, (representing c+c=c) which can be disturbing.

Maybe an analogy with petroleum derrick-fire : to stop it they sometimes use high-power dynamites (wind away the fire). Does anyone know if the bomb possibility was1 1st experimental (by chemists making heaps with all possible elements, and saw that reactions happened), or theoretically (but then, E=mc2, why do oceans not explode ??)

Some people say that if U-Bomb would not have been discovered, ww2 would have last maybe 20 years more ??

Addendum : forgotten was the fact that in dimension 2, the relativistic speed addition is not commutative (i.e. [math]\vec{c}_y\oplus_r\vec{v}_x=\vec{c}_y,\forall v<c[/math], but [math]\vec{v}_x\oplus_r\vec{c}_y=\vec{c}_{\theta}[/math], theta is defined as in the graph) hence, 1+2 does not equal 2+1, which is quite bizarre. (depends if you consider the train before the person walking in, or reverse order)