Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫  π  -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetism from particleaccelerators can destroy the sun » 2010-07-08 01:37:43

it still is the same in all directions seen from the ship on an about.

What does "on an about" mean?

#2 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-07-08 01:36:54

Ok, I'm willing to grant the idea of taking the maximum of everything that is current.  However...

That is why (current something)/(max something) must have the same relation as: current speed/max speed: because all current something are under the same rules: it cannot break the rules of relativity.

...that's not what you're talking about here.  You've just gone from "The maximum thing that exists" to "The maximum thing that is possible".  While the current largest black hole in our universe has a certain size, it is nowhere near the size that a blackhole would be if you took all the matter in the universe and put it into a single one.

In any case, I don't understand what your conclusion is.

#3 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Look at this triangle, relativity has missed something, t on z,y-plane » 2010-07-08 01:28:55

LQ wrote:

Ricky, that explanation doesn't really solve any problem, or?

You seem to be claiming that time dilation is different in different directions, no?

#4 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetism from particleaccelerators can destroy the sun » 2010-07-07 05:56:18

Rick is right.

Only if you ignore that awful typo.

The thought is that the x wise coordinate is so much bigger compared to the meterstick on the ship with mass M

You're comparing a coordinate to a size?  Perhaps you meant to compare the length in the x-axis to a size?

Even though the gravitational force seen from the ship is equal in all directions.

If there are a finite number of things in your system, gravitational force can not be the same in all directions.

So basically the gravityforce starts to move perpendicular to movement direction, the faster the ship goes.

Why?

#5 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Look at this triangle, relativity has missed something, t on z,y-plane » 2010-07-07 05:52:31

The y and z wise would've been figured out through a triangle.

Spacial coordinates are preserved under rotation.  That is, if I take any system, it remains exactly the same if I rotate the entire thing by a given xy, xz, or yz angle.  Thus, any line segement for which you wish to do calculations on may first be rotated so that it lines up precisely with the x-axis.  Therefore, one must only consider the x-axis.

#6 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-07-07 05:50:24

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your response at all.  Should your previous statement be:

"There must exist a maximum area in any area"

?

#7 Re: Euler Avenue » An interesting general article on math in science » 2010-07-06 12:26:29

Tough question to answer. Since you are asking me, you must think I am an expert. Okay, here goes, absolutely not or maybe absolutely true. Richard is biased, Sagan is biased, Schermer is biased, Stein is biased, I am biased and so are you.  Being human means sometimes taking delight in someone else's problems.

When you describe a refrigerator as being cold, it is understood that you mean "colder than most others".  When you describe a person as being biased, it is again understood that you mean "more biased than most".  Yes, of course everyone has a bias.  Is that all you can offer?  Vacuous statements?

The guys in the documentary are supposed experts. I am not. Asking me questions and they saying I have not answered them is to be expected. I cannot answer. I have said I don't want to answer. I have said I am not qualified.

Yet you put forth the claims, stating them as fact, and then say you aren't qualified.  So is this a withdraw of those claims?

I haven't made any statements...

- Richard Dawkins is a believer in intelligent design
- In the old days when creationism held sway people were fired or jailed for disagreeing.
- All qoutes are quote mining.
- Most people believe that persecution doesn't exist in science but won't take the chance.
- The Dawkin's camp is doing a lot of quote mining themselves.

If those aren't claims, what are they?

You have the sequence 2, now guess the next number. It could be anything. You have an example of one. There is not even an intelligent guess about what comes next.

Under the assumption a human made the sequence and that it is a semi-popular pattern, you can eliminate a whole lot of numbers.

I think I know why [Dawkins] says what he says. Now, why do you?

What are you referring to?  I've said a lot of things.

You say you do not want to talk about the documentary?! But now you are asking another question about it. A question about the premiere.

The documentary I do not care for.  The claims and verifiable facts within the documentary are a different story.

This "saga" is total garbage and has nothing to do with Expelled.

Nothing?

I have said what the the heck does an aged zoologist really know about Darwinism or genetics?

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

Why does he write books about God?

Because he seems to have ideas that people are interested in reading about.

Why does he bash alternative medicine, he is not a doctor or a chemist.

One does not need to be an expert to see that my invisible pink unicorn is a fake.  Nor does one need to be an expert to see that the only thing water can cure is dehydration (homeopathy).

Why is he not replaced by someone better able to speak?

You're the first person I've run into who thinks he is not an excellent speaker.

#8 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Make proposals to stopping the oil leakage in the mexican gulf » 2010-07-06 11:58:09

Now that is quote mining. Quoting me in this thread is hitting below the belt. Also the statement is made in protest to the continued use of the word gravitomagnetism. This implies a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. No such relationship is known to the common man.

Huh?  After several readings, I can't deny the possibility that you are being sarcastic, but below, I'll assume you aren't.

The statement above you made comes after you've claimed that all quotes are quote mining, so I'll take your complaint as a vacuous triviality.  I know you don't like "gravitomagnetism", and never implied that you did.  I was just interjecting the fact that this is what many physicists are trying to find: the link between gravity and other forces.

#9 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetism from particleaccelerators can destroy the sun » 2010-07-06 11:53:25

GmM√(1-(v/c)²)/r² = F(x)

Why call this F(x) if there is no F in the equation?

But what is F(y,z)?

This question doesn't seem to make sense.

#10 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetic effect from Cern versus Neutrinoflow? » 2010-07-06 11:51:34

I know about neutrinos.  I also about the mass of a neutrino.  What I don't know, is what "neutrinomass" is.

#11 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetic effect from Cern versus Neutrinoflow? » 2010-07-06 05:47:50

What are "Neutrinoflow" and "Neutrinomass"?  You seem to be the only one using those words...

with such an extensive gravitomagnetic effect

How has this effect been observed?

the neutrinoes would form big objects

Why?

#12 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Gravitomagnetism from particleaccelerators can destroy the sun » 2010-07-06 05:44:17

I can guess what most of those variables/constants are, but what is i and v?

Oh heck, would you mind defining all of them?

#13 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Make proposals to stopping the oil leakage in the mexican gulf » 2010-07-06 05:42:04

bobbym wrote:

Hi LQ;

Not denying it, modern science will never admit there is any link between gravity and electro magnetism.

Isn't that the largest known problem in physics right now?  Linking gravity to the other fundamental forces?

#14 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-07-06 05:39:19

Must exist a max in every area

Do you mean "There must exist..."?  And when you say "a max", a max what?  Length?  Volume?  Shade of blue?

#15 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-07-02 17:54:27

One can certainly set up a thought experiment with a premise that doesn't hold (as far as we know) in our universe.  For example, a tachyon is the idea of a particle which can travel faster than the speed of light and have negative mass.  But as soon as you begin with a premise that is to the best of our knowledge false, then all your deductions don't say anything about the universe.

#16 Re: Help Me ! » Abstract Algebra, COOL Homework :D » 2010-07-02 17:51:12

Something is wrong with #2, the claimed generator for I isn't even in I.

#17 Re: Euler Avenue » An interesting general article on math in science » 2010-06-29 14:22:37

Bobby, did you hear about this saga?  I suppose I was wrong before, at least one good thing did come from Expelled.  But that's only cause I'm a fan of delicious irony.

#18 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-06-29 13:59:36

No, can you have such a box?

#19 Re: Euler Avenue » An interesting general article on math in science » 2010-06-29 13:54:04

This is the point of all of the problems, they are not credible sources, they are biased sources. I don't see how we can discuss the documentary if only I have seen it. Certainly you are not going to get a an unbiased viewpoint on it by listening to me.

You feel delightfully comfortable in assuming you exactly what my "biased sources" are, don't you?

Talking about the documentary doesn't really interest me.  You claimed that scientists were fired because they believed in ID.  If all you can hold up is "Expelled" and claim this is evidence, then your claim is dismissed simply because a documentary (of this sort) is not evidence.  It may present evidence, but it is not evidence itself.

If you have any evidence of any one of the numerous claims you've made external to the documentary itself, I am greatly interested.  Thus far you have yet to produce anything other than "go watch the movie".

That's not fair, I have done the best I can to answer your questions. 2 years of chemistry, 1 year of biochemistry and bacteriology ( most of which I have forgotten), does not make me an expert. I am not qualified, to speak about theology or darwinism. The experts are speaking in the documentary. Why not listen to them? If you don't wish too, you can't blame me, I am out my element.

If you don't know, then you shouldn't make statements (claims) about them which make it appear that you do.  I've only asked you to provide evidence for things you have stated as fact.  How is this not fair?

Yes, the evidence is weak. I am not going to say all life is like here. One is not a pattern.

So far we have a (weak) reason for the lifeforms being the same, and absolutely no reason for them being different.  So I, as a betting man, am going to be if there was a panspermia event, then it would be more likely for the lifeforms to be similar.  Do you find this unreasonable?

You know where I live and can guess where I have been. Here we are much less skeptical of all the things you and I have spoken about. Still, it is not common to have physical evidence of Draconians, Reticulans, Werewolves, Skinwalkers or Vampires. Or to have strange metals or anti matter reactors in our cellars. How could we, Dawkins and Sagan said those things are impossible...

What?

Please give me an example of a question and answer that he "flubbed".

Now, that is argumentative. I have shown it 5 times at least, even from the video you provided. He flubs because he chokes. I even showed you where. No comment to a question, hoping it will go away is not an answer.

I see Dawkins stating that panspermia is a possible example for "a designer", and Ben Stein lying about Dawkins' beliefs regarding panspermia.  I do not see any "flub".

The pursuit of truth, you must meet me half way. You must pursue it too.  I don't know Darwin personally. When we are talking about a man's character I would need more info, I would need to know him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. That is the most I can do.

Let me give you a similar hypothetical situation.  You've just heard that Bush decapitated five bound and gagged people shortly after he graduated college.  You are given no supporting evidence for the assertion.  Do you really say "Well, I don't really know the man, can't say either way, but I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt."

No, you dismiss the claim because it has no evidence.

It is you who have carefully avoided my questions. I admire your skill. But I have not forgotten them. I asked you why you feel the way you do on this subject. I think I know why Richard feels the way he does. Why are you preconditioned to think it is not worth your time?

Where have you asked me that before?  Please let me know what post it's in, because I can't find it.

As for the question, what is "this subject"?  What is "it" that I think is not worth my time?

50 people who all dress the same, are all the same gender, the same race and all live in the same town, say that person B is a slimeball. Now B lives next door to me. I could easily go over and talk to him and see for myself, only take about 2 hours. Should I talk to him or should I believe the 50 people? Never once thinking those might not be 50 different viewpoints, they might be the same viewpoint 50 times. What should I do here?

If I understand the point you're trying to get at, and I have no idea that I do, then your analogy is seriously flawed.  It's not someone saying, "That guy is awful".  It's someone saying, "That guy is awful!  He decapitated my cat, look, here is my cat's body!  And look!  Over there, he's still holding my cat's head!"

#20 Re: Euler Avenue » An interesting general article on math in science » 2010-06-27 13:48:13

Cantor:

If you can explain how being called a corruptor of children is not persecution. You seem to think that it is scientific debate, I do not. We are at an impasse. By the way I have been criticizing it.

I think you are being hyperbolic to call it persecution.  You may criticize Kronecker's reasons, you may fully disagree with them, but they still are his reasons.  You asked me what his reason was and I responded with what I felt was a likely meaning to his words.  I never said I agreed with this reason.

The current question is not if Kronecker was justified, but if it was persecution.  In my mind, an entire group must participate in order for persecution to take place, on the order of a government in scale.

It is necessary to weed out bad ideas, and in the process of doing this, it is also necessary to heavily criticize and even poke fun at good ideas.  It is a loss to humanity that Cantor could not bear the criticism, one which I regret dearly.  But I still would not change the system because ideas still need to be rigorously tested before they are accepted.  Yes I agree Kronecker's comments were not deserved, but Kronecker's head was still in the right place.

Expelled:

You continue this game of making claims, then me asking/stating something, and you telling me I would know the answer if I watched Expelled.  If this continues, here is the last I have to say:

From every credible source I have read, the film is dishonest.  I was well versed in Creationism/ID before the film came out, and from everything I've heard it rehashed the same old Creationist arguments.  Further, I'm not interested in what the documentary says, only what it can back up with evidence.  And this evidence, while it can be sourced within the documentary, must be found outside the documentary.  Therefore, the only parts that I find any interest in whatsoever can be found outside the documentary, so I don't need to watch it.  Moreover, Stein is a dreadful speaker and I don't think I want to waste my precious one-disk-at-a-time Netflix on this awful piece of dreck.

If you have any evidence of any one of the numerous claims you've made external to the documentary itself, I am greatly interested.  Thus far you have yet to produce anything other than "go watch the movie".

Expected? Not necessarily. The environment probably has a lot to do with how life developed. Intelligent or directed panspermia? If some alien species millions of years more advanced than us ( Dawkins said this ) went around seeding our world as well as millions of others, how could we know how those aliens started. How life began there? Maybe it didn't evolve as Darwin says on their planet. After all Darwin was never on their planet. His conclusions come from the Galapagos. Why would it apply in their world? That is how it is a threat, Darwin talks about the origin of the species on earth. If directed panspermia is true his theory would know longer apply here or anywhere else.

Yes, life could be vastly different.  But once the basis for life is decided (RNA/DNA in our case), it seems to be quite hard to change.  This is evidenced by the fact that every lifeform on earth has RNA/DNA.  With this evidence, I would make the hypothesis that if panspermia occurred, then whatever alien species cause it also used RNA/DNA.  Of course this is weakly evidenced, and relies entirely on observations made terrestrially.  But that is the best evidence I've got.  If you have something better, please, show it.  But your statement "that might not be the case because we don't know" doesn't hold much weight, mostly because I've already stated that we don't really know.

[Richard Dawkins] flubbed the answers.

Please give me an example of a question and answer that he "flubbed".

If I ask a mathematician to differentiate x^2 does he.. have to tailor [his response]?

If you're asking him this question in front of an audience of high school dropouts whom he wants to understand the answer, then you're darn right he needs to tailor it.

I don't wish to discuss that. I just hope they are wrong.

Then you lack the pursuit of truth that I so desire in a person I am arguing with.

If you remember I said both of them used  some dirty tactics in their exchange. This only proves they are human and make mistakes.

Depends what you mean by "dirty".  If they intended to trick or deceive, then error be damned, I want nothing to do with someone who willfully deceives.

This was Richards first time in front of a hostile crowd of one.

Not even almost.

#21 Re: Help Me ! » Matrix Algebra » 2010-06-27 05:38:25

Matrix T consists of eigen vectors of A, hence

I believe this is incorrect.  I will post back here when tonight after I've had time to look through some old notes.

#22 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-06-27 05:33:15

you have this box, whatever is in the box you don't know, you just know that it's max of its kind.

No matter what box you compare with, the box with its max is allways bigger.

Sounds to me like a pretty big assumption.  Does this really reflect reality?

#23 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » The universe's max time » 2010-06-25 05:27:14

Any max in the universe is the same in all reference frames, including time, length, speed and frequency.

Where does relativity say this is true?

#24 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Make proposals to stopping the oil leakage in the mexican gulf » 2010-06-25 05:26:01

This is just like a really big aorta.

In the same way this post is like a column in the New York Times!

#25 Re: Help Me ! » question about wording in my book » 2010-06-25 05:23:31

1. The standard analysis way to word this is:

A sequence {p_n} converges to p in X if and only if for every open neighborhood U of p, there exists an N such that for all n >= N, p_n is in U.

In other words, no matter what neighborhood of p you give me, the "tail end" of the sequence is completely contained in that neighborhood.

2. Adjoined means to put them together.  So my new cover is

He's just extending the cover to include the entire space you're working in.