POStudios Forum

The Royal Archives => The Dark Age => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 04:54:21 PM

Title: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 04:54:21 PM
I think Delling deserves his own thread. :P  I say this because I don't want to spam everywhere else whenever I talk to him. ;P

Ok, you mentioned that you're studying Physics, so I have three physics questions for you. ;)

- Why is E=mc2 referred to as the Theory of Relativity?
- What is faster than light?
- What is light?

8)

Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on September 10, 2006, 04:58:38 PM
Congrats Delling.  :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 05:02:38 PM
Other people can answer too, cuz I have my own theories, but my high school Physics teacher never really explained that properly, and my first year Physics prof sucked. XD

I was going to Applied Optics as an elective in 3rd year, but it was the same prof so I dropped it. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Jafar on September 10, 2006, 05:35:39 PM
Quote
Why is E=mc2 referred to as the Theory of Relativity?
The E stands for Edna, Albert Einstein's aunt. And she's related to him. Hence, the Theory of Relativeivity. :P
Quote
- What is faster than light?
Light after drinking crugged coffee. XD
Quote
- What is light?
A science fiction novel written by M. John Harrison. I've never read it. :P

Okay, I've leave the serious explanations to other people. XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 05:40:06 PM
LMAO! :suffer:

Well, that was unexpected! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 10, 2006, 06:42:53 PM
My browser died in the middle of my reply... :-[ ... I had a pdf open in another tab and I closed that tab...I need to update Adobe so Mozilla won't flip out when I do that...

 XD XD omgyay! my own thread!

Thank you Yonkey!
Thanks for the congrats, Petra.

LOL @ Jafar

H'okay, so, (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)

- Why is E=mc2 referred to as the Theory of Relativity?

It's a consequence of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity wherein he assumes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

- What is faster than light?

Theoretically, astronomical readings and relativity imply that the universe is like a dense gas that is expanding faster than the speed of light. Also, there's the theoretical particle called a tachyon that is thought to travel faster than the speed of light.

- What is light?

Light is complicated.  :suffer: But, seriously, light "travels" in packets called photons (according to Planck... I think...). These photons are bosons. It's their nature as a boson that explains why they can pass through some things and not others. 

However, the idea of a photon is just a nice bookkeeping mechanism. In reality, everything we describe as particles belong to a wave-particle paradox which is a fancy way of saying we really don't know what we're talking about. There are mathematical constructions that consider them as particles or as waves... the problem being that where we have a paradox, nature has... something else... something we haven't managed to describe consistently yet. After this rather simple explanation, we end up in wave mechanics and wave-particle arguments and the like, but as I haven't had Quantum Mech yet, I'll leave it at that.


- What is faster than light?
Light after drinking crugged coffee. XD
I love that!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on September 10, 2006, 07:03:10 PM
congrats on your thread, delling!!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 10, 2006, 07:20:27 PM
Merci, Pacman
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 07:24:37 PM
H'okay, so, (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)
LOL "Well f*ck that".


It's a consequence of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity wherein he assumes that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
So, the limit is a vacuum.  That sucks. ;-D

Theoretically, astronomical readings and relativity imply that the universe is like a dense gas that is expanding faster than the speed of light. Also, there's the theoretical particle called a tachyon that is thought to travel faster than the speed of light.
Ahh ok, so in other words, unscientifically proven theory is faster than light?  At least it makes for good science fiction. ;)


However, the idea of a photon is just a nice bookkeeping mechanism. In reality, everything we describe as particles belong to a wave-particle paradox which is a fancy way of saying we really don't know what we're talking about. There are mathematical constructions that consider them as particles or as waves... the problem being that where we have a paradox, nature has... something else... something we haven't managed to describe consistently yet. After this rather simple explanation, we end up in wave mechanics and wave-particle arguments and the like, but as I haven't had Quantum Mech yet, I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, from what I remember from first year Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics says that particles are dynamic and move in clouds, meaning their location is nondeterministic and chaotic.  It can only be determined via probability, meaning science can predict and estimate with good confidence, but can never accurately say where an electron is at a specific point in time.

We harness the power of light through electron flow and projection, but light is actually invisible and massless.  Light itself is also undefined because its luminosity, polarization, and position can be altered using pretty much anything. 



Congrats! You passed those three. XD  Let's try three more:

- Is it possible for something to have both 0 mass and 0 energy?
- Why is it impossible to reach absolute zero (0 Kelvin)?
- What is the physically strongest substance known to date?


EDIT: Spelling. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on September 10, 2006, 07:32:29 PM
- Is it possible for something to have both 0 mass and 0 energy?
because if you have a _ in between them, itd be 0_0 and it should be 0_-

- Why is it impossible to reach absolute zero (0 Kelvin)?
its too cold for a sweatshirt

- What is the physically strongest substance known to date?
duct tape hands down

Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 07:36:09 PM
duct tape hands down
LOL XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 10, 2006, 07:52:53 PM
- Is it possible for something to have both 0 mass and 0 energy?
Yes, a perfect vacuum. Now, here's my question for you do perfect vacuums exist? (not necessarily perfectly isolated, just completely empty, and for clarity's sake, we'll stick to strictly particle physics)

- Why is it impossible to reach absolute zero (0 Kelvin)?
Well, this is a potentially really fun question because heat is a macroscopic manifestation of microscopic motion and vibration. So, if we have a sufficiently isolated vacuum, we have 0 Kelvin (we have to eliminate conduction, convection, and radiation allowing that this also eliminates radiation resulting in pair creation since that could get us into trouble too). We can't tell that we have 0 Kelvin, but there's nothing there to cause heat. Thus, QED, we have 0 K. So, theoretically, it's possible. It's just not practical largely because of radiation heat sources leaking into our lovely little isolated system.

- What is the physically strongest substance known to date?
Do you mean tensile strength, Moh's hardness, Brinell's hardness, some other scale, or something that typifies them all? What do you mean by strength?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 10, 2006, 10:07:42 PM
- Is it possible for something to have both 0 mass and 0 energy?
Yes, a perfect vacuum. Now, here's my question for you do perfect vacuums exist? (not necessarily perfectly isolated, just completely empty, and for clarity's sake, we'll stick to strictly particle physics)
The only thing I can think of that would be close to one is a black hole. :P  Only problem is no one will ever be able to get anyone or anything physically near them without getting sucked in and destroyed. :P

So, theoretically, it's possible.
Correct.  Going back to Einstein's forumla, E=mc2, but at absolute zero, there is no particle movement, making E=0, and the only way for E to equal 0 is for m=0.  As stated you said in the previous question, the only way for both E and m to be 0 is in a perfect vacuum, or a black hole.

Do you mean tensile strength, Moh's hardness, Brinell's hardness, some other scale, or something that typifies them all? What do you mean by strength?
Basically, I'm asking what is the most physically indestructable substance on Earth.  We just said that outside of Earth, it's a black hole, but within our atmosphere what is it?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 10, 2006, 11:18:55 PM
A black hole is not a vacuum. A black hole gets all of its intense power by having an immense gravitational density and a small volume. GM/r for a gravitational potential r is the distance from the center of mass to the surface of the mass.

For a black hole, the radius can be less than our sun's with a mass many times more than the sun's. Thus, the gravitational potential is really really big.

There are in fact an insurmountable number of perfect vacuums all around us on a daily basis. Gases in general are high energy particles "filling" a vacuum. The issue is that they don't really fill these vacuums: the gas particles move around randomly and chaoticly filling and emptying space haphazardly. We don't notice because the pressure differential for these tiny vacuums is infinitesimal. The exchange is so rapid that macroscopic the effect is inconsequential.

As far as the most indestructible substance, I'm still not sure I'm getting this quite right... diamond is the standard for testing hardness... and titanium tops some scale or something... I think it's hardest metal or some such...

EDIT: bad bracket... how'd you get there!?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Rosella on September 11, 2006, 03:47:11 AM
My official opinion is that this thread rules. Congrats Delling! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: awesomeasapossum on September 11, 2006, 05:16:53 AM
There is a LOT of physics in here.
*is having trouble breathing*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 07:13:51 AM
There is a LOT of physics in here.
*is having trouble breathing*

Aspira ponte, AAAP.... which is to say: Breathe deeply!

My official opinion is that this thread rules. Congrats Delling! XD

Danke, Rosella (I'm trying to thank people in different languages... ... but I really only have English, Irish Gaelic, French, Spanish, German, and Latin...maybe I'll just start making stuff up after that  ;D )



EDIT: "in peole" :sweating:  sorry, was typing this up quickly before I had to go to class this morning... which was a boring recap of special relativity and the derivation of equations for motion from Lorentz... blah blah blah... it's dull especially when you got it the first time

EDIT II: Oh, I used Spanish twice... well, I'll fix that... Rosella will just have to live with German...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 07:19:27 AM
There are in fact an insurmountable number of perfect vacuums all around us on a daily basis. Gases in general are high energy particles "filling" a vacuum.
So, what exactly is a vacuum?  Based on what you said there, it sounds like space is the perfect vacuum? ???

As far as the most indestructible substance, I'm still not sure I'm getting this quite right... diamond is the standard for testing hardness... and titanium tops some scale or something... I think it's hardest metal or some such...
Hmm ok those aren't the substance I was thinking of, but let's use them anyway.  What are the chemical forumlas for both diamond and titanium?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on September 11, 2006, 07:25:19 AM
Quote
I'm trying to thank people in peole in different languages... ...


 Shukran means thank you in Arabic if you want a new one.  ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 09:31:56 AM
Tibi multas gratias ago, Petra (thanks in Latin)

A vacuum is space without any matter in it. You know what a siphon is right? It's basically a function of a simple pressure differential, but it's caused by the presence of a vacuum. The phase of matter we call gas is actually a bunch of really tiny gas molecules at high speeds being driven by their internal energy or heat through what is largely empty space, a vacuum.

Titanium is elemental and thus Ti: some of its compounds according to Wikipedia are handy too. Diamond is a form of pure carbon: I think it's C-14 (14 carbon atoms in a particular arrangement).
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 10:11:17 AM
A vacuum is space without any matter in it. You know what a siphon is right? It's basically a function of a simple pressure differential, but it's caused by the presence of a vacuum. The phase of matter we call gas is actually a bunch of really tiny gas molecules at high speeds being driven by their internal energy or heat through what is largely empty space, a vacuum.
Ok, so I still don't see why a black hole isn't considered a perfect vacuum, because it sounds like you're describing one pretty well. ;P

Titanium is elemental and thus Ti: some of its compounds according to Wikipedia are handy too. Diamond is a form of pure carbon: I think it's C-14 (14 carbon atoms in a particular arrangement).
Ok, you're getting closer, let's go further.  What is the molecular makeup and structure of Titanium and a Diamond (you can use pictures too). XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 10:43:17 AM
Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.

A vacuum is a pressure differential caused by the absolute lack of any "thing" whatsoever: a difference in pressure concentrated at one place because there's nothing in that "place." So, for equilibrium to be established, gases or liquids or what ever gets pulled in. A black hole is a massive object of small size that thus has an immense gravitational potential. They operate on completely different principles.

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true. There's stuff out there. It's mostly particulate (itty bitty chunks of dust) or bigger chunks of bigger things... To be a perfect vacuum as I described before all that is required is that there be nothing there. Pressure is a macroscopic phenomenon of a fluid filling a space. Gravity is a force exerted by one mass on another that reduces over r2. They operate on entirely different principles.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Diamonds_glitter.png/180px-Diamonds_glitter.png)

Titanium is an elemental metal... if we aren't talking about a crystal of some kind then... I would assume that like most metals it's a bundle of nuclei in an electron sea... I'd have to look up the arrangement and I have class now... tonight though... I'll get back to you...


EDIT (By Yonkey): Fixed image ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 01:10:29 PM
Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.
Hmm... I think you're right about them not being equal.  According to Newton, m = F/a and a = F/m.  If a vacuum is massless, it would make m=0, F=0, and a undefined.  However, both a vacuum and a black hole have a negative force that pulls, so there's no way F can be 0, meaning a "perfect vacuum" neither pushes nor pulls...

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true.
When I said space, I didn't mean outerspace. ;P  I meant space in general, as defined by the 3rd dimension. 8)

I'd have to look up the arrangement and I have class now... tonight though... I'll get back to you...
No problem, and thanks! :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 02:04:56 PM
Because a vacuum is massless and black hole isn't. A black hole has an enormous mass concentrated at its center while a vacuum has nothing at all.
Hmm... I think you're right about them not being equal.  According to Newton, m = F/a and a = F/m.  If a vacuum is massless, it would make m=0, F=0, and a undefined.  However, both a vacuum and a black hole have a negative force that pulls, so there's no way F can be 0, meaning a "perfect vacuum" neither pushes nor pulls...

This is true of every vacuum. The suction comes from the fact that since there's literally nothing there, there's no source of pressure. Gases flow from an area of higher concentration to lower. The way siphoning gasoline out of a car works is that the pressure from the gas and air in the tank is less than the vacuum formed in the tube by sucking out the air.

The force of the vacuum is normative: it arise from the physical interaction of matter. The force of a black hole is elementary... that is to say one of the 4 basic forces of our understanding of the universe... gravity. The black hole has a gravitational force because it has mass (a lot of it in a very small space).

A vacuum does not have a force of its own: it is rather it's lack of force and mass that gives it power (not the physics term power as that would attach it to the wrong thing... mass that moves into the vacuum does the work, not the other way around).

There are plenty of vacuums in space. However, the long held perception that space is (to quote Serenity) "...a vasty nothingness..." is not actually true.
When I said space, I didn't mean outerspace. ;P  I meant space in general, as defined by the 3rd dimension. 8)

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Our little 3-space here either contains matter or doesn't. Where it doesn't, that's a perfect vacuum.

PS- gracias por ayudarme con la foto
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Say on September 11, 2006, 02:17:41 PM

PS- gracias para ayudar me con la pictura


*reads geekiness :P*

* 20 minutes later*


It should be "Gracias por ayudarme con la foto"; "para" and "por" is like the similar debate with prepositions and when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish); every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol); aaaaaand "pictura" is not a word in Spanish :P

Yes, I'm bilingual :P
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence ;P

 [/end of geeky grammar correction]


 Yay!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on September 11, 2006, 02:20:21 PM
I think Delling was speaking in Latin.  ;)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Say on September 11, 2006, 02:23:42 PM
Oh well, Latin is the mother of all those :D



Now you all just learnt something new :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 02:42:49 PM

PS- gracias para ayudar me con la pictura


*reads geekiness :P*

* 20 minutes later*


It should be "Gracias por ayudarme con la foto"; "para" and "por" is like the similar debate with prepositions and when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish); every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol); aaaaaand "pictura" is not a word in Spanish :P
Ah! I looked it up to find out what happened. I was thinking of pintura which is painting... which is dead wrong...thinking way back to vocab in 11th grade is not a good idea...

I actually had por and looked it up to try to be sure, but I had to use an online dictionary that wasn't very clear about usage in its models for por and para.

"every single time you use "me" should be used as a prefix of a subjunctive mode of the verb, not as a separated word in this case (I hope that sort of makes sense, lol)"

I assume you mean suffix as that's its usage hear... and if my shaky memory is right in a usual sentence the direct object pronouns precede the verb as an independent word. It's not a subjunctive usage of the verb; however, it's a verbal usage of the verb's infinitive as a noun: ayudar is the infinitive acting as the object of the preposition por. But, yes, I understand what you're saying.  ;)

"when it comes down to translating you shouldn't translate word by word because they have different uses/meanings in different languages (specially English and Spanish)"

I never do translate word for word. There are 1:1 relationships in languages, and then there are things like por vs. para and ser vs. estar or for another example saber vs. conocer where there are strict usage rules governing which word you use. In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.

Yes, I'm bilingual :P
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence ;P

 [/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never

Yay!

Yay, indeed!  ;D ;D

I think Delling was speaking in Latin.  ;)

No, I was writing in Spanish since I said I would thank people in different languages. In Latin...

Ionki, tibi multas gratias ago propter iuvare me cum pictura.

(very liberally making Yonkey= Ionki... which would be a third declension noun)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Say on September 11, 2006, 02:57:48 PM
Yes, I'm bilingual :P
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence ;P

[/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never


I'll take that as a complement!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 02:58:59 PM
No problem, Delling. ;P  What's your real first name, by the way? ???

And yeah, it's agreed then that the perfect vaccum = space.

In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.
I agree, and even within a language there's more than one meaning to a word or phrase. ;)

Anyway, once you get a chance to post the Titanium structure, go right ahead. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 05:42:44 PM
No problem, Delling. ;P  What's your real first name, by the way? ???

Brandon.

In the case of the latter and in matters of idiom, I try to be observant, but there's only so much that can be done without experiencing the language firsthand.
I agree, and even within a language there's more than one meaning to a word or phrase. ;)
Indeed, for instance, the vocab sections in Wheelock (the collegiate standard in Latin from which I taught myself) often read more like a table mapping a Latin verb to reasonable approximations.

Anyway, once you get a chance to post the Titanium structure, go right ahead. :)

According to the Cambridge report that I found this image in, "At about 890oC, the titanium undergoes an allotropic transformation to a body-centred cubic β phase which remains stable to the melting temperature." As such, I've provided α (alpha).

(http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2004/titanium/hexagonal.gif)

If you go to this site (http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2004/titanium/hexagonal.mov), they actually have it rotate to show off all its structure.


EDIT- added stuff below

Yes, I'm bilingual :P
And please don't hate me for being a geek correcting your last sentence ;P

[/end of geeky grammar correction]

Me... hate THE Say?... never


I'll take that as a complement!


It was intended as one... I should have put a  ;) followed by several  XD XD XD XD XD.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 10:15:37 PM
Nice work, Brandon! ;D

Ok, so you said that Titanium and Diamond are earth's most indestructable substances, unfortunately both of them can be destroyed very easily, due to their chemical structure.  So, really the strongest substance both inside this world and out is that which can both strengthen and weaken both of these things.  What is it?

This you should be able to figure out without even needing a science background. :)

Hint: It is stronger than any black hole, and also the basis to which all things are based on.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 11, 2006, 11:16:00 PM
Well... we come now again to this issue of what do you mean by "strength."


I hope you're not looking for the answer of graphite because the very argument this links to has a loop in its logic which contradicts itself: the author does a little magic hand wave over the fact that the bonds in graphite are weak. We can actually know "strength" for those bonds because there's a mathematically solvable magnitude. The strength of the bond actually does somewhat obviously mean more than the length of the bond. (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec98/912980575.Es.r.html) Though I think he was trying to indicate a certain futility in scientifically defining strength.


There's nanotubes which I recently read here (http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/win98/nanos.html) are fairly "strong" or indestructible (though I was looking them up to get a better grasp on their applications in superconductors).

If you want something indestructible, an electron is still thought to be indestructible (quark theory applies to hadrons (nucleons)).

Or perhaps you're looking for the gluon field: the force field that holds the nucleus together and is thought to be a particle (a gluon) though has never been observed. Theoretically, breaking these supposed particles has the same result breaking the forces they're associated with would have: that of a nuclear bomb.

Both the electron and the theoretical gluon are both extremely basic concepts capable of very powerful results. I suppose that either could strengthen or weaken the substances already discussed.
Ok, so you said that Titanium and Diamond are earth's most indestructable substances...

...except I didn't...

As far as the most indestructible substance, I'm still not sure I'm getting this quite right... diamond is the standard for testing hardness... and titanium tops some scale or something... I think it's hardest metal or some such...

Diamond is actually what is used in the presses for testing a given substance's hardness because it is the standard of comparison at the top of Moh's scale.

Titanium is the hardest elemental metal. (that excludes alloys and unnatural allotropes)

...
Other than that... I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 11, 2006, 11:29:49 PM
Diamond and Titanium were the two substances you named when I asked you what is the most indestructable substance on Earth.  You actually could have named anything else and use whatever definition of "strength" you like, but it would all lead to the same conclusion. 8)

And nanotubes and gluons are still too theoretical, I'm more interested in the practical and obvious.  But you're very close, keep in mind the hint I gave. ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: racx_00 on September 12, 2006, 01:25:31 AM
Nice thread!

I hated physics in high school, but this thread has been really interesting so far, more interesting than the lessons were. XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Rosella on September 12, 2006, 02:53:08 AM
I really liked the Physical Science course I took in 8th grade, so even though I have no clue what's going on, I REALLY like this thread. XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 12, 2006, 06:55:45 AM
Hahaha, yeah, I really loved Grade 12 Physics, but OAC Physics felt like I missed something, or maybe the teacher just didn't like me. ;P  First Year Physics in Engineering was even worse, because I seriously had to struggle to understand the theory, yet the labs were so amazingly easy that everyone did well in them. ;D

So, that's pretty much why I'm asking Delling these questions now, because my teachers and textbooks just forced me to learn formulas and theories but never really said why they exist.  Now, I have a pretty good understanding, but it's still kewl to hear different interpretations of what people believe to be true. XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 12, 2006, 11:20:30 AM
But you're very close, keep in mind the hint I gave. ;D

Yes, well, I'm not particularly fond of the hint: for one thing, it's redundant "basis on which all things are based"= "basis of all things" and as for "stronger than any black hole," well, there's some definite issues there as a consideration our galaxy is most probably held together by a large black hole or super dense black hole cluster (which would probably be an unstable arrangement anyway and probably just collapse into a single black hole).

The point is that the question--"what is the strongest substance anywhere?"--is not scientific. Science requires that we be able to work in a quantifiable mathematical way (which is akin to saying: "We must have repeatable results." though in this case, repeatability doesn't apply). It is due to this restriction that what someone else might consider strong a chemist considers weak, a physicist inconsequential and engineers (in general at Tech at least) really don't care anyway.

Getting back to the hint, the electron is electrodynamically a reasonable basis of everything (as all charges are an integer multiple of the electron's charge). Beyond that, hydrogen is the basis of everything: it's behavior is fundamental, it forms strong bonds, and it is in no way theoretical. I suppose a practical combination of these two ideas would be water because it employs hydrogen bonding which comes about because there's a slight dipole moment on the hydrogen caused by a shift in the electrons around the nucleus.

So, yeah, something like that... *brain putters out on thinking about the "strongest" substance*

 :stars:  ???  :-\  :idea: ;D  XB  XD  :suffer: *blurts out* "spider silk" *runs away* (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/Bizarre/2001/03/)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 12, 2006, 12:09:05 PM
hydrogen bonding
Bingo! XD  I won't explain why, because unfortunately someone else beat you to it. ;P

So, yeah, something like that... *brain putters out on thinking about the "strongest" substance*

 :stars:  ???  :-\  :idea: ;D  XB  XD  :suffer: *blurts out* "spider silk" *runs away* (http://www.xciv.org/~meta/Bizarre/2001/03/)
Heh, it's definitely not spider silk, because I actually just squashed 3. 8)

Thanks for answering my questions. :)

Dude, you're getting a Dell! ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 12, 2006, 04:42:44 PM
hydrogen bonding
Bingo! XD  I won't explain why, because unfortunately someone else beat you to it. ;P

I was going to let this go at that... the better part of me still would very much like to, but I'm quite batty... which makes my better part battier etc....

Hydrogen bonding as stated in the very post you quoted is an electromagnetic phenomenon. In fact, it's a manifestation of the electromagnetic force: it's not a substance. Do you mean a hydrogen bomb or hydrogen itself?

...hydrogen bonding which comes about because there's a slight dipole moment on the hydrogen caused by a shift in the electrons around the nucleus....

...However, after this, I'd like to deviate from science stuff for awhile... I have an e-mag test to prep for and I'm gonna need some recovery time.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 12, 2006, 05:46:23 PM
I can explain it to you over e-mail if you like, but right now I have a bit more important things to work on as well. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 15, 2006, 04:15:01 PM
 :stars: well... that was... ...something...

 :idea:

 :sneaky: *furtively and deftly changes the topic of his thread while no one is looking*

Delling's Q&A: myths, phys, and Latin shoppe  :P is open for business!
Anyone may ask; anyone may answer.


Or we could talk about whatever... or whatever...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: icarus on September 16, 2006, 10:19:19 AM
well If you want to talk about whatever..

what did you had for lunch/dinner?  :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 16, 2006, 12:26:43 PM
...sadly... I haven't eaten lunch yet... I'm still thinking... pizza...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 20, 2006, 08:45:10 PM
*tries again*

Can anyone get/ see the picture? it's just my cat, but the pictures I have are giving me trouble...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Shades2585 on September 20, 2006, 09:24:46 PM
Yep! Black cat with white socks.  ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 20, 2006, 09:31:01 PM
yep, that's m'velcro...

Thankees Shades  ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Rosella on September 20, 2006, 10:26:34 PM
Awww! So cute! :D

Not as cute as Spot, but that's ok, no cat is. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 20, 2006, 11:06:49 PM
Yeah, he's a cutey.

I have a picture of him as my background on my cellphone right now that I was originally going to post but couldn't get from the phone to the computer. So... maybe more pics of velcro whilst on the topic of whatever...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on September 21, 2006, 04:38:05 AM
Forgive the belatedness of this, but congrats on the thread. :P
 
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: koko_99_2001 on September 21, 2006, 06:12:30 AM
Awww! So cute! :D

Not as cute as Spot, but that's ok, no cat is. :P

Hey! YumYum is as cute as, if not cuter than, Spot!

And Velcro is sweet looking *pets*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 21, 2006, 07:19:12 AM
Forgive the belatedness of this, but congrats on the thread. :P

Go raibh maith agat, a Dheloria. (Thank you in Irish Gaelic)

Awww! So cute! :D

Not as cute as Spot, but that's ok, no cat is. :P

Hey! YumYum is as cute as, if not cuter than, Spot!

And Velcro is sweet looking *pets*

I can't believe that I am about to say this on this forum, but it's just too horrible of a pun to pass up.

No cat fights in my thread please... XB...

Sorry, but, let's all just agree that they are all cute as it's fairly common practice for people to like their own pets the most and ascribe superlatives to them.

Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Shades2585 on September 21, 2006, 08:51:03 AM
I can't believe that I am about to say this on this forum, but it's just too horrible of a pun to pass up.

No cat fights in my thread please... XB...

Had to see that one coming.  XD

Hey! YumYum is as cute as, if not cuter than, Spot!

And Velcro is sweet looking *pets*

Yum Yum? Is that what her name is? I didn’t know that. Cute though.


They're both cute.

Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on September 21, 2006, 09:10:05 AM
The cat in Cat's avatar is actually Crystal. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 26, 2006, 05:43:30 PM
~~MATLAB~~

function ret = student_search(x, y, z)
n = {x.(char(y))};
    for index = 1:length(n)
        if ischar(z)
            if strcmp(n{index}, z)
                ret(index) = x(index);
            end
        elseif isreal(z)
            if n{index} >= z
                ret(index) = x(index);
            end
        end
    end
    if ~exist('ret')
        ret= [ ]
    end
    ret;

let
 x = students2=struct('First',{'John','Bob'} , 'Last',{'Doe','Murray'} , ...
         'GPA', {3.5, 2}, 'HoursTaken', {92, 15},'Standing', ...
          {'Senior', 'Freshman'})
 y, z = 'standing', 'Junior'

then student_search(x, y, z) =???

Error: undefined field

~~MATLAB~~

So, the TAs write the homework, and they don't generally do that great of job. One time they said a triangle was a pentagon, and now they can't keep their capitalization straight.

Sorry... I spent 15 minutes trying to figure out why my code was not referencing the field correctly only to find that again TA incompetence is to blame.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Rosella on September 26, 2006, 05:49:08 PM
No!!! *is going to stare at that for hours until she understands it XD*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 27, 2006, 07:22:34 AM
it's matlab code... it kept giving me errors when I tried to run it... it takes in the first entry (x) which darn well better be a structure and makes a cell array out of x.y (only it has to change y back to a character string first x.(char(y)))... it calls the cell array n. Then it checks the elements of the cell array against the third input (z): if z is a character string, it returns only the elements of x.y that match z exactly; if z is a real number, it returns only those elements of x.y which are greater than or equal to z.

It gave me errors because x.y is case sensitive and when the TAs made the test inputs they capitalized the natural y of x.y (the field that existed there anyway) but not the input y: capitalization matters! (Matlab was looking for x.y but x.Y was what was there.) It completely stole 15 mins of my life... compared with the rest of the time matlab has stolen from me... it isn't much... but this is a TAs fault... I can blame a person other than myself for this and I am!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 27, 2006, 08:28:55 AM
The question is: is it the TA's fault for making an error, is it MATLAB's fault for being case sensitive, or is it your fault for wasting time and energy to figure it out for yourself? :scholar:
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 27, 2006, 08:44:48 PM
It's pretty much the TA's fault because they write the test code and it's their responsibility to make sure it works: forget that, IT'S THEIR JOB!

How did I waste my own time? I didn't waste my time. They wrote faulty code that gave a false negative and thereby wasted my time. If I hadn't used my time to figure out what they did wrong, I could have had a zero on the assignment, and I could still end up with a zero on the assignment if they screw up the autograder. I really don't see how it isn't their fault...

...and it can't be MATLAB's fault because MATLAB simply exists regardless of whether or not people are trying to use it and without concern for the ignorance of people.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 27, 2006, 09:59:45 PM
You're right that it's their job to provide correct answers, but you wasted your time by figuring it out for yourself rather than getting the TA to figure it out for you. ;P  Trust me, I've had my share of incompetant TA's too. ::)  I've actually had to see the Prof in-person sometimes because their stuff was so wrong. XD

Oh, and it's MATLAB's fault because its programmers were too lazy to output a more accurate error message. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on September 28, 2006, 02:26:16 PM
No!!! *is going to stare at that for hours until she understands it XD*

how can you not get it? XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 30, 2006, 06:14:07 PM
So, today, my family and I went out for Chinese...

When we got our fortune cookies, mine was "You are a bundle of energy always on the go." I just thought the first bit: "You are a bundle of energy..." was hilarious... because well... I am ...E = mc2... I'm exactly (my mass)*(the speed of light in a vacuum squared).

...but I'm just nerdy like that from time to time...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on September 30, 2006, 07:33:00 PM
thats cool.  lets see, my mass is.......a lot and my acceleration is........ not a lot, so my energy is..........low?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 30, 2006, 09:38:21 PM
Your kinetic energy is low, but your energy remains mc2.

Technically, your mass is given by mo/sqrt(1-(v2/c2)) where v is your velocity and mo is your rest mass... though this is special relativity and doesn't account for accelerations...

therefore, if your mass is high and of course the conversion factor of c2 is pretty much enormous, then your relativistic energy is highly enormous...

EDIT: forgot sqrt
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 07, 2006, 08:23:07 PM
qE = ma
a = qE/m
thus proving relativity... or does it? ultimately we only gage the force by a and that depends on q and m... before people started playing with particle accelerators, we new about relativistic mass but had never done anything with it. IF however we may assume that mass AND charge are a manner of bookkeeping energy, then it is possible that neither is invariant... of course, we don't talk about this and the PHYS profs simply say: "and this of course shows relativity at work"...

anyway, just something my dad and I were discussing earlier today... and also...


 XD XD XD I'm a powerful wizard!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on October 07, 2006, 08:37:00 PM
LOL Nice avatar! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 07, 2006, 08:40:37 PM
When I got the idea, I thought I'd leave it until I ranked up again... then I looked over the member list...

the next break is at 1500?

I still might leave it 'til then...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on October 07, 2006, 08:43:45 PM
I still might leave it 'til then...
You should keep it permanently!  It's awesome! XD 
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 07, 2006, 08:50:40 PM
well, it'll be awhile... I only get about 10 posts per day on a good day... we'll see what happens
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 08, 2006, 04:10:10 AM
Congrats on becoming a powerful wizard. :D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 08, 2006, 07:34:49 AM
Congrats on becoming a powerful wizard. :D

Thanks, Deloria!

It is now official: Delling is one of us(the crazies).

Lost his mind, the poor little chap. :P

hmm... can I check into the Asylum now?  XD  ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 08, 2006, 06:36:04 PM
Lost his mind, the poor little chap. :P

*retraces steps, picks up a piece of lint, exlcaims*
I found it! I found it! I found my brain!

It just got stuck between the Latin and the PHYS... it couldn't get out... poor thing's claustrophobic, ya know... ah, proof I've got my brain back: BIG WORDS!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on October 08, 2006, 07:50:36 PM
is there a difference between big words and large words?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 08, 2006, 10:12:12 PM
maybe... maybe not... as long as we use nice and neat undefined terms in general senses... we can get away with anything
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on October 09, 2006, 09:45:00 AM
Cowabunga! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 09, 2006, 06:21:23 PM
precisely...

and fhqwhgads (http://www.homestarrunner.com/fhqwhgads.html)!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 10, 2006, 05:54:59 PM

*retraces steps, picks up a piece of lint, exlcaims*
I found it! I found it! I found my brain!

It just got stuck between the Latin and the PHYS... it couldn't get out... poor thing's claustrophobic, ya know... ah, proof I've got my brain back: BIG WORDS!
XD

That's the new quote of the day. :D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 10, 2006, 05:55:42 PM
YAY!! I've been quoted!  ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on October 10, 2006, 05:57:50 PM

*retraces steps, picks up a piece of lint, exlcaims*
I found it! I found it! I found my brain!

It just got stuck between the Latin and the PHYS... it couldn't get out... poor thing's claustrophobic, ya know... ah, proof I've got my brain back: BIG WORDS!
XD

That's the new quote of the day. :D

 Which ought to be the quote of  the day thread *cough* *point*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 12, 2006, 11:27:49 AM
900th post!!!!

 :D :D :D :D :D

Gaudeo!

Omnes, mecum gaudete!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Say on October 12, 2006, 12:15:15 PM
I shall stop and say... I believe Delling's avatar is by far the coolest one in the entire forum... just my humble words :P

*bows to such brilliant display of sillyness*

Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 12, 2006, 12:29:30 PM
I shall stop and say... I believe Delling's avatar is by far the coolest one in the entire forum... just my humble words :P

*bows to such brilliant display of sillyness*

*reads* *has happiness attack*

 :D  XD XB ;D  :pleased:

*takes a bow* Thankees Say!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on October 12, 2006, 12:37:30 PM
Congrats and nice avatar Delling. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 12, 2006, 01:31:38 PM
Delling's definitely going to win the future avatar contest. :D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 12, 2006, 02:40:23 PM
Yeah... when are we going to have that? *glances inquisitively at various people* ...hopefully, before I become a magical genie... I might change my avatar then... or maybe just the caption...  ::) "Odin was super happy..."
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on October 12, 2006, 04:08:03 PM
That will be fun. I may have to make a "creative" avatar for that.  :suffer:
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 12, 2006, 04:12:26 PM
I'm not changing mine for the world. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Petra Rocks on October 12, 2006, 04:13:28 PM
Of course not! It's a great avatar.  :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Shades2585 on October 12, 2006, 04:29:01 PM
I'm not changing mine for the world. :P

Nor shoudts(?) thou.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 12, 2006, 05:39:30 PM
Something I thought to do in my CS recitation:

I dedicate this post as a memorial to these perfectly regular Latin verbs who were butchered by the various vowel and consonant shifts that produced the romance languages...

quaerere- quere
tenere- tenir, tener
audire- oir, ouir
legere- lire, leer
credere- croire, creer
debere- devoir
facere- faire, hacer
movere- mover, mouvir
monstrare- mostrar
venire- venir, venir
ridere- reir, rire
bibere- boire
scribere-ecrire
sperare- esperer (Fr.)
videre- voir, ver
dicere- dire, decir
habere- avoir, haber
dare- dar
trahere- traer
iacere- yacer
ponere- poner
cadere- caer, choir
moriri- morir, mourir
vivere- vivre
sapere- saber, savoir
currere- courir,
dormire- dormir, dormir
sentire- sentir
pensare- pensar
sequi- suivre, seguir
salire- salir, saillir
volare- volar
mentiri- mentir
negare- negar
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 17, 2006, 02:47:25 PM
my language memorial has steered my thread off course a bit from discussion of avatars...

also, I never chimed in on Deloria's comment... not a big deal as Shades and Petra did a great job of saying what I would have for the most part.

Don't change your avatar! Deloria!! It's perfect!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on October 17, 2006, 07:28:39 PM
hablas espanol?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 17, 2006, 08:18:59 PM
Un poco. Tuve dos aņos en la escuela secondaria. Hice tan poco consigo que olvide muchos que apprendi.


EDIT: I had to use an online dictionary for tan and olvidar... and I didn't use a tilde finally found it on the character map  ;P... and yeah... ...and wikipedia to double check my pronouns... ... my spanish is more an embarassing explosion of half forgotten vocab...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 18, 2006, 05:25:13 AM
also, I never chimed in on Deloria's comment... not a big deal as Shades and Petra did a great job of saying what I would have for the most part.

Don't change your avatar! Deloria!! It's perfect!
Thanks. :D That really means a lot coming from all my peers. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 18, 2006, 09:42:16 AM
You are most welcome to our humble accolades, my Queene.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Pacman928 on October 18, 2006, 08:50:54 PM
Un poco. Tuve dos aņos en la escuela secondaria. Hice tan poco consigo que olvide muchos que apprendi.


EDIT: I had to use an online dictionary for tan and olvidar... and I didn't use a tilde finally found it on the character map  ;P... and yeah... ...and wikipedia to double check my pronouns... ... my spanish is more an embarassing explosion of half forgotten vocab...

the only thing that i can see wrong with this is that in the preterite yo form, aprender has an acccent on the i.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 18, 2006, 08:55:48 PM
yet another accent mark I was too lazy to drag out of the character map
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 19, 2006, 12:37:41 PM
As my declared purpose for my thread was Q&A, I'd like to pose a question to Deloria about Elde French (sp?)...

Does it have a simple (non-composite) perfect system (something along the lines of a preterite, a one word pluperfect, and a one word future perfect and thus an analogue to Latin's perfect system)?

I fully understand that this is just out of the blue and that you might not have seen anything like this yet in your study... just idle curiosity with not much expectation behind it...  ;)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 19, 2006, 12:47:14 PM
I haven't come across it yet, if there is one. :-\ Sorry. I showed you the excerpt of some Elde French in an AIM chat a while ago, I didn't see it among there but I might have overlooked it. I'll keep checking some other documents written in it and keep you updated. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on October 19, 2006, 07:52:42 PM
My thanks.

It is merely a linguistic curiosity on my part... It seems to me to stand to reason that they would have had a simple perfect system at some point from the Latin influence.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on October 20, 2006, 05:06:19 AM
Indeed, they should have. :-\ Again, I'll keep looking and definitely keep you updated. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on November 06, 2006, 09:44:07 AM
Just a minor announcement: Delling rules. :D

I'm extremely honored you consider me to be among your friends.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on November 12, 2006, 06:26:48 PM
Congrats on the new post rank and avatar, Delling! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on November 12, 2006, 06:47:11 PM
Thanks Yonkey  XD both for your congratulations and for giving me an excuse to revive my thread!  ;)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Farquhar on November 13, 2006, 11:48:14 PM
Congrats Delling! :D

I'm slowly and steadily making my way towards Magical Genie.

Translation: I need to post more! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on November 14, 2006, 11:27:08 AM
...
Translation: I need to post more! XD
Translation: I NEED TO POST MORE!  :P XD

Thanks for your congratulations, Farquhar!

*ponders announcing that he has stuff on the website in his profile now... but as it's all for a school project decides against it and puts it in shamelessly as an aside instead*

 ;D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on November 14, 2006, 11:32:38 AM
*ponders announcing that he has stuff on the website in his profile now... but as it's all for a school project decides against it and puts it in shamelessly as an aside instead*

 ;D
OMG It's Delling! :P  You should post your pic in the Ugly Mug thread too! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on November 16, 2006, 06:17:13 PM
"I want it all and I want it now!" ... ...*is listening to Queen...*

I HAVE FINSIHED MY CS HWK AND THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE AS GOOD A PLACE AS THE OTHER THREE OR FOUR THREADS... IN WHICH I HAVE ANNOUNCED IT... TO ANNOUNCE THAT FACT!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on November 17, 2006, 04:48:42 AM
Congrats on finishing your CS hw. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on November 17, 2006, 07:38:22 AM
Go raibh maith agat, mo bhanrion!

Lit.:
May there be good at you, my queen. (http://www.postudios.com/blog/forum/index.php?topic=3312.msg200214#msg200214)  :angel: :)

but idiomatically it just means "thanks"  :D


EDIT: Fixed link. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on November 20, 2006, 04:59:02 PM
What Happened at PHYS Lab

*show up at 4:45
*wait until 5:15 for the TA to open the locked lab
*TA doesn't show
*go to eat dinner
*head back to PHYS building to see if the people who waited around to try to do the lab had any success
*meet one on the way and find out that it'll only takes about 15-25 minutes
*get to the lab, get the TA and start the lab
*15 minutes later... standing outside in the cold while the fire alarm sounds!  :P (no, we didn't burn down the PHYS building; someone else set off the alarm)
*decided that we should do the lab next week  :-\
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on July 10, 2007, 05:43:11 PM
*revives as she wants to hear how Delling's Greek exam went* :D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on July 10, 2007, 07:19:27 PM
Tibi multas gratias ago, mea domina!
Many thanks, milady!

Well, the short short version is that the test went pretty well. :) Though I won't know for certain until tomorrow, I'd say I won't get less than a 95.  :-\

*hopes the greek font will come through*

I do know I missed two things: I forgot that ειπον (eipon) is the aorist active 1st pers. sing. of λεγω (lego) (ειπον (eipon) is a suppleted form :() and in the same section, when recognizing a form of μανθανω (manthano), I couldn't remember how to spell the first principal part and left out the -αν- (-an-) (before ω (o)) (I believe that the form which I had to recognize was μαθοντες (mathontes), the nominative/vocative masculine plural of the aorist active participle).

(Those "extras" in parentheses are the transliterations in case the font doesn't come through.)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: koko_99_2001 on July 11, 2007, 04:23:19 AM
*eyes glaze over as I nod*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on July 11, 2007, 06:49:59 AM
lol

Well, I guess it could be more exciting... What if I tried narrating it as if it were a battle or intrigue? :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on July 11, 2007, 07:05:09 AM
*makes request for a battle-like recounting* :P

But I offer my congratulations, early though they may be. :D
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: koko_99_2001 on July 11, 2007, 03:20:54 PM
lol

Well, I guess it could be more exciting... What if I tried narrating it as if it were a battle or intrigue? :P

It probably has to do with the fact that I think the only word I understood was "Greek"...and that pun wasn't intended!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on March 03, 2009, 10:26:17 PM
lol

Well, I guess it could be more exciting... What if I tried narrating it as if it were a battle or intrigue? :P

It probably has to do with the fact that I think the only word I understood was "Greek"...and that pun wasn't intended!

Well, I thought that might have been the reason anyway, but to retell the taking of a test as if it were a battle or insidious plot would add something bizarre or humorous to the telling anyway. :P

Also, my prediction of a minimum grade was right on the money: I got a 95 (I lost 1/2 a point for both of the things I knew I'd missed).

(Posted on: July 11, 2007, 06:32:05 PM)


2 things: I recently found the test being discussed above... battle-like recounting is in the works... probably working in various things from the virtual food fight (castle and armies)...

The other thing is that sitting in my friend's PHYS I class, I am aghast to know that they just introduced the Lorentz factor! What are they thinking!? *thinks the designers of this course need to be run up the nearest flagpole*

You can't just assume everyone is good enough at Newtonian mechanics to jump right into Special Relativity and you certainly shouldn't be telling anyone that the Lorentz factor means you can't go faster than the speed of light... ...I have some news for you guys: it hasn't been tested or shown (sufficiently by experiment) that one cannot move faster than the speed of light and that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames (once you introduce refractive media... which is... ya know... everywhere, it makes essentially no sense at all... or when you introduce magnetic and electric fields which change the speed of light in a vacuum... ...).

What Einstein did was to introduce a fudge factor and a poor interpretation of what it means. What everyone else has done is run with it. *grumbles about Relativity and its failure to really work/be interpreted appropriately* In fact, those above two statements in this paragraph (meta-writing w00+!) are a good summation of General Relativity too (funnily enough, the other people came along behind Einstein and said through experimentation: we don't need your fudge factor here! (the Universal Constant Λ)

*goes off grumbling about the silliness of introducing Relativity to those unequipped to challenge or even face the absurdities that come with it*  >:( grr!

(Posted on: May 14, 2008, 09:28:52 AM)


blah blah blah... *revives his own thread to rant before going to bed*

How Collegiate Grading In Math Courses Actually Works

The professor provides a key or the TA has to write his own.

So, you have the key. The key however represents at least one set of ideal solutions to the test or quiz. It does not however include all possible ways of getting to the same answer which are equivalent, mathematically correct paths. It also definitely does not include ways for getting the same answer which are mathematically or circumstantially incorrect (assuming the conclusion or result in a problem: ie- maximum area of a quadrilateral for numerous constraints happens to be a square).

This is all well and good, so with the key in hand, you set out upon your noble steed, Stilus Ruber, and mark tests. This works and you are not thrown from your horse (nor are you tempted to throw it across the room) until you are forced to come to the realization that some people just don't know math (the cross-section of people who don't know math and people who don't attend recitation is remarkably almost one-to-one). Now, these mathematically challenged serfs beg for credit by banging their tin cups of mathematical ability on the classroom floor which is nothing compared to the efforts of the partial credit dark wizard, whose philosophy when faced with a difficult question is "to get creative."

Against these two tactics, the key is no defense. It tells you roughly what each part is worth, what the final answer should be, and what a good route from A to B is, but it doesn't tell you how to handle such gross deviations as attempting to find polar coordinates by casting the x-y coordinates into the complex plane and trying (badly, I might add) to use Euler's Equation or how you grade for self-consistency in a student's calculus reasoning when his algebraic reasoning is so deeply flawed that the square root of the sum of the squares is just the sum (sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = x + y + z, apparently) and other such wonderful simplifying fallacies, which if it weren't for their fallacious nature, would really make math a lot easier but don't really exist and are just a pretty illusion to throw up from time to time when one is a freshman in Calc I (possibly simply to perturb TAs). [Don't even ask about trig... rereading this for the third time I thought of 3 or 4 of the trig mistakes they make... I could dedicate 3 paragraphs to them... it suffices to say that their trig errors quixotically consist of gross over simplifications and things that would make mathematics so much more complicated that all of Mathematica and Academia would cry together for 40 years without ceasing.]

You are of course sorely tempted to ride past both of these groups and give them nothing, but the departmental position is more or less that there are very few questions which are worth absolutely no credit (which is sensible since one can fail just as well with a 50% as with a 0% and the former does not do nearly as much damage to the distribution when done en masse). So, now, now, you have to get down off of Stilus Ruber *so wants to decline that properly but must keep moving* and into the mire of fragmented incomplete mathematics- and logic-lacking reasoning which is of such a species that one hopes it is only to be found on tests, for finding it anywhere else might imply a danger to the lives of others.

I've said all this to say this: I have to grade about 11 really bad tests by tomorrow afternoon. :P But, as I've gotten down off of Stilus Ruber [read: thrown him down in disgust], I'm going to bed. :P

:-\ Hrmm... I think I come off rather judgmental or mean in the third paragraph there. :-\ Oh, well, sleepy times for tired TA. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on March 04, 2009, 09:32:09 PM
I may have missed this, but who/what is Stilus Ruber? :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on March 05, 2009, 05:05:20 AM
It's Latin essentially for "red pen." :P In this context, I used it as the name of the horse of the intrepid grader. ::) :P *is overly metaphorical at times*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on March 05, 2009, 06:19:45 AM
Ah... Now I get it. :P

I remember learning pretty quick in university that trying to get partial marks is hopeless. :P  Most of the time, a question had to be done entirely right to get full marks, or you get a 0.  Especially in first year Calculus, where you're only marked on the final answer, as opposed to the 15-minute step-wise process of getting there. ::)

But yeah, I also remember having a few questions on tests & exams in other years where I'd get stuck and have absolutely no idea how to finish answering them, so I'd just continue on some wild tangent of solving until I ended up with some completely non-sensical answer. XD  Needless to say, I was lucky to get even 1 partial mark on those questions.  :P

I think in general, I always felt that it's better to try to solve something to the best of my ability, than to just give up and leave it blank. 
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: tessspoon on March 05, 2009, 06:27:14 AM
One of my math profs gives partial credit if you write down what you do know if it has something to do with the problem, which is really good since I would have gotten a good bit lower grade in Math Reasoning had it been otherwise. And probably ditto for this Abstract Algebra test I have today :stabs:
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on March 05, 2009, 07:30:25 AM
I have no problem with giving students credit for what they know when what they know is correct, but it baffles me when they do things that... well, that just can't be believed sin(x+y) =/= sin(x) + sin(y) and no amount of wishing can make it so (and this naive guess would be believable if it weren't for the week we spent going over trig identities!).

*is going to get worked up into a fervor again and rant*

Actually, I *try* really hard to make sure that they get some credit on every question provided they've shown their work... but it's hurting my SAN score...
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Rosella on March 05, 2009, 10:17:34 PM
That's one thing I love about both my calculus class and my calculus teacher. The class is made up of high school students, so you know we had to be nerds to get here, and my teacher works tirelessly to follow our work so we get partial credit. She really is a wonderful teacher. XD

Incidentally, anyone want to explain Taylor and Maclaurin Series? :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 08, 2009, 01:45:13 PM
*rocks back and forth*

The Taylor Series is the general case. It's terms are

(1/n!) dnf(a)/dxn (x - a)n

The MacLaurin Series is the case where we take a = 0, so the sum becomes...

(1/n!) dnf(0)/dxn xn

... and then we sum up to n = infinity.

So, basically, reaching back to the idea that the derivative is a slope:

(df(a)/dx) (x-a) is a good approximation of the value of f at x = a... it turns out that it is only good up to the second derivative...

[(df(a)/dx) (x-a)] + [(1/2) d2f(0)/dx2 x2]

... you can think of needing to multiply the second derivative by x2 as a matter of units (or a matter of order): the derivative of nth order has units of [f/xn]. So, to be able to add them all up (in terms of units) we need to multiply by xn. Basically, we are approximating f so we need to have the same units/order/degree/highest power in x be the same in each term.

So, to actually take a MacLaurin series, all we have to do is evaluate the derivative at 0 for successive derivatives up to whatever degree polynomial we want to find, or you might want to find the general form for the function. Such as,

cos x = SUM( 1/(2n)! (-1)n x2n )

so for this, you just need to recognize that every odd derivative will be sin(0) which allows us to replace all the n's with 2n's. Each of the even derivatives will alternate between -cos x and cos x with x=0 so it's just (-1)n. Tuh-duh... so, I was going to keep going until I derived Euler's equation from the MacLaurin series of sin x and cos x... but it's 1am... so more on this later maybe :P

(Posted on: March 06, 2009, 02:00:13 AM)


*is back to continue said derivation now* :D

So, I need two more things to get to Euler's equation: namely, the Taylor series for the exponential function and the sine function.

Let's do sin(x) now!

sin(0) = 0
(sin x)' = cos x => cos(0) = 1 :D
(cos x)' = -sin x => -sin(0) = 0 :(
-(sin x)' = -cos x => -cos(0) = -1 :D

So, once again, we alternate signs ( (-1)n) but in this case, we pick off the ODD powers instead. So,

sin x = SUM( 1/(2n+1)! (-1)n x2n+1 )

ok, now, for something completely different: exp(x)

I am going to assume that you know [exp(x)]' = exp(x) :D This happy little fact is the crux of so much higher mathematics AND in truth, trigonometry! I know, it's amazing, isn't it?

Anyway, this means that the Taylor series for exp(x) is really simple

exp(x) = SUM( (1/n!) xn)

It turns out (by the chain rule) that I can pick up an alternating sign in my exp(x) sum by taking the Taylor Series of exp(-x) instead.

Now, if sine picks off the odd numbers... and cosine picks off the even...

cos x = [exp(x) + exp(-x)]/2 :D

sin x = [exp(x) - exp(-x)]/2 :D

BUT THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!! Seriously, don't believe the two lines above... they are the hyperbolic versions of the sine and cosine. What's missing?

I didn't account for the fact that the cos and sine sums also alternate sign!

The solution is trivial: insert the factor i = sqrt(-1).

Since sin (x) picked off the odd powers, the exp(ix) derivatives now give us also an (i)2n+1... which equals (-1)n*i... which is right within a factor of i, and cos(x) does not have this issue because it picks off the even powers so it in turn only gets the even powers of i which are all real (they're -1 and 1).

That was a fairly handwavy argument, but typing out the expressions like this is fairly awkward. I hope you can do it out yourself... if not, maybe I'll do it out in an equation editor and attach it at some later time.

If you follow/believe the above, you get that

sin(x) = [exp(ix) - exp(-ix))]/2i
and
cos(x) = [exp(ix) + exp(-ix)]/2

So, what does cos(x) + isin(x)?

(Posted on: March 24, 2009, 02:56:12 PM)


*has a story to tell and realizes he needs to start linking up pictures, etc.*

Today in the car, I was telling my dad: "Spanish really missed an opportunity to have inclusive and exclusive 'we' forms: the we-form they have is nosotros,' which is [etymologically at least: nos utros] 'we others.' With a nostodos, they could have had an inclusive form to contrast with it." ...pause in conversation... "They really missed a golden opportunity to improve on something Latin didn't do right."

To which he responded: "But, Brandon, you know how languages work. They don't improve: they decline."

I grunting and groaning admitted: "Yes, all right, and declensions are often the first thing to decline."

(Posted on: August 19, 2009, 09:41:33 AM)




/~Picture Time~\

(http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/4331_615157198009_12815110_35667553_7573030_n.jpg)

Handel's keyboard, on which he first performed Handel's Messiah...

(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/4331_615157202999_12815110_35667554_3127850_n.jpg)

I think I took the same picture of Gothic arches extending back and away in every Gothic structure I visited if possible. Both of these pictures are from St. Patrick's in Dublin.

(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/4331_615157257889_12815110_35667563_7619524_n.jpg)

I swear the thought process here was: "Ooh! Swords! :D" ...which now that I think of it... is a strange thought for a belenophobe to be having... oh, well, I'll ponder that later. (This picture is from Enniskillen Castle which has some sort of war museum in it... and pointy objects, cannons, a silver display, etc., etc.)

(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs036.snc1/4331_615157302799_12815110_35667570_6041357_n.jpg)

Galway Bay as seen from the first B&B the tour stayed at in Ballyshannon. I took a walk into town from the B&B. I still think this was the best B&B by far... that probably has something to do with the time spent looking at really old Gaelic schoolbooks. :P

(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs081.snc1/4552_615765518929_12815110_35691151_8042282_n.jpg)

Muckross House was constructed during An tOcras Mor (The Great Hunger, which is what they call it now since Britain had more than enough food to feed the starving dying masses in Ireland... This is why I prefer Grainne Mhaol to Elizabeth I now... that and Good Queen Bess called Gaelic barbaric :P). Anyway, it was constructed to be a sort of Irish home away from home for Queen Victoria, who came and stayed for a couple of days, hated it, and left.

(Posted on: August 30, 2009, 02:02:20 PM)


*skipping to some good stuff* (not that there isn't more good stuff in the Ireland album :P)

York Minster
(http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs102.snc1/4882_618421426469_12815110_35819473_4735016_n.jpg)

Tintern Abbey
(http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs102.snc1/4882_618421596129_12815110_35819502_7149453_n.jpg)

(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs082.snc1/4882_618421621079_12815110_35819507_7262943_n.jpg)

(http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs102.snc1/4882_618421730859_12815110_35819528_4694895_n.jpg)

(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs082.snc1/4882_618421725869_12815110_35819527_5479072_n.jpg)

(http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs082.snc1/4882_618421740839_12815110_35819530_5348043_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Suzie on September 25, 2009, 02:00:49 AM
Just as this came up on the recent posts page, I thought it was in the question game thread and was about to come over here and post a whole lot of physics-y, math-y, language-y stuff XD... but as it isn't, I'll just say that if you'd really like to have a physics/astronomy discussion... that'd be a cool use for my thread :P

And so I do. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 25, 2009, 11:05:50 AM
Let's see... secrets of the universe... where to start...

1) 42

2) 3.14159...

3) 2.71828...

4) 6.626... * 10-34 m2 kg/s

5) 6.673... * 10-11 m3 /(kg*s2)

6) 2.998... * 108 m/s

I suppose these aren't so much secrets of the universe as the "open questions of the universe." Why is G G? Why is c c? e e? or π π? or h h? or for that matter what does 42 have to do with anything!? One of the interesting things about these, e and π in particular and 2 for that matter or even say 2n, is that they come up constantly in physics. (One might expect c, h, and G to show up since they are "physical constants" though that really just means that they were obtained by measurement and effectively shown to be the constant of proportionality in some relationship.) ...although an equally annoying question for me is how all these purportedly intelligent people constantly insist on pronouncing Euler as "yu-ler"... when it has, of a necessity, being German, the pronunciation: "oi-ler."

Ok, bonus points will be awarded for recognizing which value is which. :P Also, there are very straightforward reasons why 2 and 2n show up. :P Know any?

Hrmm... I should find some astronomy stuff to talk about... when I get home...

EDIT: in the meantime, pretty picture:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Universe_Reference_Map_%28Location%29_001.jpeg)

Look! It's the universe!-ish... :P [use view image, not surprisingly, the universe is too huge to post a picture of directly :P (actually, I think this is still just within the supercluster that is home to the Milky Way)]
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 25, 2009, 11:36:36 PM
Considering how many things are variable in this universe, it's only natural for there to also be a few things that remain constant. :scholar: XB

Also, there are very straightforward reasons why 2 and 2n show up. :P Know any?
I don't know the mathematical reasons, but anything digital boils down to a representation of 2n bits.  In nature, it represents exponential growth, cell division, etc.  As for why 2, as opposed to 1 or 3, I have a theory. XD

Everything in this universe seems to work on the basis of attraction or repulsion: gravity, chemistry, Hollywood celebrities, etc. :P  In order to be attracted or repulsed by something, there must be at least 2 frames of reference.  Physics tell us that opposites attract, yet most people form relationships based on having things in common, rather than differences.  The other thing that's interesting is the strongest materials are made up of densely packed molecules of the same nature.  Yet, a society made up of a single race or culture is completely ignorant to foreigners.  Perfection also falls into the realm of homogeneity, where the symmetry or purity of something is inversely related to the number of flaws or deviations. 

The thing is, nothing in this universe is 100% perfect.  There is never a perfect balance between attraction and repulsion.  As a result, over time this slight imbalance turns into randomness and chaos.  It's not complete chaos, because that would be 100% perfection as well.  Our world mirrors the universe, but just on a more localized scale.  Life itself is completely chaotic and unpredictable, yet as humans we try to maintain order, and use our own unique talents to achieve some form of perfection. 

The question is: if perfection is unattainable and maintaining complete order is impossible, why do we still do it?  The answer goes back to the to the definition.  Between attraction and repulsion, attraction is quantitatively and qualitatively stronger.  People do it because they prefer being attracted to the fantasy, as opposed to being repulsed by reality.  It makes us happy, and in this grand universe of ours, that's all that really matters. :)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 26, 2009, 08:09:54 AM
Considering how many things are variable in this universe, it's only natural for there to also be a few things that remain constant. :scholar: XB
XD True enough... but the interesting question becomes "which things are constant?" and then "why are these things constant?"

Also, there are very straightforward reasons why 2 and 2n show up. :P Know any?
I don't know the mathematical reasons, but anything digital boils down to a representation of 2n bits.  In nature, it represents exponential growth, cell division, etc.  As for why 2, as opposed to 1 or 3, I have a theory. XD
Actually, we often find exponential growth of different bases than 2 but we usually just leave it in the form of ekx (this however equals (ek)x where ek would be a new base). Cell division is proportional to 2n because when cells split, they split into two: theoretically, there's no real reason for this apart from perhaps Occam's Razor and pragmatics (cell division requires that the cells have some minimum quantity of material to impart to the next cell so that it will survive). So, with say 2x the energy and 1.5x the material, they could split into three (it's 1.5 b/c roughly 0.5 of the initial material stays in the parent cell in normal cell division: it is possible that this is too much material for one cell to house at a time (which would be pragmatics again)).

With bits, it's because switches are treated as two-state systems with only the value 0 or 1. (Funny sidenote: with some tweaking it is possible to get a circuit with two light switches to cease functioning because one switch is stuck in neither ON nor OFF. A friend of mine recently demonstrated that it's possible to get the passenger-side door of my car stuck in a neither (in terms of being locked or unlocked) too (still not sure how he did that: the switch in the car, looked like it was unlocked but he couldn't open the door until I went around and physically switched the lock into locked and then unlocked (there was some physical resistance to trying to turn it into the unlocked position first)))

Everything in this universe seems to work on the basis of attraction or repulsion: gravity, chemistry, Hollywood celebrities, etc. :P  In order to be attracted or repulsed by something, there must be at least 2 frames of reference.
 
Actually, this plus the above is roughly what I was going for: 2 and 2n occur for purely statistical reasons related to counting. This necessitates an important conclusion: numbers are themselves fundamental. (People tend to miss that the important thing here is the essence of the numbers and not the praxis or description of them. Some systems are better and some are worse at representing numbers, but they're still just the same old numbers underneath the description (2 is 2 even if it's 10 or 12 is 12 even if it's B).)

Physics tell us that opposites attract, yet most people form relationships based on having things in common, rather than differences.  The other thing that's interesting is the strongest materials are made up of densely packed molecules of the same nature.
Actually, the principle that opposites attract ONLY holds up in electrodynamics/statics. In gravity, if there were some sort of antimatter which had matter in a negative sense, the gravitational equations say that it would be repelled by normal matter. In a bulk-properties/material science sense, what matters are cohesion and adhesion. People are cohesive for small-n.

  Yet, a society made up of a single race or culture is completely ignorant to foreigners.  Perfection also falls into the realm of homogeneity, where the symmetry or purity of something is inversely related to the number of flaws or deviations.
There are interpretations of perfection (say in ionic crystals) in which absolute homogeneity is impossible, BUT isotropy is not. In a crystal, it should be that if I'm standing on element X, for every X, there must be exactly 1 equivalent set say {A, B, Y, Z} of elements to which I can step over bonds. The structure is not homogeneous on this scale, but on any scale (for a reasonable partition), it is isotropic.

The thing is, nothing in this universe is 100% perfect.  There is never a perfect balance between attraction and repulsion.
Hydrostatic equilibria can be maintained forever. True, this doesn't happen in stars, but that's because they undergo internal changes. Jupiter is in hydrostatic equilibrium (balance of its self-gravity (attraction) with the pressure (repulsion) of its gases).

[the pursuit of perfection] makes us happy, and in this grand universe of ours, that's all that really matters. :)
Happiness makes a poor standard for action though: what makes one man happy may make a million sad or dead. It may make him ecstatically happy and/or even manic, but I doubt anyone here thinks his lone happiness could ever outweigh the attendant losses. (Though this over-valuing of a single ideal such as happiness, the safety of others, etc. seems to be common pitfall in sociological reasoning: I think it arises from the idea that there must be 1 grand unifying principle to explain the formation of groups. I find it far more likely that there are N principles or levels of interaction (probably inherent to each sets' premises) which act to attract or repel.)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 26, 2009, 11:57:16 AM
XD True enough... but the interesting question becomes "which things are constant?" and then "why are these things constant?"
While I (obviously :P) don't know the exact answer, maybe it's due to the basis on which things are defined.  Let's take Pi as an example.  It's supposed to be the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter.  But, it only applies on "perfect" circles.  Ellipses are circles as well, yet their ratio of C to d isn't exactly Pi.  Most likely, this is because their diameter isn't constant in all directions as it is in a circle. 

So, my guess is that the things we consider constant are in fact based on perfect or idealistic conditions.  As we've said, while perfection cannot realistically exist, symmetry, balance, equilibrium and isotropy appear in nature (and in circles too :P) quite often.  For whatever reason, we see beauty in these things (a.k.a attraction), and our definition of success as human beings seems to be based on them.


Cell division is proportional to 2n because when cells split, they split into two: theoretically, there's no real reason for this apart from perhaps Occam's Razor and pragmatics (cell division requires that the cells have some minimum quantity of material to impart to the next cell so that it will survive). So, with say 2x the energy and 1.5x the material, they could split into three (it's 1.5 b/c roughly 0.5 of the initial material stays in the parent cell in normal cell division: it is possible that this is too much material for one cell to house at a time (which would be pragmatics again)).
But if a cell contains 1.5x the material, it would mean an error occurred during DNA replication.  Whenever this accelerated form of cell growth happens during cell division, it leads to cancer.  :-\ Which (as we all know) is a fatal disease that negatively impacts the growth of our species.  The treatment, and eventual cure for cancer, is to eradicate the abnormally created cells and return the cell division in the affected areas back to normal levels.  The goal is to return the body to homoeostasis, or a "perfect" balance.


With bits, it's because switches are treated as two-state systems with only the value 0 or 1. (Funny sidenote: with some tweaking it is possible to get a circuit with two light switches to cease functioning because one switch is stuck in neither ON nor OFF. A friend of mine recently demonstrated that it's possible to get the passenger-side door of my car stuck in a neither (in terms of being locked or unlocked) too (still not sure how he did that: the switch in the car, looked like it was unlocked but he couldn't open the door until I went around and physically switched the lock into locked and then unlocked (there was some physical resistance to trying to turn it into the unlocked position first)))
LOL!  That's more just due to wear and tear. :P  The lock itself may have been in an unlocked state, but the door hinge may not. :P  But yeah, not just with switches.  Sound waves get digitally represented by high & low voltages used to represent 1's and 0's.  Peaks and valleys on CD's & DVD's represent the 1's and 0's burned onto them.  Pixels on a screen being a bit-mapped representation of cyan, magenta, yellow and black.  They're all based on binary data.

Some systems are better and some are worse at representing numbers, but they're still just the same old numbers underneath the description (2 is 2 even if it's 10 or 12 is 12 even if it's B).)
For the longest time, I had no idea what you were talking about when you said 12 is B... then it hit me.  Hexadecimal! XD  I was actually thinking you were talking about letters being yet another representation of ASCII or Unicode characters.  Which they are for machines, but not really for humans. :P  Actually, language and communication is another thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the universe, ranking us more "perfect" on the great chain of being, so to speak.

Happiness makes a poor standard for action though: what makes one man happy may make a million sad or dead. It may make him ecstatically happy and/or even manic, but I doubt anyone here thinks his lone happiness could ever outweigh the attendant losses. (Though this over-valuing of a single ideal such as happiness, the safety of others, etc. seems to be common pitfall in sociological reasoning: I think it arises from the idea that there must be 1 grand unifying principle to explain the formation of groups. I find it far more likely that there are N principles or levels of interaction (probably inherent to each sets' premises) which act to attract or repel.)
I agree that one person's definition of happiness is not, and never will be equivalent to another's.  It's also true what you're saying, that any seemingly benevolent act could also be interpreted as malevolent, depending on your frame of reference.  But on an individualistic standpoint, people are attracted to things that make them happy and repel away from things that don't.  At a group-level, I don't know.  Some people may share common beliefs, ideals and ethics, but they're not genetic clones of each other.  Even if you happen to do something which pleases the majority of people, when you dig down to the individual level, their measure of happiness is unlikely to be exactly the same as someone else's.

But to get back to what you're saying... :P Actions are made based on decisions.  Some people make rational and logical decisions, and some people make decisions on what feels like the right thing to do.  While most decisions do not result in personal pleasure, I think most people at least try to choose things which results in the least amount of pain.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Suzie on September 26, 2009, 12:05:14 PM
Even though I seem to have started this I haven't quite had the time or mood to enter this discussion as of yet, but the following made me want to jump in.. so here goes.. although I fear getting crushed under the combined weight of your intelligence quotients. :P

I was actually thinking you were talking about letters being yet another representation of ASCII or Unicode characters.  Which they are for machines, but not really for humans. :P  Actually, language and communication is another thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the universe, ranking us more "perfect" on the great chain of being, so to speak.

Communication is not really unique to humans, though language is, atleast on Earth. (Our ancestors may also have developed speech, but this is much debated). But how so does it distinguish us from the rest of the universe? Unless you assume the rest of the universe is a vast empty space in terms of intelligent life other than our own, which, while no evidence suggests it isn't, contrarily no evidence suggests that it is. I also am not sure what you mean by "perfect", or why you seem to think language would make one more valuable than say... a quark? :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on September 26, 2009, 05:09:00 PM
Don't worry about it, just jump on in wherever you like! XD 

Communication is not really unique to humans, though language is, atleast on Earth. (Our ancestors may also have developed speech, but this is much debated). But how so does it distinguish us from the rest of the universe? Unless you assume the rest of the universe is a vast empty space in terms of intelligent life other than our own, which, while no evidence suggests it isn't, contrarily no evidence suggests that it is. I also am not sure what you mean by "perfect", or why you seem to think language would make one more valuable than say... a quark? :P
I think I was more talking about communication in the broader sense.  Like how you can talk to someone on the other side of the planet instantaneously and they fully understand you.  Other species are capable of communicating, but not quite at that same level.  Of course, part of that communication is human understanding and the rest is technology... but that's another topic altogether. :P

And to be honest, considering how vast and unexplored the universe is, I have serious doubts that we're the only forms of intelligent life.  You're right that to date, there hasn't been any evidence to prove there is or there isn't.  The main reason why I think there is is due to how incredibly small our planet is in relation to the universe.  There could easily be another similar planet somewhere far away, but technology hasn't advanced far enough to facility first contact.  In any case, the first step would be to establish some means of communication.

Oh, and when I said "perfect" it was in the sense of people considering human beings to be the most intelligent form of life.  I personally disagree with that, because there are different forms of intelligence, and there are many animals which can easily outwit humans.  The main (and possibly the only) things that make us superior to other animals are our language and our technology.

You also bring up another interesting topic: value.  While language holds a lot of value to humans, they have very little value to any other species.  And to an inorganic object like a particle, you're right, it has no value whatsoever to it.  I don't really know enough about quarks to the power of what a single one can do.  I assume it's more the attraction of many quarks that produces results in things that directly affect us?
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on September 26, 2009, 08:50:13 PM
For now, let's leave quantum chromodynamics and quarks off the table. :P

While I (obviously :P) don't know the exact answer, maybe it's due to the basis on which things are defined.  Let's take Pi as an example.  It's supposed to be the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter.  But, it only applies on "perfect" circles.  Ellipses are circles as well, yet their ratio of C to d isn't exactly Pi.  Most likely, this is because their diameter isn't constant in all directions as it is in a circle. 

There's an error in saying that an ellipse is a circle and vice versa. We say that a circle is a special case of an ellipse (one which has both of its foci at the same point) and that all ellipses by extension are degenerate circles (because rather than a center they have two foci: this degeneracy can be measured and is called the "ellipticity"). In general, if a geometric form is a degenerate version of some other form, it cannot be said to be the other form (rectangles* aren't squares but squares are rectangles; a rhombus is a parallelogram but a parallelogram is not necessarily a rhombus; all of these objects are by necessity quadrilaterals) whereas if it's a special case of a form, all members of that form are a subset of the form for which they are a special case: all circles are ellipses but all ellipses are not circles. (and I still cringe to write that all circles are ellipses... technically true, but I don't want to grade the resulting fall out on Calc3 quizzes/exams...)
(Likewise it is pointless to speak of the "diameter of an ellipse": it doesn't have one. Ellipses have major and minor axes.)
___
*: Notably, this depends on one's definition of a rectangle: some definitions require that the sides be pair-wise of unequal lengths. (Usually, because they've already defined the square. :P) Technically, a rectangle is a quadrilateral whose sides meet at right angles. Under this definition: a rectangle is not necessarily a square but a square is necessarily a rectangle.

But if a cell contains 1.5x the material, it would mean an error occurred during DNA replication.  Whenever this accelerated form of cell growth happens during cell division, it leads to cancer.  :-\ Which (as we all know) is a fatal disease that negatively impacts the growth of our species.  The treatment, and eventual cure for cancer, is to eradicate the abnormally created cells and return the cell division in the affected areas back to normal levels.  The goal is to return the body to homeostasis, or a "perfect" balance.
The example of a cell that splits into three instead of two was hypothetical and was merely attached to the nature of things as growing as 2n (if cells split in that way, they would grow as 3n and would presumably have the DNA to match :P). Cancer cells still grow as 2n: the mechanisms involved there are different from this hypothesis.

So, my guess is that the things we consider constant are in fact based on perfect or idealistic conditions.
Unfortunately, this isn't true. It would be nice if all physical constants could be readily chopped up to geometry, ideals, etc. Unfortunately, things like h (Planck's Constant), c (the speed of light in a "vacuum"), permeability and permittivity of free space, and G (gravitational constant) are based on repeated measurements and statistics (as instrumentation improves we get better and better measurements of these constants). The metaphysical question to ask--the "Why?"--is why should any one of these constants A) be constant? and B) have the value that they have?


As we've said, while perfection cannot realistically exist, symmetry, balance, equilibrium and isotropy appear in nature (and in circles too :P) quite often. For whatever reason, we see beauty in these things (a.k.a attraction), and our definition of success as human beings seems to be based on them.
I somewhat suspect, taking some history of body modification into account and the nature of art in the west, that the valuing of symmetry, balance, and isotropy as beautiful might be somewhat buried in our received epistemology from such things as the Renaissance, Classical Greece, Classical Rome, etc. While say Oriental and African cultures might still value these same properties and even associate them with beauty, they choose to employ different forms and different hierarchies of form. (Though that is a cursory summation at best... *is not overly involved with art*)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on October 06, 2009, 10:09:49 PM
Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply sooner.  Been pretty busy. :-\

There's an error in saying that an ellipse is a circle and vice versa. We say that a circle is a special case of an ellipse ...
(Likewise it is pointless to speak of the "diameter of an ellipse": it doesn't have one. Ellipses have major and minor axes.)
But that's just it!  While the diameter of a circle remains constant, Pi remains constant.  As soon as you stretch that circle 1 pixel in the major axis, suddenly it's no longer considered a circle, no longer has constant diameter.  When the diameter becomes variable, Pi (i.e. the ratio of the circumference to this "diameter") is no longer a constant.

So, that's why I think constants aren't truly constant.  They're constant only when certain assumptions and conditions are met in order for them to remain true.  The speed of light is 2.998... * 108 m/s, only when it's in a perfect vaccum.  Shine a light underwater, and its speed will be much less (i.e. index of refraction).

The metaphysical question to ask--the "Why?"--is why should any one of these constants A) be constant? and B) have the value that they have?
I think I just answered these above.  When you restrict a constant to only apply under certain conditions, it's no longer that mysterious why they work.  As for why they have the value they have, I would say it's because all other variables in the equation are proportional to each other and can therefore be simplified through a common denominator to that same constant value.

While say Oriental and African cultures might still value these same properties and even associate them with beauty, they choose to employ different forms and different hierarchies of form. (Though that is a cursory summation at best... *is not overly involved with art*)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.  You can find symmetrical and basic geometric shapes in any form of art, regardless of the time period or geographic region.  I think when we recognize these shapes and colours in paintings, sculptures and nature, we find them beautiful.  Now obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Some people see splattered paint on a wall and find it breathtaking... I personally don't. :P  But, if I was able to interpret it on some deeper level (such as knowing the rationale behind the colours and the frame of mind the artist had), I might find it beautiful in that respect.  That is, seeing beauty beyond the physical.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on February 16, 2010, 10:49:32 AM
Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply sooner.  Been pretty busy. :-\

There's an error in saying that an ellipse is a circle and vice versa. We say that a circle is a special case of an ellipse ...
(Likewise it is pointless to speak of the "diameter of an ellipse": it doesn't have one. Ellipses have major and minor axes.)
But that's just it!  While the diameter of a circle remains constant, Pi remains constant.  As soon as you stretch that circle 1 pixel in the major axis, suddenly it's no longer considered a circle, no longer has constant diameter.  When the diameter becomes variable, Pi (i.e. the ratio of the circumference to this "diameter") is no longer a constant.
BUT the value of pi is still fundamental: the area of an ellipse is pi*a*b, the area of the circle (pi*r2) is just pi*a*b when a=b.

So, that's why I think constants aren't truly constant.  They're constant only when certain assumptions and conditions are met in order for them to remain true.  The speed of light is 2.998... * 108 m/s, only when it's in a perfect vaccum.  Shine a light underwater, and its speed will be much less (i.e. index of refraction).

The metaphysical question to ask--the "Why?"--is why should any one of these constants A) be constant? and B) have the value that they have?
I think I just answered these above.  When you restrict a constant to only apply under certain conditions, it's no longer that mysterious why they work.  As for why they have the value they have, I would say it's because all other variables in the equation are proportional to each other and can therefore be simplified through a common denominator to that same constant value.
But there's something not true here. The speed of light changes, but the speed of light in a vacuum does not (in theory... there are still some games you can play with this). When I ask "why?" I'm not interested in the value so much as its properties: indexes of refraction aside, relativity says that c, not the speed of light in anything else, is the maximum speed for physical processes. Likewise, pi and powers of 2 emerge from statistical applications constantly: why pi and why e? These values are special for reasons that may or may not be wholly independent of their geometric interpretations. http://www.dr-mikes-maths.com/eix.html (http://www.dr-mikes-maths.com/eix.html): this link explores the question of "why" Euler's equation is true: in this case, the argument is that these values have the properties they have because it is mathematically and logically consistent (I'm asking more about things like h and c anyway which are purely physical constants. In some sense, Yonkey, your common denominator idea is right here: c emerges from 1/sqrt(epsilon-not*mu-not) both of which are experimentally determined constants and h is likewise measured by experiment. It is however not satisfying.)

While say Oriental and African cultures might still value these same properties and even associate them with beauty, they choose to employ different forms and different hierarchies of form. (Though that is a cursory summation at best... *is not overly involved with art*)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.  You can find symmetrical and basic geometric shapes in any form of art, regardless of the time period or geographic region.  I think when we recognize these shapes and colours in paintings, sculptures and nature, we find them beautiful.  Now obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Some people see splattered paint on a wall and find it breathtaking... I personally don't. :P  But, if I was able to interpret it on some deeper level (such as knowing the rationale behind the colours and the frame of mind the artist had), I might find it beautiful in that respect.  That is, seeing beauty beyond the physical.
What I'm saying is that the underlying rationale for selecting forms of symmetries (or geometry) as beautiful differ: post-Platonic Europe values circles and degenerate forms of circles at a higher level than something with simple point symmetry but curves that are point symmetric and smooth are in a higher position in the hierarchies of some African art, or something that evokes a feeling or the idea of flowing might be valued higher than a "solid" form (a rectangle, a square, a circle versus the representation of a wave or a piece of cloth billowing in the wind.)

(Posted on: October 07, 2009, 01:44:49 PM)


conversations are fun :)

anywho... I'm studying some astronomy/astrophysics topics that interest me independently in preparation for grad school. This excerpt from a lecture amuses me GREATLY.

Quote
Thus, the average mass-to-light ratio of the entire galaxy is about 10^12 Msun / 10^11 Lsun or 10 Msun/Lsun. For comparison, the mass to light ratio in the solar neighborhood is about 1 Msun/Lsun.
Of course, the mass to light ratio in the solar system is 1! The sun dwarfs everything else in the solar system and is the source of ALL of the luminosity!! ::)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on April 02, 2010, 11:18:06 AM
*revives* XD

I happened to see this video today, and I found it incredibly inspiring and thought-provoking.  Anyway, it's kinda geeky, but I figured out of anyone, a Physics dude like you would appreciate it. :P

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.swf?mediaId=99898

Have a look and let me know your thoughts! XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: crayauchtin on April 02, 2010, 02:29:49 PM
I was just reading through this thread for the first time, and I have to interject with something I saw on the first page....

Have you guys told the Oreck guy (http://www.oreck.com/) you don't think his vacuums are perfect???? He will be APPALLED!
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on April 04, 2010, 11:31:02 AM
Sorry, for the delayed reply. *just got around to watching the video past the 6th or 7th dimension* :P

Basically, their higher dimensions past 5 are not higher dimensions. Each simply involves "traveling" further back in time(4) to reach a point in probability(5) that wasn't available from their current location. As such, we wouldn't want to construct descriptions of points in their perception of the dimensions with a basis set greater than 5 (although we could: you can always construct a description which includes non-orthonormal dimensions, but they will be reducible to information contained in the basis set and therefore uninteresting as well as needless clutter).

To put it another way, a point in their "10" dimensions is described perfectly well by a 5-vector (x,y,z,t,p). Each of their higher dimensions is not orthogonal to an equation of state for the universe given in such a basis U(x,y,z,t,p).

For their 6th dimension, for instance, IF I can travel freely in the 5th dimension, then it doesn't matter that the timeline I'm currently on didn't lead to my inventing something as a child: all that matters is that such a timeline exists for some probability. Their saying that I could travel back in time and trigger off those events is really akin to saying how I could climb a hill to get to a different z-value or I could jump from an airplane to land there. Whether or not I fold or branch, I fold or branch in the 5 dimensions they've already described. Likewise, their possible universes dimension (7, I think) is just changing the initial conditions which have some configuration described by some probability... and so no new dimension is gained there. (Also, I think their 8th dimension (a line between such universes) is precluded by the principles of cosmology anyway.)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: B'rrr on April 04, 2010, 12:19:26 PM
I kinda got stuck between the 4th and 5th di'ension, thinking that if I can not 'ove back in ti'e (which I can not), then there are no alternative ti'elines, so this all is just theory, 'ade up, like a cute fairytale. unless I a' 'issing so'ething.

It was intresting to watch tho, but I rather watch stardust!

EDIT: 'aybe I got stuck because I still have proble's with the English language fro' ti'e to ti'e *ponders*
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on April 04, 2010, 01:32:58 PM
I kinda got stuck between the 4th and 5th di'ension, thinking that if I can not 'ove back in ti'e (which I can not), then there are no alternative ti'elines, so this all is just theory, 'ade up, like a cute fairytale. unless I a' 'issing so'ething.

One can avoid a need to move freely within the 4th dimension by considering only possibilities from the present: for instance, you can choose to remain sitting or stand up or stand up and immediately sit back down again, etc. Each such option represents a different path in their 5th dimension of probability.

In physics, when we're dealing with coordinate systems/dimensions, we're interested in how they describe a set of points (an n-dimensional space has every point within it being described by an n-dimensional vector or n-vector). As such, it is convenient to consider "motion" through said n-space because we have ready analogs for that idea in normal physics.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: B'rrr on April 04, 2010, 01:48:28 PM
One can avoid a need to move freely within the 4th dimension by considering only possibilities from the present: for instance, you can choose to remain sitting or stand up or stand up and immediately sit back down again, etc. Each such option represents a different path in their 5th dimension of probability.

That part I got still. all posibilities are still in the future.

but then they followed the video with i'agining a ti'eline where you did that a'azing invention when you were young and you would not be able to get to that point fro' your current ti'eline. and there were 2 options, go back in ti'e and change the past so that you get the desired ti'eline or just take a shortcut and ju'p fro' your current ti'eline tot he desired one (result is the sa'e)

As I see ti'e as linear, one straight line, I can't see that step happen. I can i'agine it ofcourse, have a wild i'agination as it is, but doesn't see' realistic.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on April 04, 2010, 09:22:48 PM
For their 6th dimension, for instance, IF I can travel freely in the 5th dimension, then it doesn't matter that the timeline I'm currently on didn't lead to my inventing something as a child: all that matters is that such a timeline exists for some probability.
Thanks. :)  That's actually the same reasoning I came to, but I just wanted to confirm with someone more qualified in the subject matter.
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on April 06, 2010, 07:08:43 AM
For their 6th dimension, for instance, IF I can travel freely in the 5th dimension, then it doesn't matter that the timeline I'm currently on didn't lead to my inventing something as a child: all that matters is that such a timeline exists for some probability.
Thanks. :)  That's actually the same reasoning I came to, but I just wanted to confirm with someone more qualified in the subject matter.
De nada. The higher dimensions in formal string theory are actually different. ...but then there are so many breeds of formal string theory... XD
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Yonkey on April 07, 2010, 10:39:25 PM
De nada. The higher dimensions in formal string theory are actually different. ...but then there are so many breeds of formal string theory... XD
Sweet! XD I can't wait to do further research in these areas, once this whole Activision situation is resolved. 8)
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Deloria on May 03, 2010, 05:53:04 PM
I have only one thing to say:

The locative is less awesome than the instrumental, even if you did a very nice job with the alliteration, just as Gaelic is less awesome than Lithuanian. :P
Title: Re: Delling's Thread
Post by: Delling on May 04, 2010, 07:24:19 AM
It appears, though I haven't completed a very thorough survey of the languages yet, that the Slavic languages have done fairly well at preserving both the locative and the instrumental.


But... I still love Gaelic more than Lithuanian... one word: phonotactics! :D (the broad-slender contrast is awesome and full of WIN ;D)


I will concede that Lithuanian has an impressive noun system. However: "...the loss of synthetic passive (which is hypothesized based on the more archaic though long-extinct Indo-European languages), synthetic perfect (formed via the means of reduplication) and aorist; forming subjunctive and imperative with the use of suffixes plus flexions as opposed to solely flections in , e. g., Ancient Greek; loss of the optative mood;..." ...clearly, Classical Greek has a more impressive verb system. (...though the use of infixes for the subjunctive is somewhat intriguing...)

(Posted on: May 03, 2010, 09:22:04 PM)


...also, also, as an aside, IIRC, "Let the locative live..." was more a response to the crazy (:P no offense to any Finns: we're all crazy here :P) Finnish practice of breaking the locative up into what seems like roughly a case per possible preposition. ::) Something the instrumental hasn't had to bear (it instead has a tendency to die and fuse with some other oblique case... still, so does the locative :P).


((...and, yes, rest of the forum, we are total language nerds...))