Math Is Fun Forum

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

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

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

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

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

If those aren't claims, what are they?

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

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

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

Nothing?

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.

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

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

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

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

This question doesn't seem to make sense.

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

How has this effect been observed?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does relativity say this is true?

Dragonshade:

1. The standard analysis way to word this is:

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

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

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

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