In his original post, Reiku wrote the Pisa, not the Eiffel tower. The leaning tower of Pisa was founded in 12th century, but I don't know whether Galileo dropped balls there or not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh indeed, i mean, i did have a type of blueprint. But i didn't with have any blueprint for the references, other than perhaps information i have used for the tutorial. Stryder, i doubt very much Ben will ever put the tutorial back to the physics -- so why not offer me to keep it here, and clean it up from some of these unecessery responses?
Oh dear, did i say that? I was angry. There's my excuse Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is what happens when you learn physics from comic books. By all means, do so Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A little birdie told me that this tutorial has appeared and was deleted from another science forum, where the person who posted it was a ]sockpuppet for a banned user. So complain to James all you want---in fact, I encourage it. I like to have checks and balances---I want the administrators to monitor my work. It is, after all, their site. And if my opinions and judgments aren't in line with their philosophies, then I want them to find someone who can do the job that they want done. If Stryder or Plazma or James ever thinks that this is the type of material that should be left in the physics forum, then I can't do my job, and they should find someone who is willing to accept this as science. No hard feelings, it's just a difference of philosophies. I do feel, however, fairly confident that this is the case---mostly because the last several bannings you've received didn't come from me.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86871 You can also make your claims more vocally, if you wish.
Besides, we all know that gravity is just an illusion, we're just on the top of the universe-don't believe? google flat earth society
Yes i know. And i knew, at least by 99% that this would have been mentioned. I am not embarrassed one bit; by the way, it was only deleted because i created a sockpuppet on the other site. I CAN ASSURE YOU RIGH NOW, it got a better response than what you's lot gave me, which says a lot about who you might selectively pick and choose to have someone work in sciforums, even in your beloved subforum. Now how about answering some of my responses? I can honestly say, your evaluation of it was displaced and wrong. Not to mention, you don't know shit half the time.
Shotguns usually fire shot, but they often fire bullets usually referred to as slugs. They also fire such things as bean bags, rubber balls and rice.
Ahhh right. Well, the latest FermiLab data I've seen has excluded a higgs at around 160 GeV, and below about 115 GeV. And for the record, I never promised I'd step down as mod of the physics forum if they didn't find the higgs. If there was a qualified person who could (and would) step into the job, I'd definitely put that on the table.
Not what i remember. I do believe you said the Higgs would be found, and if it wasn't you would hand away your modship. Likewise, i said i would not post in the physics forum for... what was it... something like seven months if it had been?
Given you keep up to date with things happen at the LHC, either deliberately or by seeing stuff posted here, you know they haven't even collided the beams yet! So you're creating a strawman. It's an irrelevant question and you know full well that the current search for it is practically stopped, since CERN shuts down for winter and Fermilab simply doesn't have the power to cover the parameter space the Higgs can be found in. And besides, even if the Higgs isn't found it's possible that Higgs, Ellis etc are still right about a scalar particle causing spontaneous symmetry breaking, it could, after all, be composite. Given a stationary object with mass M, I apply a constant force,100 Newtons, to it and 4 seconds it has travelled 250 metres. What is its mass? Do you need to know what the object is to answer that question? In tutorials you MUST be precise. You are to assume you are talking to people who have never done this kinds of things before and just because you know something is only true in particular cases doesn't mean they do. If they don't understand, they'll assume things which you know are not always true. Ben knows you're not being entirely accurate but only because he knows certain things. How many maths students, pre university, assume all functions can be integrated and differentiated? Loads. If a tutorial assumes you know something beyond the level of the tutorial, the tutorial isn't a very good one. When explaining stuff to students my first questions are always things like "Do you know how to differentiate trig functions?" or "Have you ever heard of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem?" otherwise my explanations fall on uncomprehending ears. Your tutorial starts by explaining what a vector is and by the end assumes the reader is familiar with tensor calculus! Even Penrose takes hundreds of pages to get between those things and he by no means thinks his book is a tutorial. Pick a specific topic, say at the beginning "I will assume knowledge of A, B and C but not of X and Y and will derive Z" and then go through every step to get from the A, B and C, avoiding X and Y, to Z.
I just don't think we can clarify whether it is a pointlike object or not. The fact we have not been able to measure a radius would suggest it is, but such decisions would drastically alter an electrons mass. As for the tutorial, i hadn't even finished it, and yet you have derived a lot and nothing on it.
