ruveyn

]]>by Robert E Knapp (Author)

Can't wait to read this.

]]>

The technology is mind blowing.

ruveyn

]]>I took the test once last year, and another attempt yesterday. I think I got a full score on the language part, but both times i've struggled with the math. Although math isn't my strongest ability i've never been bad at it before. Last year I got a decent score, and I came unprepared to the test with a high fever. This time I expected it to go a lot better, but I actually managed to get a significantly lower score. Thought it went better when I took the test, but no...

I've found two main problems. Number one is that i'm just too slow. Working things through in my own pace meant I ran out of time half way through. On top of that I haven't done this type of math in 14 years. That means some quite signifcant gaps in my knowledge.

Unfortunately the disaster on the math part probably puts me just below the minimum score (with 0.5 points!) to get into law school. That's quite annoying. The next test is this fall, and i'm going to get a full score.

The math part is fairly simple high school math. There's some geometry, quadtratic equations, equation systems and problem solving. Not really that complex.

Anyhow, I have two questions relating to this:

Do you know of any good books and resources that can be usefull to learn this? And, do you know anything of a more general nature? I'd like to read up more on math just for the fun of it. Maybe a better understanding of math could be usefull some day, and it's a fun way to exercise the little grey cells.

]]>I’d like to know more about prime numbers. I understand that they are natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc…) that can only be divided by 1 and themselves. But apart from that I don’t know their significance and I’d like to get a better understanding about how to think about them.

Here are my questions about them:

Are there any interesting implications about them?

What are some common questions about them that are wrong… ie: How old is the universe?

Any properties one should always be considering when thinking about primes?

The Director of Cern announced: Habeum Boson - We have a boson

The Boson has taken on the name Higgs

ruveyn

]]>As I delve deeper into the world of science I know that I will come across theories that are good but probably many more that are total nonsense. For obvious reasons I would prefer to first give glance to those theories that are at least sound, if not yet proven beyond a doubt, as opposed to theories that are absurd but accepted mainstream; such as string theory, multi-universe theories, etc..

The topic is open to anything you know about in any field of science and does not have to be limited to the whole field; example: astronomy. But can be more specific; example: cosmology, stellar, etc...

It might be useful to make a list of theories under the titles:

Good theories(undeniable)

Potentially good theories(that show potential, may be good but incomplete)

Potentially bad theories(skeptical about)

Bad theories(absurd, violate known facts).

-But please feel free to post in any format you feel most comfortable.

Good premises!

]]>

ruveyn

]]>Please see:

ruveyn

]]>]]>It may sound less likely than hell freezing over, but physicists have created an atomic gas with a sub-absolute-zero temperature for the first time^{1}. Their technique opens the door to generating negative-Kelvin materials and new quantum devices, and it could even help to solve a cosmological mystery.

]]>Its instruments trained for six weeks on a relatively uninteresting patch of sky, Hubble spotted the galaxies swirling at a time 13.3 billion years ago, just 450 million years after the dawn of the cosmos.

And astrophysicists say the images give the world an unprecedented look at the universe in the early stages of its formation.

“It’s the scientific version of the story of Genesis, basically,” said Abraham Loeb, Chair of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

“This is the beginning of everything,” added John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and a former astronaut who serviced Hubble on three shuttle missions.

“And these images are starting to give us the picture of what emerges from that early period in the universe.”

The results show an evenly paced decline in the number of galaxies evident in observations that look back over 97 percent of time dating back to the birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. They support the idea that galaxies formed continuously over time and also might have provided enough radiation to reheat matter after a period when all matter cooled in the wake of the Big Bang. “You know, this period of re-ionization is when the universe emerged from the ‘dark ages,’ as it’s called, when light couldn’t propagate through the universe.

** ****Does anyone understand this? How can light from 13.7 billion years ago reach earth "here" if we weren't "here" 13.7 billion years ago? Since "we" and this distant galaxy started out in the same "place," the big bang, around 14 billion years ago, how did we get "here" and the oldest galaxy get "there"?**

]]>Imagine a clock that will keep perfect time forever, even after the heat-death of the universe. This is the "wow" factor behind a device known as a "space-time crystal," a four-dimensional crystal that has periodic structure in time as well as space.

Sounds like someone's trying to find evidence supporting string theory. If string theory is groundless, as Stephen says, then these efforts will be doomed to failure, no? Also, since the article implies that black holes will form only if the "extra dimensions" exist, no black holes should be observed anyway. In addition, since black holes appear to violate the law of identity, even fewer than no black holes should be observed. Right?

]]>Looks Good.

]]>More scientists are getting closer in the search for the "God particle" of physics that would help explain the fundamentals of the universe, but they haven't found it yet.In the hunt for the Higgs boson, which is key to understanding why matter has mass, two teams of physicists using results from a now-closed American accelerator have come up with similar findings to those announced late last year by researchers at the more powerful Large Hadron Collider in Europe. While the scientists using the two accelerators have not found the elusive subatomic particle, they both have narrowed the area where it can be found, if it exists. And they know where it isn't.

........

"Globally the world is starting to see a consistent picture," said Fermi physicist Rob Roser, a spokesman for one team. "I don't think there's any place for the Higgs to hide. We'll know the answer one way or another by the end of 2012."

Isn't that when the Mayan's predicted the end of the world?

]]>Can anyone recommend a microscope for a beginner, or a good one that will be useful for a long time?

What about a USB microscope? Because I would much rather be able to save the images I look at through the microscope and blow them up on my big monitor instead of look at them through a tiny hole and not be able to document them. Preferably one that can magnify a lot without relying on digital magnification.

How about a USB electron microscope?

Or a USB Spectroscope?

]]>Copy and Pastable Version: http://bit.ly/PGwcpK**ttp://e****bit.ly/PGwcpK**

PDF Version: http://djm.cc/library/Calculus_Made_Easy_Thompson.pdf

In it he gives an example:

y+dy = (x+dx)²

and after squaring it gets:

y+dy = x²+2x*dx+(dx)²

I have no clue how he got from one to the other. Maybe someone can explain or show the steps?

Thank you.

]]>I am starting to study Chemistry and have come across a hump. The book I am learning from uses a Quantum Mechanical Model to describe atoms... Is it necessary to learn this in order to understand chemistry? or should I be looking for a new book to learn from?

The author of the book does not even give a good reason why they use this.

"Early models of the atom had electrons going around the nucleus in a random fashion. But as scientists discovered more about the atom, they found that this representation **probably** wasn't accurate."

... And Ayn was **probably **right...

Please help! I am eager to learn but do not want to get stuck on this point. Please tell me if I should learn it and move on or find a better book so that I can be firmly grounded in the beginning of my studies.

]]>The transit of Venus is very important. It enables precision calibration of astronomical measurements of the solar system. Using the latest gee-whiz technology we will get a better measure of our distance from the Sun, a better measure of the diameter of the Sun. Astronomical light shows like this are rare and should not be missed if one wants to catch the show.

ruveyn

]]>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/newton-dark-secrets.html

ruveyn

]]>Type 1: denial of an universally quantified proposition:: Not For all x, P(x).

Type 2 denial of an existential proposition:: not there exists x such that P(x).

note: P(x) means the predicate or property P is true of individual x.

The way you prove a Type 1 denial is to find an individual r, such that Not P®. The assertion There exists r such that Not P® is precisely the negation of For all x P(x). They are logically equivalent. This is simply a formal way of producing a counter example to a general assertion. You show the general assertion is false by producing an example that negates the general assertion.

The way you prove a Type 2 denial is to show the assumption that there exists x such that P(x) leads to a contradiction.

The well known example is to show that the square root of 2 is not rational. How do we do this? First assume the square root of 2 -is- rational. Then by definition of rational there exists two integers m and n, such that n != 0 and such that

(m/n)^2 = 2. We can assume without loss of generality that m and n have no factors in common except 1. Any common factors can be divided out and still leave the ratio intact. Under this assumption m^2 = 2*n^2. Which means m^2 is even.

This implies that m is even. (note. The square of any odd integer is odd --- I leave that for you to show as an exercise).

O.K. if m is even then by definition of even, m = 2*k for some integer k.

m^2 = 2*n^2 implies 4*k^2 = 2*n^2. Divide both sides by 2 and get 2*k^2 = n^2. But that means n^2 is also even. When means 2 divides n. Bzzzzzt. That means both m and n are even. But that contradicts the assumption that m and n have no factor in common other than 1.

The assumption that the square root of 2 is rational has lead to the contradiction that a pair of numbers both have and do not have a common factor other than 1.

Q.E.D.

And that, my friends is how one proves negatives statements of a certain type (Type 1 and Type 2 above).

Which contradicts the general assertion that one cannot prove a negative. There do exist honest to goodness negative propositions which can be proven. (Note the assertion that no negatives can be proven has been refuted by a counter example).

Q.E.D. again.

Thank you for reading this.

ruveyn

]]>