But they're cuckoo clocks! I don't call this a cuckoo clock
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 23, 2011 #21 Chu Gai said: But they're cuckoo clocks! Click to expand... I don't call this a cuckoo clock
R randyb Full Audioholic Oct 24, 2011 #23 Someone should put up a poll Neutrinos will show up that are faster than light. An error is responsible for the faster than light neutrinos.
Someone should put up a poll Neutrinos will show up that are faster than light. An error is responsible for the faster than light neutrinos.
agarwalro Audioholic Ninja Oct 24, 2011 #24 randyb said: Someone should put up a poll Click to expand... The very act of creating the poll will have skewed the poll results .
randyb said: Someone should put up a poll Click to expand... The very act of creating the poll will have skewed the poll results .
gmichael Audioholic Spartan Oct 24, 2011 #25 They've gone to plaid !! Someone needs to pull these neutrinos over and give them a ticket for breaking the law. Fire up the blower on that police car. It's time for ludicrous speed.
They've gone to plaid !! Someone needs to pull these neutrinos over and give them a ticket for breaking the law. Fire up the blower on that police car. It's time for ludicrous speed.
M MidnightSensi2 Audioholic Chief Oct 24, 2011 #26 highfigh said: When did they start putting ! after E in that equation? E Factorial? Yikes! Click to expand... I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe.
highfigh said: When did they start putting ! after E in that equation? E Factorial? Yikes! Click to expand... I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe.
jonnythan Audioholic Ninja Oct 24, 2011 #27 MidnightSensi2 said: ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Got some bad news for you
MidnightSensi2 said: ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Got some bad news for you
gmichael Audioholic Spartan Oct 24, 2011 #28 MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Thanks Sheldon.
MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Thanks Sheldon.
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 24, 2011 #30 MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Exactly what my intensions were.....
MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Exactly what my intensions were.....
gene Audioholics Master Chief Administrator Oct 24, 2011 #31 annunaki said: I agree Gene. It does however assume that the scientific community is willing to let go of what it had held to be true. Click to expand... It usually does provided what it held to be true can be unequivocally proven.
annunaki said: I agree Gene. It does however assume that the scientific community is willing to let go of what it had held to be true. Click to expand... It usually does provided what it held to be true can be unequivocally proven.
GranteedEV Audioholic Ninja Oct 24, 2011 #32 MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... I always used =/=
MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... I always used =/=
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 25, 2011 #33 What is true and not true is not so clearly given, and what the scientists at CERN may have found is not necessarily something that invalidates Einsteins laws of relativity.... Einstein's laws showed that Newton's laws which we thought at that time thought were the full and complete truths were mere approximations, under normal circumstances they are valid, but in some extreme conditions not... So this may be the same, we may have found conditions where the relativity theory doesn't hold water 100%, and where we need new formulas... although, if we see particles travel quicker than light it's still quite groundbreaking..... Perhaps there is room for an Einstein2 now....
What is true and not true is not so clearly given, and what the scientists at CERN may have found is not necessarily something that invalidates Einsteins laws of relativity.... Einstein's laws showed that Newton's laws which we thought at that time thought were the full and complete truths were mere approximations, under normal circumstances they are valid, but in some extreme conditions not... So this may be the same, we may have found conditions where the relativity theory doesn't hold water 100%, and where we need new formulas... although, if we see particles travel quicker than light it's still quite groundbreaking..... Perhaps there is room for an Einstein2 now....
M MidnightSensi2 Audioholic Chief Oct 25, 2011 #34 haraldo said: What is true and not true is not so clearly given, and what the scientists at CERN may have found is not necessarily something that invalidates Einsteins laws of relativity.... Einstein's laws showed that Newton's laws which we thought at that time thought were the full and complete truths were mere approximations, under normal circumstances they are valid, but in some extreme conditions not... So this may be the same, we may have found conditions where the relativity theory doesn't hold water 100%, and where we need new formulas... although, if we see particles travel quicker than light it's still quite groundbreaking..... Perhaps there is room for an Einstein2 now.... Click to expand... Nod, I agree this seems similar to Newtonian physics versus quantum physics. Because, for example, if you take a really accurate clock and put it in an airplane it actually does show that time slows down in proportion. Love this type of stuff.
haraldo said: What is true and not true is not so clearly given, and what the scientists at CERN may have found is not necessarily something that invalidates Einsteins laws of relativity.... Einstein's laws showed that Newton's laws which we thought at that time thought were the full and complete truths were mere approximations, under normal circumstances they are valid, but in some extreme conditions not... So this may be the same, we may have found conditions where the relativity theory doesn't hold water 100%, and where we need new formulas... although, if we see particles travel quicker than light it's still quite groundbreaking..... Perhaps there is room for an Einstein2 now.... Click to expand... Nod, I agree this seems similar to Newtonian physics versus quantum physics. Because, for example, if you take a really accurate clock and put it in an airplane it actually does show that time slows down in proportion. Love this type of stuff.
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 25, 2011 #35 MidnightSensi2 said: Nod, I agree this seems similar to Newtonian physics versus quantum physics. Because, for example, if you take a really accurate clock and put it in an airplane it actually does show that time slows down in proportion. Love this type of stuff. Click to expand... I find this very interesting too, and I agree.... specially this experiment in planes where they used ultraprecise cesium nuclear watches to verify the time difference between airplane at high altitude and surface of earth, think Einstein's laws were verified to extreme precision... I will really like to see what comes next now
MidnightSensi2 said: Nod, I agree this seems similar to Newtonian physics versus quantum physics. Because, for example, if you take a really accurate clock and put it in an airplane it actually does show that time slows down in proportion. Love this type of stuff. Click to expand... I find this very interesting too, and I agree.... specially this experiment in planes where they used ultraprecise cesium nuclear watches to verify the time difference between airplane at high altitude and surface of earth, think Einstein's laws were verified to extreme precision... I will really like to see what comes next now
mtrycrafts Seriously, I have no life. Oct 26, 2011 #36 haraldo said: I find this very interesting too, and I agree.... specially this experiment in planes where they used ultraprecise cesium nuclear watches to verify the time difference between airplane at high altitude and surface of earth, think Einstein's laws were verified to extreme precision... I will really like to see what comes next now Click to expand... Without crunching the numbers for the distance traveled that they claim within 30cm, how long does it take light to travel that 30 cm? Perhaps they need a more precise clock? How do they know the distance over 730 km underground to be within 30 cm?
haraldo said: I find this very interesting too, and I agree.... specially this experiment in planes where they used ultraprecise cesium nuclear watches to verify the time difference between airplane at high altitude and surface of earth, think Einstein's laws were verified to extreme precision... I will really like to see what comes next now Click to expand... Without crunching the numbers for the distance traveled that they claim within 30cm, how long does it take light to travel that 30 cm? Perhaps they need a more precise clock? How do they know the distance over 730 km underground to be within 30 cm?
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 26, 2011 #37 MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Here are some other programmatic ways of representing this Microsoft T-SQL: not E = (M * SQUARE(C)); C / C++: e != m * pow(c, 2); Pascal: e <> m * sqr(c); Java: (e != m * pow(c, 2)); Fortran: (e .ne. (M * EXP(C, 2)) Hope this helps....
MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... Here are some other programmatic ways of representing this Microsoft T-SQL: not E = (M * SQUARE(C)); C / C++: e != m * pow(c, 2); Pascal: e <> m * sqr(c); Java: (e != m * pow(c, 2)); Fortran: (e .ne. (M * EXP(C, 2)) Hope this helps....
highfigh Seriously, I have no life. Oct 26, 2011 #38 MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'?
MidnightSensi2 said: I'm going to prove what a nerd I am.... != means 'not equal' in many programming languages. So, he's saying E != mc^2 or 'E is not equal to mc^2' ...if I'm wrong...then good, that means I'm not as big of a nerd as I thought I was. hehe. Click to expand... What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'?
jonnythan Audioholic Ninja Oct 26, 2011 #39 highfigh said: What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'? Click to expand... There's no character on the keyboard for that. I believe it also doesn't exist in the standard ASCII table.
highfigh said: What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'? Click to expand... There's no character on the keyboard for that. I believe it also doesn't exist in the standard ASCII table.
haraldo Audioholic Warlord Oct 26, 2011 #40 highfigh said: What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'? Click to expand... ≠ is part of the extended ascii character set as well as unicode, so theoretically it could be like this, but it's an unsupported syntax in any programming language.... It just doesn't work, see.... select * from einstein where E ≠ MC2 Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 2 Incorrect syntax near '≠'. It's not according to ansi sql standard Last edited by a moderator: Oct 19, 2014
highfigh said: What's wrong with using ≠ for 'not equal'? Click to expand... ≠ is part of the extended ascii character set as well as unicode, so theoretically it could be like this, but it's an unsupported syntax in any programming language.... It just doesn't work, see.... select * from einstein where E ≠ MC2 Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 2 Incorrect syntax near '≠'. It's not according to ansi sql standard
