@ChrisWhite No, obviously not. That doesn't say much about Europe though---it says something about the bad social system of the USA, which should be irrelevant to this discussion.
In any case, I find the attitude reflected in that comment pretty ridiculous.
I can see why golf and polo would be uninteresting---to even play it in a "real" setting (so on a proper course etc) is not something most people get to do.
(and obviously tennis is the most beautiful game---the balance between physical and mental is just perfect)
@ChrisWhite most people get to do :P
Not lonely physicists
user54412
@Danu If you ever come back to the US, I want to take you to an inner city basketball court, where you can explain to them the superiority of tennis :P
@0celo7 In American football it is about disrupting communication at the line. If the QB wants to call an audible but only half the team can hear him they will mess up something fierce.
The defense doesn't need quite as much coordination (mostly the linemen and linebackers have to act together, the pass defense and safety just do their bit).
So it is advantageous for the home crowd to be noisy on defense and quet on offense.
At Bryant-Denny (Alabama's stadium) there is a huge decible reading on the parapet wall of the away tier showing how loud it is on the field. The crown shoots for at least 100 db.
@0celo7 None. I have a modest fondness for the Packers because of their business model, but I don't spend much time on sports and prefer to watch the college game. Less polished but .... well it is less polished which makes for a more interesting game.
I am trying to understand where I should draw my arrows for a free body of the following picture
But I've never tried to draw free body diagram to explain these kinds of curvy lines. I think if I could understand one example I would be able to do it in the future. But I'm really not sure what...
The question Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law? was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:
It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing spe...
The relevant chat transcript reminds me of my Marshal moment, when I was on 498, had flagged two obvious HW questions, and was begging people here in the $\hbar$ to visit the review queues!
The Dark Side says shaddap all of you! I have 498 helpful flags, have flagged two obvious off-topic questions a few minutes back. And you ridiculous people are wasting your time in chat instead of reviewing. :: Fuming ::
:D
@DavidZ - The meta question makes a lot of sense, except for it looks cruel to delete when an answer has so many upvotes!
Yeah, but that could just be part of being a moderator. We already know there is a certain class of content that attracts tons of upvotes but is bad for the site.
@0celo7 : the wave nature of matter isn't my idea. Nor is the Einstein-de Haas effect or electron magnetic moment or electron diffraction. It wasn't me who came up with a wave equation to describe spin ½ particles.
But of course, you have mathematical proof that the electron is a point-particle, don't you? LOL.
Hey, anybody seen the list of users? Ranked by score this month. I'm currently fifth.
@JohnDuffield I am somewhat tired of the repetitiveness of this discussion/argument/disagreement. I would like, however to make a point clear, for it does not seem clear to you. No one thinks that observed experimental facts are false. But you use well-established experimental facts as a starting point to provide an interpretation of the underlying mechanism that yields them. That interpretation is, however, usually in complete difformity with other interpretations.
That is not a bad thing per se; but an interpretation is devoid of physical significance and just philosophical if it fails to make precise predictions that are testable in experiments.
In order to do that, you need (usually) a sufficiently solid mathematical apparatus that allows you to make such quantitative predictions.
Many of the theories that you dismiss as pop-science-fiction or whatever are precisely doing that; and they are quite effective in producing quantitative predictions in agreement with experimental evidence.
For your interpretation to be at least as credible as the others you should be able to make at least the same quantitative predictions, and (that would be the most interesting part) some new one that is in disagreement with other theories, and could be tested to see what is the better theory to describe reality, i.e. observations.
Remark: the thing that I call "your interpretation/theory" may be credited to any famous scientist or whatever; nevertheless it should be able to obtain what I said above.
I am trying to understand where I should draw my arrows for a free body of the following picture
But I've never tried to draw free body diagram to explain these kinds of curvy lines. I think if I could understand one example I would be able to do it in the future. But I'm really not sure what...
The question Do we know if the human brain follows Moore's Law? was volunteered for deletion by its author, and I guess one or two other members also think it's worth deleting. But I'm hesitant to actually delete it, for two reasons:
It's off topic, sure, but other than that there's nothing spe...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm
This site makes such claims including:
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854 - 1912) was a great scientist who made a significant contribution to special relativity theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website says that Poincaré:
"sketched ...
