This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Stokes' theorem is equating a line integral with a surface integral. The result of the line integral is a length which is not equivalent to the the surface area of the surface integral which proves Stokes' theorem is mathematically invalid.Sorry. This only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Multiple people have provided explanations or links to detailed explanations in an effort to educate you, while you have only repeated the same ridiculous straw man argument over and over. Please try to understand, or at least realize that you don't understand. This is the last post I will make in this thread.
The result of the Stoke's line integral is a length which is not equivalent to the the surface area of the surface integral.The integral of a function over a line is NOT the length of the line (HINT: it must relate to the function as well). Stokes' theorem does NOT equate a surface area with a length--which is what you appear to be claiming.
Am I the only one who is worried that by saying " He's more or less right- teh brain won't notice the lack of oxygen and kick in the panic reflex", we are effectively saying
"gases that are free from oxygen are a good way to top yourself"?
I really don't think we should be providing that advice.
I don't think yeast would be attractive for e.g. penis enlargement.
If we were living in a computer simulation then there would inevitably be bugs in the system. It is impossible to eliminate all computer errors. These would be detectable. So what 'bugs' do we have in our universe?Would they necessarily be detectable to the subprograms (us) within the major program? ie if the program is laggy and buffering, would we perceive a stop and start, or would it appear continuous and smooth within the running program?
Indeed--that was a typo! Thank you for catching it. (I have corrected it in the original post). And yes, I suppose that would count as a nuclear reaction.There are other isotopes whose decay pathways are influenced by neutrino flux. Notably 39ClI think you mean 37Cl
But anyway, I'm not sure that counts as a "decay"- the rate of that reaction without the neutrino flux is zero.
It's a reaction. 37Cl is as stable as anything.