Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The problem with that idea is that it begs the question as to why the dependence of neutrino speed on energy would be just so as to make the supernova measurement of neutrino speed agree with the speed of light more than a thousand times more accurately. That's just far too great a coincidence.Someone said the neutrinos may have different energy levels (in GEV "gigaelectron volts" sp?) at CERN and from the supernova, which might make the comparison inadequate.
Well, the issue there is that Windows has nothing whatsoever to do with adding the ".part" extension. It's the program performing the download that is doing that. You can, if you like, manually copy the .part file to a new file with the destination extension and try playing that. But that has a few problems:Also, since this forum is more active, would someone mind answering this question?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7617902/
Lastly, what all video file formats can be played before the entire video needs to be fully downloaded first?
Well, on the Xbox, can you simply browse to files you have shared on your PC? If so, you should be able to just play them directly.^ Wow.
I didn't think it would be that hard.
On my Windows XP, I double click on the .part file, it doesn't know what to do with it, then I get a pop up selection screen on what app I would like to open it with, I select VLC, and it starts playing even while it's still downloading.
The problem is, I don't know how to make Mplayer accept the .part extension on my Xbox.
Oh, I see what you're saying. You want to view it on your Xbox while downloading it on your PC. I thought you wanted to view it while transferring it to your Xbox from your PC. Sorry, not sure I can help.Yeah, they're on a shared network.
When I click on the video .part file in XBMC nothing happens.
I have to wait until it's completely downloaded and has the .part removed from it's name.
Mathematical. Special Relativity is a special case of General Relativity (just like how Classical Mechanics can now be seen as a special, limited case of the more general Quantum Mechanics). General Relativity is a generalisation of Special Relativity. SR is a 'special case' of GR, while GR is more... general.Is the dependence of general relativity upon special relativity mathematical, or purely philosophical?
To clarify slightly Wiccan_Child's statement: general relativity reduces to special relativity if there is no space-time curvature. So General Relativity can be thought of as special relativity + curvature.Is the dependence of general relativity upon special relativity mathematical, or purely philosophical?
I knew there was a more succinct way of saying itTo clarify slightly Wiccan_Child's statement: general relativity reduces to special relativity if there is no space-time curvature. So General Relativity can be thought of as special relativity + curvature.
Yes! It's just a factor of the number of dimensions. In two dimensions, a maximum of two lines can meet at right angles. In three dimensions, a maximum of three lines can meet with each at right angles to one another. In four dimensions, a maximum of four lines can meet with each at right angles to one another.OK, I need help from math wizards. Is that Wiccan_Child or Acropolis or one of our other resident scientists?
This is what probably appears to be a very trivial question, but it has some fascinating implications IMO.
"Orthogonality" is a very important concept in math and is very useful in mechanics. It means that 2 variables can change independently of each other. In geometry that manifests in the idea of perpendicularity, which is when two curves intersect to form 2 congruent angles.
My question is this: Why is this concept only based on 2's? In other words, could I create a math with some type of orthogonality where 3 curves meet to form 3 congruent angles? Or n curves meet to form n congruent angles?
Yes! It's just a factor of the number of dimensions.
This guy pretty much explains it very well: Dimensions of Physical Space | Of Particular SignificanceHey, thanks for the answer, but I guess my question was unclear. I realize one can increase the number of dimensions, but there is the age old debate about whether a 4th physical dimension really exists.
Let's say we confine ourselves to a plane ... which traditionally has 2 dimensions. That it has 2, however, is an almost obvious, tautological result of the definition of perpendicular.
So, I'm asking if a different definition could be used that would divide the plane into n independent parts rather than just 2. I think it can be done, but I'm wondering if there is a flaw in my thinking.
Even if it could, the next obvious question would be: why? Even if one could, it would be less elegant, less efficient to do it that way. At least at first glance. However, I have reasons for thinking there may be cases where it would be better to use more than 2 dimensions.
No, that can't be done. Basically, the third direction on a plane will always be a function of the other two.Hey, thanks for the answer, but I guess my question was unclear. I realize one can increase the number of dimensions, but there is the age old debate about whether a 4th physical dimension really exists.
Let's say we confine ourselves to a plane ... which traditionally has 2 dimensions. That it has 2, however, is an almost obvious, tautological result of the definition of perpendicular.
So, I'm asking if a different definition could be used that would divide the plane into n independent parts rather than just 2. I think it can be done, but I'm wondering if there is a flaw in my thinking.
You can see this most easily with linear algebra. Basically, each direction on the plane can be represented as a two-dimensional vector, and those vectors can be composed into a matrix. If you ever add a third vector to the matrix, the determinant of the matrix is always equal to zero (because the matrix won't be square, and the determinant of a non-square matrix is always zero), which indicates that the third vector is just a linear sum of the other two.
Well, yeah, paths are a bit more difficult. The problem is that in an abstract sense, a path is an infinite-dimensional object (since you can have an infinite number of locations among the path, each of which is defined by two values in two dimensions). Dealing with generalized paths can be quite a fun mathematical/computational problem, and commonly appears in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.But ... what if it's not points I'm interested in but paths. In this case I have a planar 3 DOF mechanism in my head. Don't the 3 DOF correspond to dimensions in a way? And if my Range (my "space") is the set of points traced by the mechanism, then I can uniquely define each point on the path in terms of those 3 dimensions (my Domain).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?