Trisecting an angle
 

[QUOTE=Fusion_power]Mally,

I have to call you on the "proof of the existence of tachyons" statement above. The last I knew of this, there was theoretical probability but no absolute proof. Do you have something that would prove your statement?

What of quantum entangled particles? Does the event propagate at the speed of light when one of the particles is destroyed? What happens to the energy imbued in an entangled particle when its mate is destroyed?

Fusion[/QUOTE]
:smile:
[url]http://physics.gmu.edu/~e-physics/bob/tachyons.htm[/url]
Tachyons are postulated to be neutrinos and there is firm evidence of these.
Many particles (almost all ) are first theorised and then found in the labs and not the other way around.

Robert Ehrlich, a George Mason University professor of physics, claims to have possible experimental evidence for the existence of tachyons, hypothetical faster-than-light subatomic particles first proposed in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and Sudarshan. The evidence, published in several articles in the Physical Review D during June and October 1999 consists of an explanation of certain properties of the high energy cosmic rays bombarding the Earth from space. Interestingly, such faster-than-light particles seem to be required by current 12 dimensional theories developed by physicists to unify all the forces of nature.
The answer to your question on decay of a particle is in The URL I have given.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]Today c is defined by the standard meter and not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
It is defined the other way. Look at its definition at [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter]Wikipedia[/URL]: It is defined since 1983 as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

A long time has passed from the meter defined as the length of the platinum-iridum bar located in France.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]

The 'side rod' of a steam engine provides an infinite force for a split second
[/QUOTE]
:no: breakdown by metal fatigue is reached well before the force applied is infinite. Perhaps Paul, being a chemist, can explain better than me what happens to the molecular bonds under stress.
You are probably using the wrong assumption that the rigidity of the rod is infinite.

Trisecting an angle
 

:smile:
For your benefit I c+p portion of my thread again.
"Still infinite forces are real as can be seen in several mechanical linkages.
The 'side rod' of a steam engine provides an infinite force for a split second and that's why journals reach metal fatigue and break."

Perhaps my statement needs further explanation. The journals and axles don't break all at one go of the infinite Milli/ nano second force but gradually on each revolution at a particular position when the 'dead centre' is reached.
Repeated administration of this force gives metal fatigue in the long run.

Ever seen a stone crusher at work and the tremendous force generated to crush even large stones at one go? This is due to the near infinite force at work when the linkage is straight and the angle of the linkage is pi and the force is perpendicular at angle pi/2 when F/cos pi/2 gives % (infinity)
No ! No rod can be so 'rigid' as to have an infinite 'rigidity'. If you can discover one Ill hire you as a consultant to improve on something as simple like a sledge hammer. We are talking Strength of Materials here and not Chemistry'!
I am sure Paul can hold his own explanations/ and replies without you advertising for him. I am well aware of his capabilities, that's why I bothered to post as he is one of the most straight forward and intelligent posters in this forum. But if you feed rubbish into a computer what do you expect but rubbish out of it!
Mally :coffee:

Trisecting an angle
 

[QUOTE=alpertron]It is defined the other way. Look at its definition at [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter]Wikipedia[/URL]: It is defined since 1983 as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

A long time has passed from the meter defined as the length of the platinum-iridum bar located in France.[/QUOTE]
:redface:
Thank you Alpertron. I stand corrected. I have put the cart before the horse!
Mally :coffee:

OK so what does this have to do with triangles, again? Oh yeah, both concepts are of geometry. Other then that they're about as related as a keyboard to a mouse. The link's there but not direct or very causal. The both depend on a central way of thinking (digital gates instead of lines/distances and angles).

[QUOTE=mfgoode]
the angle of the linkage is pi and the force is perpendicular at angle pi/2 when F/cos pi/2 gives % (infinity)[/QUOTE]
:ermm: You should not divide, you should multiply.
[QUOTE] But if you feed rubbish into a computer what do you expect but rubbish out of it!:[/QUOTE]
Being Xmas eve, I dont get the meaninig of this; would you, please, be so kind to explain ?

What's funny is that knowing how geometry works, there's a physical law caused by the trisecting rule. :P Not likely to be important but it's still possible there's an effect since this is a level of abstraction (lines and compass with no rulers).

Trisecting an angle
 

:unsure:
Im not quite sure what you mean in your post but its an interesting observation. Yes the proof of the impossibility of trisecting an angle, in general, by UNMARKED ruler and compass follows a mathematical law.
Its the unsolvability of the cubic equation x^3 -3x -1 = 0 in rational roots.
Please read Kevin's post no.2
Mally :coffee: