Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/20/20 in all areas

  1. So I am taking my first proofs class this semester along with an application of it in mathematical statistics and I got to say. This is pretty awesome. Why have I never seen this stuff before in my lower level mathematics courses. Like it provides general reasoning and evidence for each mathematical equation. I am currently reading over "Journey into mathematics-an introduction to proofs" by Joseph J. Rotman and it answer ssooooo many questions. Like a proof for that cosine equation that was just given to me. I thought it involved like some super human levels of mathematics. It turns out it just uses the pythagean theorem and some geometry identification and relationship forming. Also I am reading "The Elements" by Euclid for class as well, picked it up because it looked kind of cool when I was younger and it turns out I needed it later on, nice coincidence. Turns out it is now my favorite book. Like a book that you do not want to pick up because you know you will not be able to put it down. Like my biggest issue in my math classes was that I did not understand how the conclusion was reached. Like omg, this is the most I have learned in a long time. (source: Family guy) (reason for use: for dramatic comedic appeal ) Is this what math is? finding patterns and relationships in order to develop unique structures in order to better understand the interworks of different behaviors being observed?
    1 point
  2. The problem is not understanding what you say. You have been given lots of very specific examples of things you say which are just not correct. Of course that won't help. When someone points out that you are mistaken, the correct response is not to double down and insist that you are correct. A more sensible approach is to take it as an opportunity to learn. I often say things that are incorrect - I hope to get corrected so I can learn from my mistakes. I try to always thank people who correct my errors.
    1 point
  3. I am "looking for" someone who cares whether what they say is correct. You apparently don't. I don't simply trust what people say, especially when I specifically know better. When we say you are wrong, consider the possibility that it is because you are wrong. To put it quickly: We are saying you are wrong because you are wrong. We are not correcting you because you seem to not be looking for nor appreciating correction.
    1 point
  4. That was for gravitational waves alone, a comment added as a follow up to Sensei's note that delays, when registered, are useful. Then please read the whole post, the second source have better precision. Here is one reference documenting the observation of gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation within approx 1.74 s. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05834
    1 point
  5. There are two important clues in your comments that suggest to me what might have occurred. First, you said you had a "throbbing headache" when you awoke. This suggests to me that you were likely experiencing a hangover, which further suggests you may have been drinking before slumbering. If you were drinking, then you may have been in such a deep state of unconsciousness that you could have experienced some measure of physical trauma without waking. Another possibility, if you were drinking, is that you could have experienced such trauma before going to sleep but have now awoke without memory of the experience. The second clue is in your husband's description of your bruises as knuckle imprints rather what is obviously a foot imprint across your upper breast and shoulder. Someone, likely a heavy adult, stepped on you while you were sleeping and rolled a bike across your arm as can be seen by the imprint of slim rather than wide tire tracks. If you were not drinking prior to sleep when these injuries occurred, then you are obviously a heavy sleeper who was injured by someone while your were sleeping. In my opinion, this is not a case dreams causing injury but more certainly a case of injury effecting a dream experience. I hope this helps.
    1 point
  6. You said: You never mentioned "popular belief". And I don't believe it is a popular belief, anyway. Stuff is made out of other particles. This has nothing much to do with whether they have antiparticles or not. There is no such difference. It is a figment of your imagination. Wrong again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics This is not "one special circumstance". It is the way all particle accelerators operate to create new particles. No they weren't. There is absolutely no connection. The people working on preon-like theories are still working on them. What are you talking about. The emission of photons by electrons changing energy levels (assuming that is what you mean by "quantum jumps") was pretty much the first thing explained by quantum theory. (It got Einstein a Nobel Prize.) If you mean something different by "quantum jumps" please explain. Because there is a lot of new physics to explore. That is because almost everything you write is incorrect. (Apart from the trivial statements you list below. You should stop there.) If you don't understand what the words mean then (1) you are not in a position to argue against it and (2) you shouldn't be using them. The answer is to learn about the subject before spouting off.
    1 point
  7. https://www.universetoday.com/144622/a-mysterious-burst-of-gravitational-waves-came-from-a-region-near-betelgeuse-but-theres-probably-no-connection/ "A Mysterious Burst of Gravitational Waves Came From a Region Near Betelgeuse. But There’s Probably No Connection"
    1 point
  8. Are the magnetic fields generated in the lift or by another device, not onboard the lift? I assume that Ampère's force law can be neglected, correct? The currents do not generate a strong enough magnetic field to have an effect on the outcome.
    1 point
  9. You say you understand and then write nonsense like that second sentence, which demonstrates very clearly that you do not understand. Until you can get past this attitude of believing you understand things when you clearly don't, you will not be able to learn and get to understand the things you currently don't understand. There is no such thing as a "tensor force". There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.) No. No. No. This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spouting nonsense and take some time to LEARN. https://xkcd.com/895/ You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.
    1 point
  10. Formally, no. Informally, spot the fuck on. And of course, with the new structures, you get new patterns and relationships, which need new structures, which ...
    1 point
  11. It is great when a whole new area of understanding is opened up to you (it doesn't happen often, so enjoy it while it lasts!) And it is surprising that so many proofs are incredibly simple. Not all though: proving Fermat's Last Theorem took a long time and is pretty complex.
    1 point
  12. Thanks for the picture. By what principle does the lifter work? Interaction with earth magnetic field, ejection of particles, other? Or is it is a proposal for a reactionless drive?
    1 point
  13. A diagram would help too: where is the current carrying wire, what is the source of the magnetic field, what are the directions of the three forces ([math]\vec{F_1}[/math], [math]\vec{F_2}[/math], [math]\vec{F_3}[/math]), what is the angle [math]\alpha[/math], etc. Sorry, just noticed there is a diagram!
    1 point
  14. ! Moderator Note This nonsense has gone on long enough
    1 point
  15. ! Moderator Note It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s what you can show, in a scientific context. You haven’t backed up your assertion. So we’re done here.
    1 point
  16. I would suggest taking a few minutes to learn the basics of Latex so you can post the equations here. That will make them easier (possible) to read, make it possible for people to quote and correct them, etc. (And is a valuable life skill for anyone interested in math or physics.)
    1 point
  17. That may depend. Are the calculations based on physically correct assumptions? There seems to be things missing from the image (maybe formatting) so it is not easy to tell what the math is describing.
    1 point
  18. 0 points
  19. Ok, the attractive force in the scenario manifold comes from the -E How would you present that in math ? I'm not very good at math , not a troll . There is nothing wrong with my physics .
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.