jcarlson

If you want to modify your definition of god to equate it to the feeling of love, a feeling that originates due to chemical processes in the brain, doesn't exist outside of the brain, and is dependent on conscious beings to exist (as opposed to the other way around), be my guest. Not much of a god, though.

From a price/performance standpoint desktops are at an advantage, even with the extra peripherals you need to buy (Some of which you may still want to buy for a laptop anyway, like a mouse and speakers, since the included equivalents are generally subpar on most laptops).

At this point, I will have to admit my inadequacy. I really don't know. Perhaps someone with a better background in quantum physics can better explain in layman's terms. I myself would be interested in hearing how this works, if it's known.

Fair enough, I will from this point consider our differences resolved

And I would claim that something that makes an argument uncompelling, thus making the opposing argument more compelling, is "evidence". Yes I'm well aware of that Cypress, if you could please direct me to the "freezer", so I can search for evidence of "fish". Apparently everything known in existence is the "shower". I think you are conflating the terms "proof" and "evidence". While proof is certainly evidence, evidence is not always proof. Proof is evidence so compelling that it establishes certainty. Evidence is merely something that supports a claim more than the counter-claim. Do you really mean to argue that the complete lack of evidence for a supernatural god does not support the claim that there is no god more than the claim that there is? I acknowledge that the search mechanism may be flawed or there are variables unknown at play, this is why I do not consider an absence of evidence proof, and it never will be. But it IS evidence. And I would agree that the lack of evidence of fish in the freezer is more compelling than the lack of evidence of god in reality is that there are no fish in the freezer and no god in reality, respectively. But that doesn't mean the lack of evidence of god in reality isn't compelling to a lesser degree, and doesn't support the claim that there is no god in reality. I didn't really intend for my analogy to conform precisely to the search for god, sorry for not making that more clear. I would contend that we have a decent enough definition of our "freezer": objective reality known to humanity, to conduct a search. However you are correct that there is no concise clear definition of god because whenever observation or logic seems to rule out a given definition, the opposing side always changes the goalposts. Because of this, I would say that the lack of evidence of supernatural intervention is more compelling evidence against the Christian god or Zeus than it is against the Deist god, but one thing I've noticed is that every time a theist changes the definition of god to skirt an argument, "god" becomes something less and less like what they want him to be, and more and more like nothing at all. Exactly And you know that it's highly unlikely because of the evidence in favor of your position! How else could you?

I chose atheism for a very simple reason: the evidence weighs heavily in favor of it. I believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If we look for something, and we find no evidence of it anywhere, that is evidence that it is not there. If I told someone to go look in my freezer for a fish, and try as they might, while going through my freezer they neither saw, smelt, or felt any fish, that would be evidence, and compelling evidence at that, in favor of the fish not being there. Gods can be held to the same standard. The fact that there is not one confirmed instance of something supernatural breaking the natural order of the world at any time in history is compelling evidence of a lack of not just gods, but anything supernatural. No, it is not proof. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Evidence merely has to increase the probability of something being true; proof has to make said probability 100%. I acknowledge that the atheistic position may turn out to be wrong, but the weight of the evidence makes it much more statistically likely that it won't, and therefore, as a rational person, to me there is only one logical choice.

To my understanding, according to the Standard Model, at least with regard to the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic Forces, there isn't really "action at a distance", forces are "carried" between two particles on bosons such as gluons, W and Z bosons, and photons, respectively. You also have to remember that when examining the force field around an object, the vector field in question doesn't actually exist; that is, the particle isn't shooting force carriers randomly out into space in all directions. It is a map of the force vectors that WOULD exist, were a particle in any particular location at that moment. Once a particle is placed in the space the particles exchange force carriers and the force vector described by the field at that particular location is applied to the particle. Also remember, even though it may seem "intuitive" that two objects should have to touch to have an effect on each other, even when you physically push something to apply force to it, the "touch" you sense is merely an illusion. The particles making up the atoms in your body never come into actual physical contact with the particles that make up the atoms of the object you are applying force too, they just come very close. In fact, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, they can never "touch", and this, in combination with the electrostatic repulsion of the outer shell electrons of the atoms in your body and the atoms in the object is what causes said object to move. If any of this is wrong by the way, feel free to correct me. I'm a simple amateur and I know very well I could be totally misrepresenting all of quantum physics. It just seemed like he has been looking for a more approachable, intuitive, and less technical answer than what has been given, and I was trying to provide one.

One interesting thing to note is that it mentions seasons and times of year a lot in the note. Starting with the notions of spring/early summer in the first lines, and then winter and christmas in the last few sentences. Perhaps there is also some significance to the notion of "beginning with the north and moving down along the map". Perhaps a reference to a line of longitude, or maybe a metaphor for the way the winter cold moves from the north to the south as the season transistions from summer to winter. This could be a way to tie the title into the rest of the note... the moon is at different places at different times of the year. But I'm probably just fishing for red herring here.

Ok.... so you are confused about the equation [math]A(x) = \int_a^x f(t)dt[/math] and how it implies [math]A'(x) = f(x)[/math] right? Ok, this simply follows from the first equation on the page you gave (which you understand, right?) Let [math]F[/math] be the anti-derivative of [math]f[/math], then: [math]A(x) = \int_a^x f(t)dt = F(x) - F(a)[/math] now, since [math]F(a)[/math] is constant, and its derivative is therefore 0: [math]A'(x) = F'(x) - 0[/math] But since [math]F(x)[/math] is the anti-derivative of [math]f(x)[/math], [math]F'(x) = f(x)[/math], so: [math]A'(x) = f(x)[/math] Was that helpful?

In regards to your second question, about your girlfriends homework, While a function CAN have a limit at an undefined point, it most certainly can also have a limit at a defined point, and the limit L at point c need not equal the value of f©. Indeed, the definition of a limit makes no mention of the value of f© at all! The formal definition of a limit [math]\lim_{x\to c} f(x) = L [/math] is for every [math]\epsilon > 0[/math] there exists [math]\delta > 0 [/math] s.t for all [math]x[/math], [math]0 < |x - c| < \delta[/math] implies [math]|f(x) - L| < \epsilon[/math]. The value [math]f©[/math] only starts to matter when discussing continuity at c.

It can be solved geometrically, If I have time tomorrow I might draw it up real quick and post it if no one else beats me to it. Sorry for leaving it like this but I'm tired.

I like all the info about the new project at CERN. I can't wait til 2007 to see what discoveries they make!

The general form of a quadratic function is given by: [math]y(x)=Ax^{2}+Bx+C[/math] where A, B, and C are constants. We are given three points, [math]\{(x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2),(x_3,y_3)\}[/math]. Our goal is to find A, B, and C in terms of [math]x_1, x_2, x_3, y_1, y_2,[/math] and [math]y_3[/math]. This will allow us to find a particular quadratic function that lies on all 3 points. We begin by substituting the first point, [math](x_1,y_1)[/math], into the general equation for a quadratic function, and solving for A. [math] y_1=Ax_{1}^{2}+Bx_1+C [/math] [math] Ax_{1}^{2}=Bx_1+C-y_1 [/math] [math] A=\frac{Bx_1+C-y_1}{x_{1}^{2}} [/math] Now we substitute [math](x_2,y_2)[/math], this time solving for B. [math] y_2=Ax_{2}^{2}+Bx_2+C [/math] [math] Bx_2=y_2-Ax_{2}^{2}-C [/math] [math] B=\frac{y_2-Ax_{2}^{2}-C}{x_2} [/math] Last, we substitute [math](x_3,y_3)[/math], and solve for C. [math] y_3=Ax_{3}^{2}+Bx_3+C [/math] [math] C=y_3-Ax_{3}^{2}-Bx_3 [/math] Now we substitute the equation for C into the equation for B. [math] B=\frac{y_2-Ax_{2}^{2}-y_3+Ax_{3}^{2}+Bx_3}{x_2} [/math] [math] B=\frac{y_2-y_3+A(x_{3}^{2}-x_{2}^{2})+Bx_3}{x_2} [/math] [math] Bx_2-Bx_3=y_2-y_3+A(x_{3}^{2}-x_{2}^{2}) [/math] [math] B=\frac{y_2-y_3+A(x_{3}^{2}-x_{2}^{2})}{x_2-x_3} [/math] Now substitute the equation for C into A. [math] A=\frac{Bx_1+y_3-Ax_{3}^{2}-Bx_3-y_1}{x_{1}^{2}} [/math] [math] Ax_{1}^{2}+Ax_{3}^{2}=B(x_1-x_3)+y_3-y_1 [/math] [math] A=\frac{B(x_1-x_3)+y_3-y_1}{x_{1}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}} [/math] Now B into A... [math] A=\frac{\frac{y_2-y_3+A(x_{3}^{2}-x_{2}^{2})}{x_2-x_3}(x_1-x_3)+y_3-y_1}{x_{1}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}} [/math] Simplifying: [math] A=\frac{(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_2-x_3)-(x_3^2-x_2^2)(x_1-x_2)} [/math] To find B, substitute the equation for A into the equation for B [math] B=\frac{y_2-y_3+\frac{(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_2-x_3)-(x_3^2-x_2^2)(x_1-x_2)}(x_{3}^{2}-x_{2}^{2})}{x_2-x_3} [/math] [math] B=\frac{y_2-y_3}{x_2-x_3}-\frac{(x_3+x_2)(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+(x_3+x_2)(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_2-x_3)-(x_3^2-x_2^2)(x_1-x_2)} [/math] Finally, to find C, substitute A and B into the equation for C. [math] C=y_3-\frac{y_2-y_3}{x_2-x_3}-[/math] [math][x_3^2(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+x_3^2(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)[/math] [math]+x_3(x_3+x_2)(y_2-y_3)(x_1-x_3)+x_3(x_3+x_2)(y_3-y_1)(x_2-x_3)][/math] [math]/ [(x_1^2+x_2^2)(x_2-x_3)-(x_3^2-x_2^2)(x_1-x_2)][/math] Now you have your 3 coefficients in terms of the 3 points given, and you should be able to find the equation of your parabola. Also I'm pretty sure it will work with 3 points in a straight line as well. The coefficient A will turn out to be 0 and the function will reduce to [math]y(x)=Bx+C[/math]

sorry double post

[hide]house numbers[/hide]

Wow. I can't believe no one has mentioned TabBrowser Prefrences yet. I'm not quite sure how I ever lived without it. https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&category=Popular&numpg=10&id=158

There is no reason to believe that a black hole is a singularity. Everything inside of the Swartzchild radius (the region where light cannot escape) is inherently inobservable, and so we really have no idea how much space the mass causing the black hole takes up. It could be anywhere from infinately small, to a radius just under that of the Swartzchild radius, and the observable effects would be the same.

And this is exactly why [math]\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{x} = ln(|x|)[/math] and not [math]ln(x)[/math]

ok, lets call this: (-1/3 )ln[6-3y] = x + C equation A and this: (-1/3)ln[6-3(3)] = C equation B. To get the value of C you solve the left side of equation B. Then you substitute the value of C into equation A, and you have your particular solution.