Country Boy

What do you mean by "it"?

Why "mammalian" at all? Sounds to me like your new species should be amphibian.

Look at it in terms of "5 steps forward and 3 steps back". That gains 5- 3= 2 m forward and take 5+ 3= 8 seconds.

There is no answer. This is a badly posed question. The answer depends upon the total distance driven which we are not given. Suppose the total distance were 300 km. Then 1/3, 100 km, is driven at 20 km/h so takes 100/20= 5 hours. The remainder, 200 km, is driven at 60 km/h so takes 200/60= 3 and 1/3 hours. The entire 300 km was driven in 8 and 1/3 hours so the average speed was 300 km divided by 8 and 1/3 hours or 300/(25/3)= 900/25= 35 km/h. Now, suppose the total distance was 3 km. Then 1/3, 1 km, is driven at 20 km/h so takes 1/20= 0.05 hours. The remainder, 2 km, is driven at 60 km/h so takes 1/60= 0.0167 hours. The entire 3 km was driven in 0.0667 hours so the average speed was 1/0.667= 15 km/h.

belisariusbilberry (nice user-name!), do you understand that this says nothing? I am kind of hoping you posted this as a joke. Using words like "cosmic cloud", "infinite space", "viscous element", and "gelatinous mass", without giving specific definitions, is nonsense. And, as zapatos suggests, if you are serious, you need to give some evidence of this or at least tell us why you think that is true.

If fact, what your argument proves is: "if the radius of a circle is a rational number the circumference can't be a rational number" and "if the circumference of a circle is a rational number then the radius can't be a rational number."

Who would pay you?

What about the cost of moving those pipes to the various forest fires? Not to mention the difficulty, and danger of placing those pipes in the middle of the fire.

Then why didn't you say that? You originally asked if science should be used to "explain" violence. If you want to stop something, it would be a very good idea to first understand it.

In general, we can't! One way is to look for "zeroes" of the polynomial: if x= a makes the polynomial equal to 0, then (x- a) is a factor. But it is not easy to find zeroes and, generally, when we say "factor" we mean to factor with integer coefficients- and that may not be possible. The best I can do is notice that we can factor "y" out of the first three terms: [tex]y(y^2+ 2y+ 1)+ 1[/tex] and that [tex]y^2+ 2y+ 1= (y+ 1)^2 so that [tex]y^3+ 2y^2+ y+ 1= y(y+ 1)^2+ 1[/tex] but that has not "factored" the original polynomial.

It also depends upon what type of "current" you are talking about. Water? Electricity?

I don't know where you got the idea that animals act only by instinct. There have been plenty of experiments on all kinds of animal's, down to one-celled planaria, problem solving skills- and problem solving cannot be done by instinct.

You have refused repeatedly to say what tests you have run. That has nothing whatsoever to do with revealing any proprietary information. Frankly it looks to me like you have not done any sort of rigorous tests. Probably you tried it on yourself and possibly a few other people and it gave relief. You say it is not a "placebo effect". What tests have you done to ensure that? Do you even know what "placebo effect" means? Do you know the difference between "curing" eczema and "relieving" it? And don't just say "yes" to those questions- tell us enough to ensure us that you do. If you want to sell something then you are going to have to make people believe you and you have to start answering questions. Have you run "double blind" tests? Do you know what "double blind" tests are?

You need to make to make it a matter of "medical advice" if you want any one to take you seriously. Are you a doctor? Have you done double blind trials with it? What trials have you done? The problem with exzema is that, just as the severity can be affected by one's emotion, so it is highly susceptible to the "placebo effect". Even a situation where a salve has no effect at all, applying it to eczema on a person who believes it works can result in relieving the eczema. You use the word "cure". Have you established that it does "cure" rather than "relieve" the exzema?

Calculus, yes, but not integration. Since [math]A= \pi r^2[/math], [math]dA= 2\pi r dr[/math]. You are told that r= 3.2 and that dr= 0.05.

First sentence- you assert this with no proof. Do you have evidence to state here? Rest of post- what does "they" refer to?

​"Factors of large prime numbers"????

You are in, what, fourth or fifth grade? Any further than that and you should know better than what you have written here. "If coal is fosilised wood then what is the stone on top, fosilised flesh? Seriously, look at some large rocks and it looks like beef without bone, even has fat lines." So you know what "fossils" are​? Fossils are rocks (like coal) made from dirt and dust that has replace soft matter in a harder matrix. Bones and wood have such matrices, flesh and fat do not. "In the photo there is no seen vegitation though it could be, if theres vegetation below it which should be proven then that would be further evidence of my theory." ​ You haven't said what your ​ theory is. In any case, non-woody vegetation does not have the "harder matrix" so does not form rocky fossils. "My belief is the photo is good as proof it's life possibly sea based, I don't believe it's quite as simple as a big bang." Pretty much all scientists agree that life began in the sea. The origin of life has nothing to do with the "big bang". The first occurred millions of years after the second. "Lava could even be something like burning oil and prehistoric life. This could be some explanation. Then theres the question of time left" It is well known what Lava is- molten rock. It certainly is NOT "burning oil", a great number of people, including me, have seen burning oil- it looks nothing like burning oil. What do you mean by "prehistoric life"? If you mean fossils those are rocks so certainly, some of the lava could have been from a melted fossil. "Some say the big bang was 13 billion years ago, it could be vastly incorrect. It could be the big bang was so long ago theres more noughts in it than there are atoms.......... ......... ..... .. ." Do you know what facts and research that "13 billion years ago" was based on? If not, you statement that "It could be vastly incorrect" is worth nothing.

0/0, like any non-zero number divided by 0 does not equal any specific number so "does not exist". However, some texts, particularly those such as Calculus texts, that deal with limits, distinguish between the "non-zero divided by 0" and "0 divided by 0" by calling the latter "undetermined" rather than undefined. If it were true that a/0= b then a= b*0. If a is not 0, then there is no b that makes that true- it is "undefined". But if a= 0, that says 0= b*0 which is true for all b. There is no single value of b that we can assign to b. If we had a problem say, [math]\lim_{x\to 2}\frac{x+ 3}{x- 2}[/math] by just putting x equal to 2 in [math]\frac{x+ 3}{x- 2}[/math] we get [math]\frac{5}{0}[/math] so we know immediately that the limit does not exist. But if the problem were [math]\lim_{x\to 2}\frac{x^2- 4}{x- 2}[/math] then putting x equal to 2 we get [math]\frac{0}{0}[/math] so there might be a limit. We observe that, for any x other than 2, [math]\frac{x^2- 4}{x- 2}= \frac{(x-2)(x+ 2)}{x- 2}= x+ 2[/math] so the limit, as x goes to 2, is 2+ 2= 4.

That is true because physical space is a three dimensional vector space. That is, we can treat different directions, in particular "horizontal" and "vertical", separately. Set up a "xyz- coordinate system". Then the acceleration due to gravity is <0, 0, -g>, acting vertically only. If the initial velociaty is <vx, vy, vz> then the velocity after time t is <vx, vy, vz- gt>. If the initial position was <x0, y0, z0> then the position after time t is <vxt+ x0, vyt+ y0, vzt- (g/2)t^2+ z0>. The time until the bullet hits the ground is given by vzt- (g/2)t^2+ z0= 0. That is independent of the x and y components of the initial position and velocity vectors. (This has nothing to do with "relativity".)

The 'quadratic formula' you reference initially says that the solutions to [math]ax^2+ bx+ c= 0[/math] are given by [math]\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2- 4ac}}{2a}[/math]. There is ​no ​requirement that a, b, and c be constants, just independent of x. The solutions to [math]0=xz^2+yz+w[/math] are given by [math]z= \frac{-y\pm\sqrt{y^2- 4xw}}{2x}[/math].

Well, if you want to do it the easy way. But that's no fun!

What does "geometric dimensions" mean?

Yes, there is an answer to this and studiot directed you to texts that will lead you to the answer. The problem is that you expect simple answer! The answer is very deep involving deep mathematics. We have no idea what math background you have. Have you taken an upper level class in "abstract algebra"? Have you taken graduate courses in algebra?

"Only individual brain sense can shape evolution". Where did you get that idea? Evolution is driven by chromosomes. Even plants evolve!