Kyrisch

And, while we're picking nits, there is technically no "point of the big bang".

Wait, I think I know what he's talking about (why is this so much like catch-phrase? >.<) Newton's Second Law: The acceleration an object undergoes when a constant force is applied thereto is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. So the acceleration has an "inverse relationship" with the force and vice-versa. It is simple algebraic manipulation.

The same way you differentiate with respect to a specific variable, so you integrate with respect to a particular variable. Integrate with respect to what?

The virtual image formed "behind" the mirror is due to your brain assuming that the light reaching your eyes followed a straight-line path. The light rays don't actually converge at that point.

Starting from 2D, there are an infinite number of points that can be equidistant... Circle, sphere, hypersphere, etc.

That is it. They stick because one is positively charged and the other is negatively charged. Why does this form a solid? Put a mole of these pairs together and they will form a three-dimensional checkerboard configuration with alternating anions and cations. This is your solid table salt. Each and every cation is attracted to each and every neighbouring anion.

Of course. Why wouldn't he?

Create a science forum and "low and behold", pottery will be cracked. >.< Newton's Third Law (for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction) applies to forces. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity comments on the geometry of space-time. Please read up on both before challenging either.

Gay penguins have been observed pairing off and using a rock as a surrogate egg. I dunno whether or not that's included in the links provided in the OP, but I thought that was a striking case.

I think you should do some research on what IQ actually attempts to quantify, and how it does that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ is a good place to start. Also, your IQ score might change because IQ tests are imperfect, however, the quantity that IQ intends to measure is not really supposed to change. Intelligence is not "anything useful like biology or physics or math", it's problem-solving, pattern-recognising abilities and such.

Yes, it has to do with the index of refraction. If the two indices are close enough, the light rays pass right through the interface between the two substances and virtually no light is reflected from the surface at all, rendering the object invisible. Glass and vegetable oil are a classic example; fill a beaker with vegetable oil and then put a glass test tube in it and it will seemingly vanish (index of refraction for glass and oil ≈ 1.5, water = 1.3).

That would be the point, I guess. We did a lab similar to this my junior year in high school.

If the mass is constant, then it would make more sense to graph Force vs. Acceleration where the force becomes your independent variable and the acceleration is calculated using [math]F/m[/math].

Tiny imperfections in the surface mesh like gear teeth. Once these "teeth" are uncoupled, the surfaces begin sliding and it is an entirely different process. This is why the kinetic and static coefficients of friction are so different.

Nothing. This riddle meme is so tired...

To further clarify, the problem is more like 3 (x + -y) + -5 (2y + -x). You must distribute the -5 therefore making the last term -(-5x) = +5x.

Your inability to think of the singularity as a point where there are no other points is simply a limit to your imagination. Not many can actually wrap their minds about it, but it is not a mathematical nor physical impossibility -- it violates no presuppositions. Furthermore, there would be no before in the same way there would be no anywhere else. Time and space are functionally identical. Second, simply put, a black hole is a product of mass contorting that fabric of spacetime the same way any other gravitational wells work. The singularity, however contained spacetime itself, it was not embedded therein. This is similar in concept to your previous contention. And as for the difference between the expansion of space and the moving away of bodies, is that first, many galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light and second, if they were simply moving away, we would have to consider ourselves the center of the universe. Therefore, it's more common (and of course, consistent with the evidence) to view the space itself as expanding such that every point is receding from every other one.

Mad cow disease is proteinaceous in origin, which might explain the foreign bits of protein?

People still believe in a Flat Earth.

It can last as near to infinity as the particle's energy is near zero. [math]\Delta E \Delta t \leq \hbar[/math] Where [math]E[/math] is energy, [math]t[/math] is duration, and [math]\hbar[/math] is Dirac's constant.

Is the perpendicularity of the two really a geometric property? I thought it was just a convenient way to graph complex numbers, to adopt the cartesian coordinate system, and axes by definition are orthogonal. I mean, what do you mean by the "angular relation" between e and i?

Probably because Higgs is not as big a name to the common man as Hawking.

Of course it does, because you get multiple instances of [math]i^2[/math] for which you substitute -1. [math]e^x=[/math] [math]e^{i\theta}=1 + i\theta + \frac{i^2\theta^2}{2!} + \frac{i^3\theta^3}{3!}...[/math] [math]= 1 + i\theta + \frac{-\theta^2}{2!} + \frac{-i\theta^3}{3!}...[/math] [math]= (1 - \frac{\theta^2}{2!} ...) + (i\theta - \frac{i\theta^3}{3!}...)[/math] [math]= \cos\theta + i\sin\theta[/math]

In my presentation of my progress in my project on Topology, I mentioned something about how Non-Euclidean surfaces have curvatures [math]\neq 0[/math]. My math teacher pulled me aside afterward and proposed to me the following: Around a point on a Euclidean surface is 360º. You said that in order for this value to change, the surface must have some curvature. However, [at this point he took a piece of paper and pointed to a point lying directly on on edge] about this point there is 180º. I interjected at this point, claiming that I was talking about an edgeless plane, and he continued: [Making a crease at the point and then joining the two halves of the edge on which it lay, he formed a cone] The vertex of this cone, then, must have local angles all add up to 180º. Imagine a surface covered with such cones, troughs and valleys, such that there are an infinite amount of vertices, each having 180º in their neighbourhood. Now, what happens mathematically as the density of these peaks tends to infinity? The limit is a flat plane with zero curvature, but one on which every point has local angles all add up to only 180º. This struck me as really odd. What are your thoughts?

This is kinda vague... Technically, it would be written as [math][\frac{10}{3}]_{10} = 10.1_3[/math]. Not that the point is necessary to be made. The OP seems pretty misguided to begin with, I don't suppose he would understand the distinction anyway.