Bignose

m is almost certainly the symbol for mass, which will always be a positive number. In that case, the square root of the square is always positive as well - there is no ambiguity in taking the square root. I think that [math]\sqrt{mkT}[/math] looks better than [math]m\sqrt{\frac{kT}{m}}[/math], but in the end it is just aesthetics.

Actually, I am talking about this one: http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Comprehensive-Gerd-Theissen/dp/0800631226 by Theissen and Mertz. I hadn't realized it was such a common title.

I haven't read the newest book, but I did read Misquoting Jesus last year. I had knowledge of the ideas before -- the mistakes in the current versions of the Bible -- but never had any specific examples. I am sure that there is a significant portion of the population that will rationalize away the points made, but they are valuable for anyone who wants to be a little more objective about the text. I am also currently reading another good one, The Historical Jesus, that is a review of all the historical knowledge that can be assembled about Jesus. Not just the Bible as a historical document, but all the Jewish and Roman and other historical documents that have survived. The interesting part of this book is just how strongly a purely religious point of view has colored the study of the history of Jesus for so long. Not the teaching of Jesus, but for a very long time even the noted historians who studied Jesus were clearly slanted with a religious perspective. I think that recently (15 or so years) there has been a wealth of good books presenting a more historical and objective view of the Bible and Christianity. There have been some good recent publications of non-canon Gospels, including the recent publication of The Gospel of Thomas and the lengthy historical discussion that accompanied it. I also think that it is good to have this kind of information out there, even if in all likelihood it won't do very much to actually change too many minds. Maybe the biggest disappointment to me was when I was in Catholic grade and high school, we were naturally required to take and pass religion courses. And, all-in-all, the study of the Bible and church history was presented in a rather objective way -- we talked about changes in the Bible and a lot of the darker history of the church. But, a lot of the stuff that I've been reading lately in the above books wasn't presented. It's like they wanted to give just a taste of it, but not delve into a full meal for fear of giving out too much information. It is probably too much to be expected in hindsight, but it is always easier to look back and see what could or should have been.

Anyone else see the irony in a user who gave themselves the name "infinitesolid2" have a problem with the concept of infinity? I think it's rather humorous.... "simple" is a relative term. Today' date=' to me, the math is relatively simple, but that is because I am now well versed in advanced math. Had you presented me with the math before I knew calculus, then I would not have called it so simple. If you don't know calculus, then it is not very likely that what you will be presented with will be called "simple". So, the question come back to you: how simple is "simple"? Because any good university calculus-based physics text is going to cover Newtonian mechanics thoroughly. If you are looking for a specific recommendation, Serway's [i']Physics for Scientists and Engineers[/i].

I took a philosophy of science class as an undergraduate. We used the book Scientific Inquiry edited by Robert Kee. It is a collection of many of the classical and contemporary essays and articles on philosophy of science. I don't know the field beyond that one class I took, but it seemed like a pretty good introduction to the subject to me.

No, there are other math errors. You didn't even address my concern over your use of the "scosine". The math you wrote up is very unclear. It it very hard to tell how one equation becomes another. And you cannot just "use" equations that don't fit the form. It's not just "breaking a rule". It is using something completely inapplicable to the situation at hand. It is like using a hammer to tighten a nut on a bolt. Or using a tape measure to measure how long it took you to read this post. It is simply a tool that cannot be used to perform the task you need to perform. To use a certain equation, what you have has to fit exactly the conditions to use the equation. And, just because I picked out one math error, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the others brought up in this thread. Please prove your method, especially by answering the direct questions. If you can actually do it, then you will win over converts. Otherwise, it is nothing but words. So, why don't you actually do it?

I read some of it. There are some significant errors. The big on that jumps out to me is: how do you plug [math]5x^2 + \frac{1}{x}-125 = 0[/math] into the quadratic equation??? It isn't a quadratic! It is third order! You have to use the cubic equation to get the right answer! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_function Also, if your "scosine" is based on triangles on a sphere, that doesn't really apply to triangles in a plane, so it doesn't help solve the problem at hand.

chain rule [math] \frac{df(g(x))}{dx}= \frac{df}{dg}\frac{dg}{dx} [/math] letting [math]f(y)=e^y[/math] and [math]g(x)=-x^2[/math], then [math]\frac{dg}{dx}[/math] is clearly going to be be proportional to x to the 1st power. This is definately missing from your expression above.

Again, the key phrase is, The laws of physics as we now understand them. It wasn't too long ago that many, many of the most respected scientists and engineers would have sworn that the speed of sound was unbreakable by any human navigated craft. They felt that nothing would be able to stand the stresses. The really simple truth is that we have only been studying these laws for a short, short time. And while it may seem everyday now, darn near every single convenience of modern life would have seemed like magic to all of human civilization not all that long ago. Not just the "mundane" things like telephones and calculators and television, but even things like the yields of modern crops would seem magical compared to farming methods not all that long ago. The common of today is the magic of yesteryear. It is not all that hard to suspend your disbelief a little bit and figure that what we would call magic today could at least be feasible in the future. I'll you the thing that always makes me question that suspension of disbelief is the amazing coincidences that always come together at just the last moment. Stargate I think was the worst about it, and I truly think that after a few seasons, they were doing it completely as a farce on themselves. Stargate would take a season or two to build up an arching storyline, and giant climax, in which through a series of amazing coincidences, the team would be able to destroy the until-then considered invincible enemy and save the planet. And then the next season, they would start all over again with an even bigger, badder, more undefeatable invincible enemy. Star Trek storylines -- and even most television shows really -- always rely on a fair amount of coincidence occuring, but Stargate went over the top in my opinion. They went so far, that they were like A-Team where bullets and explosions were everywhere and yet no one gets seriously hurt. I read in an interview where the producers of the A-Team knew how ridiculous it was and were always trying to make the situation as over-the-top as possible. Things like making tanks and even an episode where a helicopter crashed and yet everyone got up and walked away. I really think Stargate's producers were thinking along the same lines -- "OK, we just had them beat the 4th invincible enemy in a row. This season we're going to make the bad guy 50 times worse than last season's and make the team go on missions with one arm tied behind their back." The show was enjoyable from a silly point of view, like A-Team, but I found it hard to really get into it after the pattern repeated itself several times. And, I definitely agree with Sisyphus. Most characters on SciFi shows have a very, very short memory. "Yeah, that super gun we invented last week may come in handy this time, but I think that we should probably sneak over there in space suits and try to sneak a bomb onto their hull even though the risk is outlandishly high."

The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases by Chapman & Cowling. An absolute classic in the field. Calculus is an absolute must as a prereq, and some knowledge of differential equations will help quite a bit.

Most derivations of the fluid mechanics and other conservation equations will use the divergence theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivation_of_the_Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations The divergence theorem is used up there near the top.

In the most general of terms, sometimes it is easier to know how the quantity (of whatever you are measuring) changes in a volume, and sometimes it is easier to know the fluxes going into and out of the surface of that volume, and it is really darn nice to know how to relate the two.

Here is a significant part of your misunderstanding. "ball would keep traveling at 10 N" is a meaningless statement because of the unit error. Newtons, N, are a unit of force. In basic units, a newton is a mass*length/time^2. Your statement indicated that what is needed is something with the units of speed or velocity, length per time, such as m/s or miles per hour. mass*length/time^2 will never ever be the same as length/time. In physics, it is very important to get all the units right. As an example, if I asked you "how many strawberries do you have" and you replied "16 bananas" -- there was a significant unit error there. Answering in bananas does not in any way answer my question about strawberries. In the same way, an object cannot "keep traveling at 10N" because N is NOT a unit of velocity or speed. Anymore than an object can keep traveling at "10 strawberries" or "10 kilograms" or "10 dollars". These are all meaningless statements because of the unit error.

have you learned about the hyperbolic trig functions yet?

No, this cannot be right at all. How can the cow eat all the grass in 7.5 days when it takes both the cow AND the goat to finish in 45 days? The goat is making more grass? I don't think so. Any animal by itself MUST take a longer amount of time to finish than when any two of them team up. Again, the problem is not algebraic, it is calculus based as its heart. The numbers are rates, you can't just add them directly up, you have to multiply the rate by the period of time to get total amounts.

The main issue with the last few posters trying to solve it via algebra is that at its heart, this is a calculus problem. I.e. everything is rates, not just algebraic relations. Let [math]g(t)[/math] = amount of grass at time t, and [math]g_0[/math] is the initial amount of grass (a constant). Let [math]\dot{C}[/math] = amount of grass the cow consumes per unit time Let [math]\dot{G}[/math] = amount of grass the goat consumes per unit time Let [math]\dot{D}[/math] = amount of grass the duck consumes per unit time Let [math]\dot{r}[/math] = amount of grass that grows per unit time The equations of the statements given in the problem are: [math]\frac{dg(t)}{dt} = -\dot{C} - \dot{G} + \dot{r}[/math] with boundary conditions that @ t = 0 days, g=[math]g_0[/math] @ t = 45 days, g=0 The other two are similar: [math]\frac{dg(t)}{dt} = -\dot{C} - \dot{D} + \dot{r}[/math] with boundary conditions that @ t = 0 days, g=[math]g_0[/math] @ t = 60 days, g=0 [math]\frac{dg(t)}{dt} = -\dot{G} - \dot{D} + \dot{r}[/math] with boundary conditions that @ t = 0 days, g=[math]g_0[/math] @ t = 90 days, g=0 Finally we are given: [math]\dot{C} = \dot{G} + \dot{D}[/math] If you assume all the rates are constant -- and that isn't completely straightforward b/c while I can buy that the food consumption is probably a constant, I suspect that grass growth rate isn't. If all the grass is dead (g=0) then no new grass can grow. That would mean that growth rate would be a function of both time and amount of grass ([math]\dot{r} = \dot{r}(g,t)[/math]). But, if you do assume that they are all constant, you actually will end up with 6 equations (though 3 of them are trivial), 2 from each of the boundary conditions of the differential equations. Combine that with the rate relationship that the cow consumes at the same rate as the goat and duck combined and you have enough equations to solve for the 4 unknowns.

I know I am very late to the party here, but if anyone wants to actually learn some fluid mechanics, I suggest Munson Young and Okishii's Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics as an excellent all-around text. Fox and MacDonald is also excellent. Both are very commonly used as first-semester fluids texts in many engineering programs across the globe, simply because they do a very good job introducing the subject without going into great depth and yet covering the topic so that all the essentials are conveyed well.

I see the movies, but where are the measurements from the movies? Where are the predictions from your supposed new idea and then the experiment that objectively and quantitatively matches the idea? I.e. I want to see: experiment predicts x m/s velocity and y rad/s of rotation and my measurements from experiment are a m/s and b rad/s, which are z% of the prediction. Hopefully z is close to 100%. I see nothing like that. Without this, it is just word salad and pictures.

Maximums and minimums of f(x)=0 are found by taking the derivative of f(x) and setting it equal to zero and solving for the value(s) of x that solve f'(x)=0. If [math]f(x)=ax^2 + bx +c[/math] then [math]f'(x)=2ax+b[/math] which when you set equal to zero you will get that -b/2a. Your error stems from that fact that [math](5x-2)(2x+2) \ne 5x^2+3x-2[/math].

it is wrong because if you put 2 into the expression for x, it evaluates to 129, not -51. So, it clearly doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by "I did -3/10"? You mean you inserted the value of -3/10 for x? Why did you use that number? Also, (5x-2)(2x+2) isn't equal to 5x^2+3x-2. Also also, it isn't an "equation" because there isn't an equals sign. You have an "expression" or maybe a "function".

I would think any of the handbooks on "physical property estimation" would be a good place to start. I have an old copy of The Properties of Gases & Liquids by Reid, Prausnitz and Poling that covers estimating things like this. Most of them are correlations or fits based on experimental data instead of purely theoretically driven.

word salad. Can you make any kind of quantitative testable prediction? Or how about offer a test that would falsify this idea (it is not worthy of the moniker "theory" yet because there aren't any predictive capabilities yet)

How can nutrition be so much better (post #10) when not two posts earlier (#8) you tell us that most of the food we eat is "garbage"? Let's see, almost total eradication of deadly diseases like mumps, measles, and rubella in the modern day thanks to vaccines. The fact that the average person in the 1st world doesn't have to worry about a cold turning into bronchitis, then pneumonia, and then dying thanks to modern antibiotics seems like a pretty good thing to me. The fact that we can fight off quite a significant number of cancers -- especially with early detection -- injecting those poisons in the right amounts and times seems like a pretty good thing to me. Rather than dying of cancer at age 40, I'll take the (unproven) risk of whatever long-term side effects may kill me at age 70. I just don't buy that all of the increased life expectancy can be attributed to nutrition. Nutrition is going to be a part of it, but it is a combination of a lot of things, including better medicine. I'd like some proof of this statement: "So the people are living longer due to nutrition but when they get sick many times it is due to disease caused by a toxic state which was caused by years of drugs building up in the body". Specifically what diseases are caused by the buildup of what toxins, and what is the incidence rate of disease caused by toxic build up. Since it is, in your own words, "established medical and scientific fact" it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide several peer-reviewed sources to back up your claims. Thanks.

Just because a computer program makes results that you don't know how to interpret or seem nonphysical, doesn't mean it is a discovery. The first and foremost determiner of the value of a model is how well does it agree with physical reality. I can write a program wherein the outputted results are very confusing or nonphysical, but it doesn't mean that there is a change in the laws of physics. It means that I wrote a poor program. There is good reason the laws of physics exist in their current form today -- because they have been validated almost innumerable times over and over again. A single glitch in a program is not anywhere a good reason to attempt to overturn the law of physics -- especially ones that seem to be misapplied in this case.

Sweetness, the point is that the forum members aren't just going to provide it for you. We encourage you to do your own work. Why don't you post what steps you do know and we'll comment on that. Or, at least post your ideas about what the steps may or may not be and we'll help talk through that. What we won't do is spoon feed you answers.