jordan

It's just about the same thing as any classical composer would have had access to, only styles change. The use of chord structure, note spacing, methodic vs. expressive styling have all changed even within what you are refering to as the classical period. There were many like the romantic and boroque that were very different because times changed. I would say that John Williams is just an extension of this into the 20th and now 21st century (albeit one the few).

Could you please (one of you who knows) give a quick little sentence defining each? I've probably heard them all before at some point, I just don't recognize them by name.

Standing ovation for Glider.

I'm assuming you're are talking about John Williams. A lot of his songs are very simple, and that's what I like about them. I have heard several that rely on just three or four notes for the entire melody. They are still great songs. One of my favorites is his Schindler's List theme, although it uses more than four notes for the melody, it uses some unique intervals instead. It's all very good stuff.

A. 1) Sleep is overrated. 2) It's only 9:07 my time so your ok. 3) You're very commited. Q. If you could only eat one more meal, what would it be?

I have a little different problem. My neck has been really stiff for a little while now, but wont pop. It just stays tense. Any ideas on how to make it stop?

A. Yes, of course. Q. Where would you visit if you could go anywhere?

A. Because it sure beats cutting the grass like I should be doing. Q. What's your biggest fear?

Anything to do with Beethoven?

Chopin is my favorite. I also like Rachmoninov's piano concerto #3. Oh, and I'll add to the list of those who have played the moonlight sonata (although movement 3 was my favorite).

Your right, no one did. I thought of taking that word out but I didn't. I only used guessing becuase lining a ruler up and trying to eye when it is the widest isn't really a mathematicly sanctioned method. For these instances it might work, but in the greater picture it wont. Because it's the greater principle at stake here. Yes, I know this seems a bit over-done, but I am a firm believer in learning principles. Experience with other students has led me to believe that those who don't understand basic principles have difficulty grasping more complex ones. In this case it is the act of using a compass and intersecting arcs I think they are trying to get at. Everyone's first reaction would be to just measure it and divide by two. The creative ones are the ones like DimShadow7's. True, but like I said before, if it is said that you could use a compass, that is a pretty clear indication that one's answer should include the use of a compass. All together, YT, I agree that yours is a valid answer. You asked why everyone made it so complicated, and I am just trying to explain why.

I don't know exactly what musical hallucinations are. Could you explain what they are quickly for myself and anyone else who doesn't know?

Hi, my name is indeed jordan and I have lived on pizza alone for the past three years.

How about the arcade? Is that gone for a while too?

I do tend to do things the hard way like that. I'm just horrible at memorizing formulas so I solve it my own way and end up with something close to the origional formula. It's kind of rewarding to do it like that sometimes. Other times it's just anoying.

I'd set up two equations, 1 for the height in terms of the base and 1 for the area of a triangle. Then, substitute the formula for height into the second equation and solve. A=(1/2)bh (b/2)*sqrt(3)=h I think that might work.

Depends on how you are defining intelligent? From option #2 I guess your implying they have to be at least as advanced as humans. And #3 shouldn't really be an option on a place called scienceforums (emphasis on the "science").

Hmmmm..... I don't know which one to hope for now: conclusive proof of him being a liar or from the future. My bet's on the first one.

Shoud your mom be anywhere near the kitchen at about 8 pm tomorrow, Saya is in fact from the future. It is conclusive proof.

If only I could find some of his stuff to look at. It is all too complicated for me to understand, it will take a while for school to kick in enough for me to be able to learn and no one knows enough to teach me right now. I've read a few books on the subject, and all the equations I have seen are pretty simple. Mabey I've only seen the easy ones though.

What story? Is this the one about the guy who claims he is form the future?

We are discussing a system of magnets in a vacuum so air resistance, friction and sound aren't problems. Where would they lose energy?

I recently read a book by Paul Davies called "About Time". Unfortunatly I had to return it and didn't get to reread it like I would of liked to. However, I was left with the impression that time, on a universal scale, is still relativly unkown. It talked about how what we see at any time is light from distant objects and the consequences of moving to different locations, like how doing so effected cause/effect relationships and how all events are happening at some point in the universe depending on where you are. Therefore it is difficult to establish a universal "now". It was a quite a good book.

What exactly would cause this system to lose energy?