JaKiri

Of different amplitudes and positions. Such as sin(x) + sin(x+15). As to the integration, basically :int:ax^n dx = (ax^n+1) / (n+1) + c. It gets a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea.

Look at it this way. Good. Very good. TNG is just rubbish in comparison.

That's really all there is to it. Aside from that, there's just a lot of maths.

http://www.ironworks.com/comedy/python/spam.htm Help! We're being attacked by urban myths!

Ok, I'll say 'omg imacs suck' because they are slower, less stable and more expensive than your average PC.

TOS is too haphazard, and rather rubbish for the most part. TNG is too happy happy america, as it were. DS9 is too derivative. Voy is too, well, rubbish. Ditto, Enterprise. X-Files started well, then collapsed. Never watched E:FC Ditto Farscape Lexx could and should have been much better; they never really got over the gimmickery. Firefly never had a chance to get going. So we're left with B5. Which, excluding Crusade and the first 1/2 of S5, was great.

As we're bumping old threads... You need moduli for dem. |1| does indeed = |-1|. It's basically the same as log 1 = log (-1)^2 = 2 log (-1) 0 = 2 log (-1) log (-1) = 0 log (-1) = log (1) 1 = -1. Again, missing the moduli.

As I said, I didn't know what you were talking about.

You implied that d('Entropy')/dt was 1, hence my confusion. Also HOW CAN EVOLUTION, WHICH IS A QUALITATIVE CONCEPT, HAVE A NUMERICAL VALUE?

what about d(TC)/dt?

What do you mean, his error? He only made one?

You put it in symbolic form so it must be right!

Well, the first one appears to have no meaning at all, and the second one tells us that dividing by zero is an undefined operation. As far as I can gather.

Whut?

'Baby Jesus skim reads posts.' is my favourite post of mine ever.

I have a spare computer hahahahahaha

Baby Jesus skim reads posts.

Just popping in to say that I'm shocked and appauled about redward's comment about the electron. The Dude out.

Join me in my quest to make PDE's harder. The process is far too simple as things stand.

Well, I'm pretty sure that any future theory on the origin of colour will be based around electron transitions; just because general relativity produces slightly different results to newtonian mechanics doesn't mean that gravity is caused by, say, flavour instead of mass. And http://www.google.com for maxwell colour, or just get a sodding physics textbook.

Light doesn't have a rest mass. It has momentum though (De B's :lclambda: equation)

It's actually quite useful to have time stopping at c, as it removes the possibility of something I don't think many people, when contemplating QP, have considered; that of the decay of exchange particles. Fortunately, there is no time so this can't happen. Be glad we've only got the uncertainty principle to worry about, and not about forces randomly changing into other forces.

That's to do with perception, rather than reality. I could be colour blind, but it doesn't mean that colours don't exist.

The point about Super String theory is that it explains something we can't using existing theories (ie. how GR and QM can coexist). It's not stating that all before has been incorrect, just either inaccurate or in the wrong metaphysical framework. Possibly both.

Whut?