JaKiri

Somehow I doubt you'll be able to :|

Proof by induction agogo

Oh god, this sounds like Hawking. IGNORE HIM HE'S A MORON. an argand plane is where one axis represents real numbers and the other imaginary. Just have 2 of those instead of 2 lines for the axes.

Eh NSX?

The sum of an infinite number of ever expanding powers.

I don't really see the point of fusing all the way up to iron, as the energy you gain by the fusion of the lighter elements (assuming you can get past break-even in any case) is exactly the same as the mass defecit between the iron and the starting hydrogen (you'll have more hydrogen than iron). Plus it'd be really difficult and overcomplicated and stuff. And you could control anything using a magnetic field if you ionised it.

6, 7 and 9 s respectively on first attempt.

It does if you have a 3 (or 4) dimensional graph with each set of axes being represented by an Argand Plane.

I wrote that post about 5 minutes before falling asleep from exhaustion. Forgive me master. They are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they are complimentary topics.

I think he means photons and gluons and the like.

I was referring to the mass rather than the energy.

What are you talking about? It's not what I was talking about, certainly (giving a mass kinetic energy).

I'm talking contextually you goon

The gained mass is a function of the rest mass.

If you mean literally what you said, Photons.

eh?

Energy is converted to matter just by moving (Lorenz transforms). Energy is converted to matter in collisions in particle accelerators. etc etc. There are no problems doing that. Matter is just another form of energy.

No, you can't. Laplacian Determinism went out with Quantum Theory.

c being defined as the speed of light in a vacuum.

You appear to have missed my point that there is no absolute proof, and any definition we have is empirical.

Without the universe, there is no concept of time. And light in a vacuum always travels at c.

You cannot prove that this is the real world. You can only prove that it isn't, and you cannot do either from first principles (as in any argument). All other arguments on the issue are either wrong or bastardisations of those. You're also using overprecise definitions of words. English is a subtle language, and this must be reflected in your arguments. ps Cogito ergo sum for those of you talking about existance rather than the issue of 'reality'.

It doesn't. It's formed from a Taylor series.

It depends what you do. For instance, imaginary numbers are rather vital in certain areas of electronics. You might as well say this of any topic that you won't directly use in your life (assuming you don't use them). Bear in mind, of course, that the "imaginary" part is just the name and only idiots misunderstand this to mean that they don't exist.

Break-even has been reached, by several different methods. And cold fusion was the physical misunderstanding of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann leading them to believe that fusion was happening in Palladium.