Ragib

0^0 is formally undefined, but in certain fields such as measure theory, it is convenient to assume it is 1. And i'm very surprised no one has noticed that the equation you describe is transcendental, meaning there are not polynomials with rational coeffients of which the solutions are roots of. Essentially this means there is no analytical way of getting solutions, merely approximations.

Also when you know some functions can't pass a certain value, eg Sin and Cos. Functions of the type you described, polynomials, are always continuous and have an infinite domain and range. When roots, or special functions are involved, then you have to check.

haha lol your way of defining a tangent better? Or your question? If it was your tangent definition? Have you heard of the Floor function? Your definition fails there.

Ahh thats just nit picking, you knew perfectly well what he ment.

I never said I was correct to do that, just that I merely did. And ParanioA, i have already understood the concept, once again, I understood, and I made a mistake.

Ok don't laugh I realised i did have a tiny bit of time. I basically did what i said before, and i get v= 714.285714285 repeating 714285. Am i correct?

I don't have any time to exacts right now, but I'd imagine Number 3 would be solved like this: F=ma, since mass in constant, change the F to a, and adjust. Since a is constant till 0.04, use v=u+at. After that express it as a function of time, integrate to achieve velocity, substitute 0.08 into that equation.

You are under the assumption that the time stops from our frame of reference, even before the singularity forms. And also, time slows down because information, or light, takes longer to travel to us. In the frame of reference of the singularity however, time is going normal. In its own frame it can form. We may see it finally finish forming much later than it actually does, but eventually will.

I used knowledge and intelligence interchangeably, as those who have knowledge commonly have intelligence and vice versa. And either you are confused of my opinions, or have a different view on stupidity.

aha ha this is hilarious, students fighting over whose teachers are more prominent in their respective fields. Kids will be doing that about me someday, except I'll be the clear winner . ha ha jk jk. Seriously opinion matters very little in science, and most opinions are crap. Thats why i like science. It doesn't matter whose professor is smarter. They may have dumbed things down for you to understand, and made it purposely incorrect, which may be why you are fighting. I even saw Stephan Hawking make mistakes on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in his book, the universe in a nutshell. Now obviously he knows What they principle is and its implications, he just had to dumb it down, and that involved changing it completely..

Not exactly...a tangent to a polynomial may intersect at more than 1 point. A tangent is best defined as the limiting Secant PQ as P approaches a stationary point Q. P and Q are points.

Hmm...dats hard! Please enlighten us...

O sorry my bad it was exhaust velocity, not escape. I just saw the small e and i automatically assumed escape. I don't normally delve into Rocket Science too often. As to deriving it, it says on the wikipedia article: The equation is obtained by integrating the conservation of momentum equation mdv = (ve)dm where ve is exhaust velocity. Fair Enough.

I Think i have the perfect thing, perhaps you could put it into latex for me later though. Velocity= Escape Velocity x Natural Log of (Mass/Orignal Mass) This shows the velocity through different times of mass, changing by say, expenditure of fuel, in this case water.

My bad, I must have interpreted a certain book wrongly then..Sorry about that Janus. I should have realised....anyway, Farsight beat me to it, but yes we always try to describe things in a way we are familiar with. Whoever said waves and particles aren't the same thing on a microscopic scale? Theres no need to explain why it behaves like both if we realise theres no reason why waves/particles aren't the same on a certain scale.

Yes there are some who are gifted, and for most it is a mixture. But anyone who tells me I am gifted, and says nothing else, is insulting me. Yes Knowledge is Power, SCIGENIUS. Some are born with it, eg A Prince. Some have to earn it eg A President. Some are born with a bit and work with it, eg Donald Trump.

Once again ParanoiA I must disagree. I personally despise people who say Intelligence or Knowledge is given to you, your born with it. I worked god damn hard for my knowledge and no God or parent gave that to me. I got it out of pure hard work. People say its given to you as an excuse to not bother trying.

People here are confused about Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle. You can NEVER measure perfectly, even with perfect methods. It is not an observer effect, but rather an inherent uncertainty. The particle itself does not know what state it is in, unless its wave function collapses. God himself, if he exists, would not be able to measure better.

Am I missing something here? Which rocket equation are you referring to? I had a feeling there was more than one...

Which is why Kepler only believed his theory to be an approximation. He said it was not real, but could be used for calculating the motion of the heavens. Only after the mathematics was provided he believed it reality, because the math demanded it.

Could I just please know that if the universe has always been infinite in extent, how exactly is the cosmic background radiation explained by your model? Shouldn't that be infinitely red shifted as well?

ParanoiA, do you really think that I learn physics to be special, unique, seek attention? Or for a living/career? You could not be further from the truth. I'm sure there are others who can relate when i say I study mathematics and physics for the sheer beauty of it. I believe there is nothing in this world more enlightening and rewarding than the study of these subjects. And no, i dont expect him to know this, but please make an attempt to learn BEFORE you post in such a website. And it interests me how you understand string theory, but not quantum mechanics. I'd imagine the book was The Elegant universe. Let me tell you, You will not believe how much he simplified it so the public would understand it. But he was right to refer to them as point particles. They do not imply mass, but can have it. As to volume, none at all. Farsight: "I don't care what mathematics tells us". Shows what you know. I believe it was Kepler who was the first to believe in a a solar system, with elliptical orbits. Not because of "real life" but because the mathematics demanded it. And it seems real life agrees with him, just as it always does. Mathematics governs our reality, our existence. And, when i said that they are point particles, i was referring to photons rather than waves. How you measure them depends on your observation. But you can not say that light isn't both. swansont: A TAD strong? Thank you for your kindness, but I know i was not pleasant at all. Other than that, I agree with you in every aspect. I didn't give a crap when matt grime completely crushed some of my views in a far more arrogant way. I don't care because i have learned from my errors. Tycho?: Thank you, hopefully you never will.

That time of month? Overinflated head? Lack Of Pubic Hair? At least what I say is proven. I'm not even going to bother trying to talk to you.

Maybe have worked on it. No one has achieved a proof. Most say you can safely believe that P is not equal to NP. Just like The Riemann Hypothesis, which is verifed for more than 10 trillion non trivial zeros, I doubt theyll find one.

could i just please know WHY he doesnt believe in carbon dating? Does he believe any science at all? If he doesnt believe carbon dating, he wont believe anything you say.