imatfaal

Hal - you are either not a native speaker or an unreformed pedant; and further it is clear you obviously have no intention of learning. Respond how you will, but be assured most people listening will recognize deliberate pedantry and proceed accordingly

There probably is a more stylistic/intuitive way - but I cannot see anything that markedly improves on your. I would also, in an answer, be more explicit about my rearrangements and bracketing, and mention that as system is in equilibrium there are no net forces (ie tension balances gravity). Also in vectors as net force equals zero then T and mg should be opposite signs.

“A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right.” Stephen Jay Gould - Ever Since Darwin

No native English English speaker would doubt the meaning of "Don't you want a cup of coffee?" when spoken by another native English English speaker; nor would they fail to spot the certain situations in which this formulation would be used - although I am not sure you do. Further they would they have no difficulty with "this is the correct answer isn't it?" The answers to the question given were not wrong; your incorrect interpretation of the question lead you to believe they were wrong.

The whole point of alternative dispute resolution is that lawyers get less money and the case takes less time. I know personally and academically that this is the case and that the ADR system works - I have known a case of two gentile parties using jewish law because both their experiences in the past were very positive. Courts will support an panel's decision if both parties had previously agreed to those terms, it was not irrational, and provided that the decision was not at complete variance to the law of the land. If you are interested Wikipedia has a page.

If you are accelerating you will feel the force. On human scales it is indistinguishable from gravity; so if your rocket accelerates at 50 ms-2 you will feel 5 'g'. there is no way round it, you can lower the damage/danger caused to the human body, but to get faster you need to accelerate and you cannot shield the passengers from that acceleration

From Wikipedia page. this ad hom tu quoque and goes no whereYou're right about this being off topic

For curves symmetric about the turning point you can split the difference between the two roots or indeed any two points that give same f(x) - that would help for some simple curves

ForgYour I would start with the assumption that deceleration is uniform - ie that velocity/time curve is straight line sloping to zero. You know the initial velocity, you know the final velocity, and you know the distance covered. Look through your equations of motion and you should be able to make progress. This Wikipedia page has the basic equations - but you might try first to remember. As a final hint, you have v u s and need a (bear in mind you also have v2 u2) Captn Not sure where you are going - you have too many variables to solve it that way v=u+at remember a is the deceleration due to hitting ground not acceleration due to gravity (or if you want to be really careful it is the sum of the two) For extra credit you could consider other shapes of the velocity/time curve - what other factors would affect deceleration and investigate how you might find the deceleration at any point

Read the article. Other forms of dispute resolution are agreeable by parties to an agreement - the US and English courts (for hundreds of years) have stood by these alternative dispute resolution methods and enforced the results of the arbitration/mediation/tribunal.

You have to make an assumption about the rate of deceleration (ie the shape of the curve) as far as I can see.

You are imputing unfair motives when you state that physicists "decide ... that they have total insight over every possible descriptive possibility" - from my experience of watching and talking to professional and academic scientists they will use anything, that anyone has come up, created from any standpoint if it does one thing - give good predictions. There are indeed many ways to describe our physical reality; poets might use a certain way they feel to be beautiful or moving, a cartographer in order to help others find their way, a teacher so that others may learn - but science works on experimental results and any method that doesn't tally with those results is useless

I actually did the maths for a thread in a different place (this was to answer a question of the force for 5 micrometre separation and plate size 100m*50m) With separation being to the minus fourth power that's the variable any technological project must concentrate on lowering. I don't understand the physics well enough to be sure on one point - could you layer the plates? ie would you be able to get a large overall contraction through a multiple layer wafer where the gap between A and B experiences the effect, as does the gap between B and C... etc

Link to the European Space Agency which has released results from its satellite GOCE - link here it clearly demonstrates the variations in gravity/geoid. In general it seems that "Gravitational acceleration at Earth's surface is about 9.8 m/s², varying from a minimum of 9.788 m/s² at the equator to a maximum of 9.838 m/s² at the poles." from the same site. But there is a lot of regional variation - some of which we cannot explain other parts of which are due to local variations in rock density. From the maps available on the above site I guess you are lightest in Southern India/Sri Lanka and heaviest in Indonesia/Papua New Guinea link here I think you are right - a small dense potato shape surrounded by fluid would appear to have close to spherical surface (geoid). But on the orbit - no, I think that's not possible; in classical physics orbits are calculated with all the mass of a body at the centre of mass - you would orbit in an elliptical orbit around the centre of mass

Nope fraid not. The 'g's that you feel ARE the acceleration. If anything lessens that force (rather than using techniques to help the body cope with it) then you will simply accelerate less. Just guessing, but in a slingshot manoeuvre surely you would have lateral g to contend with as well

I am quite definitely not on the wrong side of the pond (but then who would believe they were), I also know about double negatives, and most importantly I understand the lyrics of Satisfaction - it wasn't an arch double negative, it was widely perceived as a protest against the tide of commercialism and pressure that young consumers felt. Likewise Roger Water's lyrics - it's a protest song, not a clever use of a linguistic twist.

But there is objective proof - the ability of people (on this forum with whom you correspond) to make predictions based on non-classical physics that would have been impossible without their learned knowledge and the progress in the last 50 years or so based upon the work of people like Feynman and Heisenberg. There are people on this forum whose livelihoods depend on the results of experiment being as predicted and derived techniques behaving as expected - they will provide more physically accurate answers than those who base their reasoning upon intuitive feeling or even upon the mainstream physics of the mid-20C. This could be experimentally proven. If there is a deliberate obfuscation it has failed miserably - we are able to predict with greater precision and depth than we were before the "false-education" through bewilderment that you allege took place.

What is? Ask simple questions and you will get answers.

The group that meet the criteria are identical - agree. The populations from which this criteria-matching group are taken are not identical. Thus the larger population will give a small percentage.

Lily - you might find it better to ask specific and simply worded questions rather than post large amounts of stuff that everyone knows to a greater or lesser extent. You will find people on the forum more than happy to help.

I agree - but when you posit an alternative reading/understanding with no indication of what the alternative intended meaning was or evidence to back up this claim then substantively you have said nothing. The questioning of motives only provides further information when it is accompanied by a logical argument (could be very short and implicit - "cui bono?") otherwise it is merely the automatic undermining of all comment through innuendo Watch the lecture - apologies for the larger than necessary mugshot of billy g http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

Damn - I hope you have some revision time! Bisection Method uses idea that if f(a)>0 f(b)<0 then the root must lie in between Find mid-point of your interval f(m) - it will then be clear that the root lies either between f(a) and f(m) OR between f(b) and f(m) as only one pair will straddle 0 start again with f(a) or f(b) and f(m) and find new midpoint rinse and repeat Will run into trouble if more than one root between the two initial guesspoints - this is the case if the curve touches the axis. Converges on a range not a value. Slow. Need continuous function

We don't know he wasn't playing with words - but, in general, the simplest explanation is the best, until and unless it is shown to be deficient. There is no quest for 'value' - the quest is for models and theory that prediction and explain. A fuller version of the Feynman quote is as follows There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Again, the simplest explanation for the use of the word safely is that Feynman was contradicting one idea and replacing it with his own and he was sure that his new idea was unlikely to proven wrong ie "I can safely say this without fear of contradiction". If you are to impute non-standard usage and covert meanings then the burden of proof is on you - everything can be questioned and subtextualised (I am pretty sure I just made that word up) but some form of argument is needed to give foundation to that questioning. The quote is taken from the Messenger Lecture series - it's all on-line, I will dig out a link The next line from the lecture expands on the theme of this thread So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

"isn't the correct answer...?" is generally considered to expect an affirmation if the postulated answer is the correct answer. This question is not the same as the re-ordering of words to make the statement "the correct answer isn't" The question "is the correct answer...? is asking a simple question. "isn't the correct answer...?" makes a proposition and rhetorically asks for its confirmation

we could call this obsession the "death of marat" Sorry. I'll get my coat and leave.