timo

What if [math] m=0, \, p \neq 0 [/math] ? Anyways, you´re better off stating that energy (rather than mass) was the source of gravity - you run into trouble justifying photon contributions, otherwise. @Kojiami: What is matter?

That´s probably a problem stemming from the changes to the page that are currently done. Let´s hope it´ll be fixed, soon.

That would depend on whether it´s positive or negative zero

What had Louis XIV said had he been the leader of a basque seperatist organization rather than the king of france? "L´ETA, c´est moi !".

I remember having edited some terribly-written advertizing article about a science forum some time ago. Wrote two articles for the german version, made a few edits (as an IP) on the english one. What I find interesting is the very wide range of competence encountered on WP (that includes feedback by people who have no a-priori knowledge about the topic at hand). What I dislike are amateurs trying to contribute directly to topics they don´t have a clue about ("I have rewritten the introduction such that it´s easier to understand" on the cost of the introduction now being wrong) and page-long pointless discussions which only become so long because many people feel they can contribute to the topic ("We need a WP standard: Should we denote vectors with arrows or with fat letters?").

I looked it up: The value on Wikipedia is pretty much correct; the 1.667 is wrong (I misread Klaynos' post and took the "1." as part of the value). Since you´re obviously not a stupid bimbo, you should be able to figure out all the rest yourself.

I don´t know many high school students such as yourself (I don´t even know what "high school" is) but there you go: [math] G= 0.00000000001667 \frac{N m^2}{kg^2} [/math] (value copied from Klaynos' post without verification).

It all depends on why you actually want to substitute something. The example you gave looks like you want to substitute to integrate the function. Well, some functions are simply not easily integrable (or not at all) analytically. Substitution is not a method that guarantees you an easy solution. Sometimes, you´re simply screwed.

satirical Do you think comedy can serve a higher purpose? Or maybe you just like poking fun at people. Either way, you seem to enjoy satirical humor. Satire is the use of irony and wit to expose the unethical or just plain ridiculous aspects of society. Satirists come in many forms. There are political critics such as Jon Stewart and Tina Fey, cultural jesters such as Weird Al Yankovic and situational comedians such as Margaret Cho. With satire, you can critique your subject using parody--imitation, exaggeration, fake mustaches, etc. When you are funny, it's easier to share an opinion that is a little controversial. Do you want to influence people? Keep them laughing and they won't know what hit them. 299 other people got this result! This quiz has been taken 1260 times. 23% of people had this result.

I think some of you misread the original setup. It said R is a set of real numbers and Q is a set of rational numbers. It didn´t say R was THE set of real numbers and Q was THE set of rational numbes. So R\Q (written as R-Q here) can of course contain rational numbers, e.g in the case R = {1,2} , Q = {1} => R\Q = {2}.

Where/what would the difference to object-oriented programming be? Perhaps a sketch might help understanding what you´re trying to say.

In popular scientific physics, the term "theory of everything" often means a physical theory which, in principle, could describe all observed physical processes without inconsistencies. There is no such theory/model that is generally accepted, less one that would be easy to understand. Maybe Steven Hawking was the one who coined the term "theory of everything". Or maybe the statement you heard refers to some work of Hawking which was misinterpreted by the media as being a theory of everything. Media news should generally taken with a bit of care since they need to make things sound more interesting to at least get a bit of attraction. For example, out local newspaper really loves to say that scientists at the GSI reproduced a mini big bang at their laboratory when indeed they are simply colliding heavy ions at very large energies.

- I think you´re not understanding the 2nd question correctly. Find out what the base vectors should look like, first (we´re talking about the normal R³ here). - Using a determinant should work for deciding whether vectors are linearly independent.

Yes, but it would be helpful (also for others who might be interested in reading it) to state how you came to that result. An example: From the three spanning vectors define new vectors a, b and c: a = t - (t-1) = 1 b = t c = (t²+1) - (t+1) + t = t² From the three spanning vectors you have, by linear combination, constructed three vectors 1, t and t² which are obviously linearly independent. Therefore the dimension is three.

Quantum mechanics is a mandatory course in every physics education, so it´s offered by all universities. I find it hard to formulate the reason so I´ll just give you my advise: Don´t bother about the quality of the QM courses, if at all then bother about the university's research activities and whether you´re interested in them or not.

Find the maximum number of linear independent vectors (the vectors being t, t-1 and t²+1). For the dimension I´d simply say it´s two since there´s two independent parameters describing the subspace - there´s possibly some more formal way of doing it. For constructing a basis, just pick two vectors from the subspace which are linearly independent.

Sure, humans are cure. But how else are we supposed to test cosmetics?

SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC: I am not sure if you are aware of it but just in case: The usage of the terms "elastic collision" and "inelastic collision" you used is that which you´re used from everyday-life. However, the scientific meaning of the terms is different, at least in physics. There, "elastic collision" refers to a collision in which the kinetic energy is conserved. An inelastic collision hence is one, where some of the kinetic energy is transformed into some other form of energy. A typical meter scale of an inelastic collision is a car crash, since cars are explicitely designed to absorb a lot of the energy by deforming. On the atomic scale, an inelastic collision would probably be activiting one of the colliding molecules/atoms to an exited state (vibrational modes, excited electron states) - or in a broader sense also by destroying the bound state. So if you ever happen to run across the term "deep inelastic scattering" - it has nothing to do with picking very hard targets (like very hard protons ), but with studying the target by activating some internal degrees of freedom and observing the results.

That´s sooo unfair, I wanted the "Formerly Atheist" user title .

I don´t know how widespread the symbol pn is, so perhaps you should state what it is (I neither know it, nor can I see it from your plot).

Finding someone to proof-read will probably not be a problem. For questions that arise during writing, you can ask in the forum. If you´re still interested, the two of you should contact each other via PM to discuss the details. Considering style, I was thinking about something like the redshift-article (http://www.wisci.org/wiki/Redshift), i.e. neither hollow words nor a pure calculation without any explanations.

How ´bout a WiSci article about the topic. Anyone interested in writing it?

I am not sure if I understand your problem. You want to (or shall) state your point of view. Surely, you´ll have an opinion (which does not necessarily have to be a blunt "agree" or "disagree"). You´ll also have reasons for your opinion. You´ll certainly know which points are the most important for you and how they relate with opposing arguments. Just reverse these parts; restate the (for you) most important arguments and why you consider them the most important. Then, state your opinion ("Therefore, I believe that ... ").

4!!!! = 24!!! > (24!/9!)!! > 10^10 !! > (10^10 ! / 10^9 !) ! > 10^90 ! > 10^90 ! / 10^89 ! > 10^(90*89) = 10^8010. In other words: 4!!!! has more than eight thousand digits (probably a lot more). You´d better be prepared to need a large pice of paper if you want to calculate it. EDIT: To emphasize that above was only a very rough lower limit: 24! = 6.2 *10^23 already, which already is 13 orders of magnitude greater than my approximation. And as a side-effect, we now know how to write the Avogadro constant in a way that no one will understand . EDIT2: You (abskebabs) are right. I somehow though it was 6.22*10^23 when I wrote it; only remembered the ...22 .. ^23 part and forgot about the zero, somehow.

Just in case you'd blindly plug in without taking care of the units: 4/3 pi r³ of course isn´t the surface of a sphere but the volume of it.