thedarkshade

I guess I'm one of you too. I spend pages and pages and pages on that drill, and yet it always turned the same result:doh: .Thnx

I asked myself too about that, and I agree, you are completely right, but I got this PhD book that says what I previously posted.

sure, -infinite<x<-2

Well first there's no flame 10 km high, but even if there was the fact that it has gone so high tells that it is extremely light, a lot lighter than the air, so the possibility to pick it up cannot be dismissed.

Well that's wrong then, cause it does have a solution. You can see that just looking at the inequation, without doing it at all!!

I think reality matter more, because we live on it! We now have theories and models about time travel and wormholes too, but how possible are they???

What do you mean NEVER true???!!! Like there can't be a number (for x) so that the inequality would be valid?

Looks like everywhere is the same situation:doh: .

Theoretically yeah!

But ain't engineering a product of science?

Well there are a lot more complex things, but yeah, it's no different. After all, movement is a product of force, so how could it not be!

Sure! For example you have a question like this: "If a car moving with a velocity of 12m/s, for 10 sec reaches an acceleration of 15m/s^2, then what's the final velocity?" It is understood that some force causes this increase in energy, or this acceleration, bur to solve this you don't need to know how much force is put on the car. All you got to do is find final velocity, and to do that you absolutely don't need the concept of force!

In thermodynamics a very basic thing to know is that when you transfer energy to a system, not the entire transfered energy is now part of the system. Quiet a lot of that transfered energy is used in the forces that resist to this energy transfer. In other words, some energy is "lost" (not actually lost, it's used), while we transfer it to the other system.

It's a bit more I think! It's knowing why they happen and making them happen!

It's not really like we're doing physics without forces, we're just excluding force as a concept, as a definition. Everything includes forces, so the fact that force is actually everywhere is understood, so we don't need to mention that every time, that's why tvp45 said that you can do all the physics without the concept of force. BUT YOU CANNOT DO PHYSICS WITHOUT FORCE. That's like doing maths without multiplication or addition.

WELCOME TO COMMUNITY DUDE! Yeah, CGP are cool, try them! And the tree is right, do maths to learn maths (awesome tree;))

Not everywhere! The gravity pull on poles is felt more than in the equator! If a body in equator wights 1000g, in poles will weight 1005g. It's nearer to the center of earth (earth's gravity center).

That far too simple. Everybody know that! I think he was referring to something else, but is just did explain it the best way!

ANTIGRAVITY?? What about magnet levitation. Check the link: I mean, an object staying like that in the air, it makes you think about anti-gravity.

Oh damn! You're right swansont, it slip me it should be: F=G m1*m2/r^2 Sorry guys!

Precisely!

Not necessarily! Any two materials (same or different materials) with any mass (same or different) at any distance have this attraction force between them. And that force is measured with the formula above!

Well according to Newton's universal law of gravity, the force of gravity depends also on the distance, so it matters. F=G m1*m1/r^2

There's a lot of stuff to talk about II group elements. We all know that their characteristics change in a periodical way, but there are some slight deviations which don't fit with what is said in the book. 1. According to official data it is said that with the increase of the atomic number (the addition of electrons and protons) the melting point of the elements in II group decreases. So higher atomic number, smaller melting point. But the deviation is: ELEMENT MELTING POINT Be 1285 C Mg 650 C Ca 845 C Sr 771 C Ba 726 C Ra 700 C Ca has a bigger atomic number than Mg, but as you see Ca has a higher melting point. And according to what is said above the melting point should be lower!!! Any idea why? 2. With the increase in atomic number, the density increases too. As following: ELEMENT DENSITY Be 1.85 g/cm^3 Mg 1.74 g/cm^3 Ca 1.54 g/cm^3 Sr 2.63 g/cm^3 Ba 2.62 g/cm^3 Ra 5 g/cm^3 So as you see again, Mg has a bigger density than Ca, when it should be the other way around! Any idea?

A good way to help! Not funny man!