thedarkshade

Would you sound the same iNow?

The guy was asking about alloys, and there are no such that resist gravity! For more, molten metals in the center of earth serve as the source of gravitational pull! Bird and rockets use something else to resist gravity. Something called energy! Using that it's understood that one can resist gravity! Think of picking a stone from the ground! It's that simple resisting gravity, bur the stone itself can't resist, can it?

I'm having some troubles with some software which require activated windows, but my ones pirate! So could anyone help me somehow to activate this pirate xp professional?? Any link, hint, trick or help would be appreciated?

Oh come, it's not that big deal! I just want some revenge for the ignorance toward my ideas! It's not that I'm kinda nerd or something, but ignorance hurts man. I mean, I am expelled from entering school's lab! That's awful man! So could please some please tell how to get some, excluding electrolysis!

Absolutely not! NOTHING can naturally or artificially resist gravitational pull!

How smart is that???!!! Then how come that action happens in no time? because photons are beyond the time barrier!

It may sound kinda weird, but I personally think that the quest for finding extra-terrestrial intelligence is just a waste of time! Even if out there is any sign of that, they're smart enough not to be observed!

Yeah I was told too that fire is a "reddened" gas! I agree with YT2095! There's no smoke in the oxidation of glucose either. You guys might think that what I'm saying (oxidation of glucose) is stupid and has nothing to do with fire, but they're actually the same thing (just some slight differences)! The differences from pure fire and glucose oxidation is that, in fire that occurs in nature the energy is released explosively and that causes the increase in temperature (more exact heat), but in glucose oxidation the energy is released step by step and in the presence of water. And there is nothing wrong by saying that glucose oxidation is actually a process of burning glucose!

I had a different idea! Like making the "bomb" circular with water and leave a hole to put potassium inside. That put that circular in a bigger circle filled with hydrogen! Then when the small one blasts (because of its potassium reacting with water) it will light the hydrogen released in the reaction with water and then also light the other hydrogen in the big circle, creating so a lot of flame and havoc, but no danger. Right?

Causing the other object a phenomenon called 'anti-gravity' (as far as I know:confused: )

How come antigravity doesn't exist? what about Archimedis force? It pushes everything up (against the gravity attraction) as long as the body weigh ([math]Q = mg[/math]) doesn't exceed Archimedi's force. How can it not exist? this is only for vacuum!

Thnx for the compliments Melvin!!! And I'm intentionally building that, of course not for mad purposes. And it's little, but it can do BIG things, it really can, and all I need is just potassium, so could someone just tell how do I get some. And please exclude the method of KCl and KOH hydrolysis because I'm banned to enter school's laboratory for my previous experiments! I'd really appreciate some help! Please? YT2095??

yeah, sure I'd love too, as long as no one gets hurt! I'd really love too!

But being blown apart is more exciting isn't it!!!

thnx about this, but I plan to do something with it! I have prepared all the necessary other stuffs and all I need is potassium! It's a sort of a bomb (a little one) just to surprise my professors. thnx anyway

Absolutely! It all depends how you look at it! If you look a clock from behind then you'll see it moves counter-clockwise!, but you can't have an absolute frame of reference to decide about either one!

It is the same thing! In a more simple way I think me must put [math] -\ln (x+2)[/math] on the other side so it turns positive and then it goes like this: [math]\ln x-1 > \ln x+2[/math] and then we drop the logs and as the base is bigger than 1 the inequality sign doesn't change so we get three inequations [math]x-1 > x+2[/math] [math]x-1 > 0[/math] [math]x+2 > 0[/math] the last two equations are because log of negative numbers does not exist! And then all we got to do is find the values, place them on the number line and the interval that matches with the sign of the inequality is (or are) the solution!

I agree with you! And that push back is because of the distance from the photon. It will not push back any more you are maintaining a distance of [math]3 \times 10^{-10}[/math]m (at least they told us this at school:doh: ), because this distance is said to be neutral. And if the distance is larger then the force should normally be attraction!

What I meant Atheist about drawing number line I meant to draw OX line and put the number we found in there and them take positive side as solutions as the sign was >.

Exactly! Waves (or sound) after all are vibrations of molecules in elastic medium! And a wave spread can otherwise be understood as the energy transfer from one molecule to another! One thing that must be understood about wave is the wave source and the interesting thing is that the wave source does not necessarily vibrate, it only rotates! There are also other important term related with the physics of waves like wavelength, amplitude, frequency, period, wave phase, wave speed etc. If you want any further explanation cscX related to these, just let me know!

I watched some videos lately which were really helpful and according to them the equation I posted earlier has to be solved this way: logx-1 - logx+2 > 0 logx-1 > logx+2 (drop the logs) and we get x-1 > x+2 and x-1>0 and also x+2>0 for x-1>0 get clearly get x>1 for x+2>0 we get x>-2 but for x - 1 > x + 2 (x on both sides so they're canceled) we get -1>2 ; which is impossible so this falls ( at least I think so!) next what we got to do is draw the number line and but x>1 and x>-2 there, and as the sign is greater (>) then we take positive values. I think it must be done this way. what do you guys think?

I didn't make up this example and take another look at it and you'll see that IT IS bigger than 1 (at least according to my book!)

Thanks for all that guys, but could me get to something more practical. I'll take a very very simple example and you just tell how ti goes: logx-1 -logx+2>0 then we get logx-1/x+2>0 and according to the rules we learned x-1/x+2>0 and that were it come what I said that you can't multiply with a variable (in this case (x-2). So what should I do here? Equalize the left side with a zero???? Or it could be this way logx-1 -logx+2>0 logx-1>logx+2 and then we'd get x-1>0 x+2>0 x-1>x+2 Please Help me!!!

How possible is that! You can't multiply with a variable like you do with equations!

Hi everyone! Lately at school we've been dealing with logarithmic inequations and they seem pretty tricky. So I was wondering if anyone could add a link or just post some useful hints that would help solving these inequations. I'd appreciate any kind of help!