ydoaPs

just go into the language tools part of the site and there is a lot more you can choose from.

take the inverse square law for gravity(or electric charges for that matter) [math]\vec{F}=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/math]. r2 has to be a dot product(if it wasn't, it would make gravity undefined for rxr is 0). mass is a scalar and so is the gravitational constant. so, how do we get a vector from a bunch of scalars?

how dare you bring that back up! /me gets out a plastic fork

can you explain that in english?

you can't really subtract vectors. you can, however, add the opposite of a vector(A+-B). do it like i said. put it in the v=(x,y) form and add that way. i suppose they want you to find the magnatude in the direction of the vector, so once you've added them, go ahead and use the pythagorean theorem

Christianity Today..........i wonder why they would be against it

it doesn't matter which direction they are in

proofs that require one to divide by zero are invalid. [math]\lim_{x{\to}0^+}\frac{c}{x}=+\infty[/math] [math]\lim_{x{\to}0^-}\frac{c}{x}=-\infty[/math] [math]\lim_{x{\to}0^+}\frac{c}{x}{\not{=}}\lim_{x{\to}0^-}\frac{c}{x}[/math] therefore, [math]\lim_{x{\to}0}\frac{c}{x}[/math] does not exist

you're supposed to add them. it may be easier(especially once you get more into kinematics) to put the vectors in the form [math]\vec{v}=<a_1,a_2>[/math]. it makes things like addition and products much easier.

wow, that was fast. he was gone within the first minute blike was online.

i wonder what he gets on the Baez rating....i'm not sure with how many times he declares it a paradigm shift

not to mention the fact that he keeps on about how popular he is on google and how many views this thread has.

it depends on what you plan on using it for

yes, due to length contraction

what do you mean being pulled by a force faster than light?

relative addition of velocities

every single one

everything in that post was valid....once again you are sidestepping

how so? methinks you keep sidestepping because you don't have a damn thing. congratulations, you can officially pull stuff out of context. want a cookie?

do you get paid for your pulsoid theory stuff? btw, not being formally recognized by scientific community=not being recognized by the scientific community....funny how that works, eh? how about any actual physics from pulsoid theory and his accusation was correct

again with the sidestepping...why? just pick one. how are they circularly defined........i'll take a shot......[math]\vec{x}[/math], [math]\vec{y}[/math], [math]\vec{z}[/math], and [math]\vec{t}[/math] are vector spaces that are orthogonal to each other. and none of them mean a thing until you define them in a non-circular manner stop with the sidestepping, unless, of course, you actually do have nothing and are just looking for attention... a dictionary is NOT a technical resource

here's an easy question if your class adds another dimension. you only need the equations you already have. Given; A=<3,-2,-4>m/s^2 , V0=<1,2,3>m/s, R0=<30,-80,40>m, T=8s. Find; R, V, Vave [hide]R=<30,-80,40>, v=<25,-14,-29, vavg=<13,-6,-13>[/hide]

i told you SEVERAL TIMES. EVERY SINGLE TERM YOU INTRODUCE IS DEFINED IN A CIRCULAR MANNER. mine are asserted.....mostly by your links. yours, however, are not. it's hard to find a mistake in math that does not exist. all of them that are based on c=infinity and speed of grav=infinity. you have sidestepped nearly every question that has been asked of you.