ydoaPs

some may not know what factor label is. it is simply converting units my way of multiplying fractions so that units cancel leaving only the desired units. say you want to go from 7cal into J. [math]\frac{7cal}{1}*\frac{4.184J}{cal}{\to}30J[/math] 2miles/hr to m/s [math](\frac{2mi}{hr})(\frac{hr}{3600s})(\frac{1609m}{mi}){\to}.9m/s[/math] note:i suck at significant digits, so i just rounded however i wanted

disagree disagree. it's okay to be gay as long as you don't hit on me. disagree disagree disagree AGREE!!!!!!!!!!! disagree disagree disagree' date=' although i do think that people shouldn't smoke around people that don't want to get cancer. disagree agree, if they don't even attempt to learn the language of their new country disagree although i do consider abortion to be immoral disagree disagree disagree disagree

[math]x=x_0+v_0t+\frac{1}{2}at^2[/math]. you will need to use it more than once. find the time it takes for the first car to go 2.2km and then use that time to find a. [math]v^2=v_0^2+2a{\Delta}x[/math] a=v/t and use the distance formula from above. [math]v^2=v_0^2+2at[/math] old physics text?since you only need to know how much it increases, you can set initial velocity to 0 and use [math]v^2=v_0^2+2at[/math] for a, use the 19.0m/s/day and use factor label i'll have to think about this one. i'll answer back in a bit

/me doesn't know what would be considered extremist about him

i was thinking your meterstick or whatever. the lines have thickness. there are not an infinite number of them. so your measurement could be like 8.6 +/-.1cm. that would give you about .01% uncertainty in itself

measuring device itself

i keep getting this one now. and it was removed before the last one. i still don't think that was spam, though. it is just as valid as Christianity. imo, if FSM gets a spam warning, so should God, but that isn't what this thread is about.

Can you help you?

What do you think a statement is?

do you know how to make a statement?

who said i'm a hacker?

why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?

it's a chess set....w00t....what do i win?

lets see: 1)not a scrap of evidence 2)vague beyond meaning 3)all terms have circular definitions 4)not way to test it 5)what little base it has been experimentally proven to be false

ha! you criticizing me for not using math! i know how to do the math for this problem. i have actually done it a few times on this forum alone. just stop taking the thread off topic and keep your rubbish in its designated thread.

it's not theoretical physics, it is baseless spam. maybe you should support your claims. stop taking this thread off topic

fagel, nice way to cover up your lip.

there is a separate thread for your crap. keep it in there

start with my questions above

Vsl?

back to topic: instantaneous velocity of light is always c. average velocity can be less than c.

does swansont know anything about theoretical physics? ha! lmfao...lolly roffles....|=!\/3...so on and such...

there's another thread in which you can talk about your spam