fuhrerkeebs

...I wonder why...

The Kaluza-Klein unification attempt was neither a string theory nor was it in 3 dimensional space. It extended the metric tensor to a (4+1) dimensional spacetime and used the extra spatial coordinates for the electromagnetic components.

When I first say that movie I couldn't believe they were using such a simple problem to show his genius. Such a good movie tainted by such poor details like that...

I know, I was trying to answer the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

Humans take in and care for stray animals all of the time, I see no reason other animals couldn't have developed some sort of compassion like humans.

It depends on how many terms are in the sequence. Assuming that the last term is a+(n-1)d, you get the values: a=512/(n+1) d=-192/(n2+n)

It doesn't make sense to me either way. How can something be around forever? Even if it's around forever it still needs come into existence...somehow. You just confuse things by saying it's been around forever. Oh, and I don't think the laws of physics have always existed...I believe the arose naturally from symmetry breaking.

Yes, but how do you expect to get the "form of intelligence" guiding natural selection without evolution. Unless, of course, you're talking about some magical being that we can't see or interact with and that has always existed. Yeah, I think that second option sounds about right. Yes, but your argument seems to assume ergodicity. And besides, I don't think there is anything out there that supports a 10^10000 year old universe.

You solved your equation wrong. Working backwards with your equation you get E2=m2c4-c2m2, which isn't right. Where did your momentum go?

Yeah, just use the potential energy that you're particle is interacting in. If there your particle is in an electric field, with one electric charge at the origin forming the field, then you would use V=kq/r^2, where k is Coulomb's constant. Same thing goes for any other potential energy. Then, just solve the equation (sometimes it isn't solvable exactly, however, and you're going to have to rely on numerical methods).

It's just the potential, such as gravitational potential or electromagnetic potential. The negative gradient of the potential is the force, if that helps. Just fourier transform.

Why can't you just substitute x -> x*log(e) and use the Lambert W?

It's because the speed of light is constant. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done before we knew how to add velocities relativistically.

I believe it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that seemed to show that the speed of light was constant, and this experiment was performed a few years before Lorentz or Einstein introduced the famous theory of SR.

Why can't the conservation of energy hold when the number is infinite?

It's a point that works when put into the equation. Lets say you had the equation y*3=2*x, then (3,2) is a particular point that fits into the equation, and a general point (x,y) is called an ordered pair.

Make an implicit plot and check the values (or you could go the easier, faster, and older route and just solve the equation for one of the variables yourself, and plug in any ol' number to get a pair).

Just as a funny side note, you guys should try googling "miserable failure" and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It's hilarious.

Answer ...but then again, creationism doesn't predict anything...at all.

Why not use that famous (I think it's famous) formula Gauss came up with to sum all of the number from 1 to x, such that it equals (x)(x-1)/2, and if you want to sum on the interval a to b, use ((b)(b-1)-(a)(a-1))/2. There's a very nice, intuitive way to figure out the formula for the young kids which I'm sure is easy to find after a quick google. [edit]Sorry, I just noticed that bloodhound pretty much posted the same thing.

Most of my classes at my school only count tests as 20% of the grade. The rest of the grade is due to things such as class participation, homework, classwork, etc. I definitely think your grades are more representative of your work ethic and not your intelligence.

I'm sure you've heard of a photon?

Whoa now buddy. The first article is definitely biased against evolution, as is shown clearly in this (incorrect) statement:

Whoa. That's like porn for nerds.

Personally, I'd go with Sayonara's suggestion and use a dev. tool, like Direct X. However, if you wanna do it yourself there are multiple ways of manipulating 3d objects, one of the most popular being matrices and spherical coordinates. And you can do it in any language, but alot of them won't give you the results you want, as alot of them are way to slow to handle all of the information.