Ceasium

It's a choice between two devils. You can't have one without the other. I think I'd choose happiness over intelligence. Yet if you are not that intelligent, you are missing out on a whole lot amizing, and beautiful science. But you wouldn't care anyway in that case.

Thanks, that was the step that I needed to solve it correctly

I used your approach, and it worked, see the attached files. But if I now try to evaluate the integral on the given points, all I get is nonsense. If I evaluate the integral on the given numbers, I get a non- true answer. (see attached files in my previous post). Can someone see what I am doing wrong whilst evaluating the limits

Thanks for your reply. It got me somewhere, yet I am stuck again on the unsolvable part. I've attached my working out here, and on the second page I try to work out the integral, but then come across a problem. Can you see where my computation went wrong? Or should I try a whole different approach? -edit: now attached the files math hw 5 calc 5 (1).pdf Math hw 5 calc 1 (2).pdf

Hi, I need to integrate the following function: f(x) = 1/x2 * e1/x Where x does not equal 0. Determine a number a < 0 such that: The integral of a till 0 f(x)dx = f(a) What the question aks is on other words: Find a number a, such that the number a equals the surface under the graph and its position on the x-axis. All that remains for me is to determine the integral of the function, I have tried integration by parts, substitution with u = e1/x , and improper intergrals, but none seemed to work. (I was working in loops, or making the integral even more difficult) Can someone help me in the right direction?

That explains the whole thing, thank you

I will give you a simple explanation that might make you think out of the box. 1.) (Amount of energy 1 - amount of energy 1 = no energy at all) 1-1=0 2.) Now comes the reasoning, lets say the whole universe is energy one, just imagine there is another universe, somewhere beyond the borders of ours. Lets say that it has energy -1, and that if both universes meet, they will annihilate each other, leaving no spare energy. 3.) Now you can come to the conclusion that we can exist without the help of an external force, and the law of conservation of energy isn't broken either.

Imagine that at the start of the universe, a photon has a short wavelength x. Due to the universe expanding its wavelength decreases. A longer wavelength suggests that the photon has lost energy over time. (I've googled it and found out that the photon has lost over 99,9% of its energy over time). What has happened to this energy? Can one of you come up with a reasonable understandable explanation (I'm a first year physics students, so my toolkit is very limited). It undermines the principle of the law of conservation of energy, if the energy is just lost.

I disagree with your point of view (if I misinterperted it, correct me). You are stating that you can strive towards a state of permanent happiness. The problem is, there is no such thing as permanent happiness. You can be permanently satisfied with your life, but this does not mean that you are happy. I am satisfied with my life, but I am occasionally happy (probably a few times per week). For instance if I'm with my friends chatting, fooling around etc. I am happy for a moment. Or if I understand a difficult mathematical equation/theorem after some time, I get happy for half an hour. And afterwards, all that I'm left with is satisfaction, not happiness.

Honestly, I think that the moral code between atheits and theists is not very different. The stories about finding money are too stereotypical ... . It depends on person to person what he or she does with the money. A religious person can justify keeping the money by thinking:' Well god put this money on the street for me for a special reason, and therefore I am in my right to keep it, because god wanted this to happen for me.' An atheist can act the same way by thinking:' Hahaha, that s*cker lost his money lets live up to Darwins rules, survival of the fittest, the winner keeps it all.' Most of us agree on that whether you are religious or not, the action above is immoral. Our sense of morality is cooked into us by our parents/the bible, but mostly by nature. You can encounter a situation which is completely new to you and still make a decision that is moraly right, without any support from 1. God 2. Your parents 3. Another example in society. Someone above me mentioned that the bible states that any child who swears should be stoned to death. All religious people (except for some nuts among them) still don't do this. Why? It is immoral to stone anyone to death, even when the bible says that this is ok to do. This is a gut feeling that surpasses the 'morality' of the bible. From: What is the purpose of morality http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/what_is_the_purpose_of_morality/ An intresting interview on where morality comes from: http://abcnews.go.com/News/famed-biologist-frans-de-waal-argues-humans-inherited/story?id=12226888

Too bad this became an argument, so lets set it aside. As I'm thinking about some reasonable input in this discuassion, my thoughts cease at: 'If everything is predetermined, where is the master plan of every single happening? Where is this plan heading to? What can be consedired a happening, one orbital of an electron? Why is there a masterplan, and why is it unfolding this way?' On the other hand, if everything consists of comeplete randomness, how is then determined what the outcome is going to be? When was this chosen? How is this outcome selected out of the many others?

@Alyssacrybabymedia Why don't you shine the light partly on the more shy, but well educated children (They probably have some intresting things to say about darwinism, ethics, gun laws etc. Or is this too risky for US television?) And change it off with some do it yourself soda bottle experiments.

Well, I don't think that expensive burocrats are the main reason (I think each counrty itself decides what their representatives earn). You are mostly afraid about losing some of your sovereignity, and other 'disadvantages' such as having to pay a bit more taxes, so that the poorer countries such as Rumania can develop notable industries as well. But Manfromzurich, why do you think that it is not a good idea for Switzerland to enter the European Union?

Thank you for enlightening me on this topic. I've read some more and found some 'disturbing' things out. In my country of origin the church is sending priets to people who just moved, and try to convert them. They really jump in upon the fact that people have the need to belong to a group, and they offer one instantly. Besides this, the church contacts people in the more run down quarters and tries to convert them. These people have a lot of the characteristics that iNow told me about, and therefore are very easy prey. The best we can do is to hope that someday people will recognize that they will be better of without fundamentalism. Let's hope that it happens fast

Yes, I was refering to fundamentalism. I mistranslated the word, I'll edit my text.