Panic

Since White is a colection of all color like in white light! Black would probably be the best surface to use.. I would think! but then again my blue genes work good too hehe!

mayby if you have enough current in your source! You could try a Current Deviding configuration. that way you will have maxmimum volatage delivered to both but current will devide. With in each parallel leg of you Current Devider you may need to step down voltage a bit. I recomend trying to identify the load resistance of both object you are trying to connect. Load resistance also playes a big factor in you voltage devision. Total resistance = input resistance + load 1 + load 1 ... knowing this values will help you better design your voltage devider.

level six ASCII code.. not sure what he's looking for been loking at this for days.. any hints

bloodhound if some one is having a problem with general math what make you think they will understand algebra???? let's take it down a notch! like mart said... here is a good visual of what he said 21+22+23+...+30 = (20+1)+ (20+2)+ (20+3)+ (20+4)+ (20+5)+ (20+6)+ (20+7)+ (20+8)+ (20+9)+ (20+10) 20x10 + (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) 200 + (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) on thing to remember is that (1+2+3+4+5) = 15 6+7+8+9 = 30 so (1+2+3+...+10) = 55 200+(55)=255

[bUBBLE] [/bUBBLE] sorry!

Let me try to help! Forgive me in advance if I only confuse you more but I will try to explain as best as I can. The reason you may be having a problem with it it’s because of the Negative sign. Right! What it the direct relation with negative number as exponential. Well it’s just convention and uniformity nothing more. Just the same way we 1e3 = 1000 or , or E = Voltage in some book and V = Voltage in other. Some one along time ago decided that x^-1 would = 1/x but the negative (-) only point out that it is the inverse of the power we are representing since x^1 = x, then 1/x = 1/(x^1) = x^-1 Here are a couple of examples that will help you out if we let * equals multiplication sign the way that exponentials behave for multiplication and division. x*x*x*x*x = x^1* x^1* x^1* x^1* x^1=x^(1+1+1+1+1) = x^5 in the same manner x*x*x*x*x = x^2*x^3 = x^(5-3) = x^2 This shows us that the relation ship between multiplication of exponentials with the same base x results in the base to the power of the sum of the exponents. So the inverse: if we wanted to reduce the power we get the following. if we wanted to get x^2 we could say x^2= x*x*x*x*x / (x*x*x) which is equal to x^5 / x^3 also = x^(5-3) = x^2 you see now that the powers subtract. 3(x’s) from the top would cancel out 3(x’s) from the bottom leaving only x*x x*x*x =x^3 x*x =x^2 x =x^1 x/x =x^0 = 1 x/(x*x) =x^-1 =1/x and so on and so on and I hope this helps and good luck in math! It’s a universal language.

Here is a good example of instant. if we shoot 6 million frames of film for a 1 second interval of a bullet frying accross the camara lense. each frame would represent 1second/6000000 = 0.16667e-6 seconds or 0.16667 micro that is pretty fast ... if we only play back thos frames at a rate of 10 frames per second for only 1 second we have focused our observation at only 1.67 micro second in time the bullet would appear to have slight motion slow but very slight. assuming we could play that on a big screen. now we take another 6 million of that big screen that is playing at 10 frames / seconds we now would have 2.7778e-15 second per frame.. playing back only 10 frames per second would result in a bullet that appears to be in suspended animation. no motion what so ever. we could continue to do this till our eyes turn blue but after a sertain point the results would be identical further reducing the observation time would not serve a purpose. In the world of infinitly small, infinite measurements there comes a point where (change in velocity)/(change in time) ~= "0" wich tells use that Velocity at that point is constant. but how we choose to defind that Delta is up to the observer. How close to "0" ~= "0" 1 m/h ~= 0 when you telling a cop you did stop at a red light! is close enough! while at the same time .000 001 ~= 0 if you are talking about fre falling object. So in summary the value of instant is where you as the observer can say "close enough!"

http://www.csgnetwork.com/harmonicscalc.html you can see that double frequncy does not result in next harmonic ... but it will result in "A" complemeting harmonic

The best way to explain harmonics is to first introduce wave theory in as little space as possible. you can try this at home.. If you have a clouth line or tie two string with moderate tension to from one post to another. |----------------------------------------| 0----------------------------------------L the lenght of this string is now length L from end to end. If you were to pop the string at end '0' you would see a wave move along the sting and then get reflected back This is called wave propagation. Now if you were to vibrate on end of the string with a frequency that would generate a standing wave ... meaning a wave that would apprear to not move down the string. This standing wave has a specific wave legnth with relation to the disntace L the wave will appear as 1/2 of a full sine wave with the end L fixed at zero... see diagram below. The frequency correstponds to the base frequency. wich has a relation to wave lenth, distance L, and angular frequency. Reaching the first harmonic, from the above diagram b). is possible by either increasing the frequency maintaining the string at length L.. or increasing the string length and maintaining frequency constant. a full sine wave is now called the first harmonic. 1.5 of a full sine 3rd harmonic. 2 full sine's 4th harmonic. and so on and son on and so on. Now the same theory applied to radar and sonar. although the wave no longer propagate along a string now a wave travels thru air or water. (in a different bu simmilar way) another good example is with musical notes. a guitar for example. if you pluck the string scractly at the middle you will hear a more solid tone. since you are activating the base frequency "mostly" if you pluck the string over the hole you are activating other harmonics that have a maxima or minima at that point. by plucking the guitar next to the phret you will hear a meatalic twang ... that is a combination sound of multiple harmonics. if you

yes there is accelleration ..... Acceleration is continuous and constant. just because a function has a maximum or minimum does not mean it stops there. the object reaches 0 m/s for only and infinitly small amount of time... it does not hang there like jordan!

at 45 degree, the horizontal acceleration = vertical accelleration which is 1/2 of the gravitational accelerations. but increasing the angle past 45 degree will generate a large initial impact with table. Eventually if the angle of the ramp is 90 degree the horizontal acceleration wx Is decreased to 0 ... since it's horizontal acceleration Wx that will puss it across the surface of the table. at 90 degree the ball would act as a free falling object and bound inplace ... total horizontal displacement of 0... again due to 0 horizontal accelerations. Wx = sin(angle) Wy = Wcos(angle)

what is the difference between Genetically enhance chicken "perdu" and Clone Chickens as far as feeding the masses i could see cloning as an option, but it would have to stop there. Organs maybe, but humans definitly not!

It's like pirating! "Napster Mentality" you would have to pay that person royalties. suppose your new clone goes on to be a super start and make Oprah type money!!! The original person would have the right to sue. on the basis of personal potential earnings. if it was me ... hell yeah i would sue the pants off him "that's what I could have become" besided he was created from a part of me. which is ethically my property. "I am gona go copy right my ars.. incase some one desides to clone me" but in all seriousness, we are not cattle or organ farms.. once life is created our unique and god given right or free will would take over that clone. Unless we can create clones with out brains this would be in my opinion moraly ethically and un-equivically wrong.! imagine how alone one must feel with out a direct father and mother. knowing that you were an experiment. we all have an internal desire for family nucleus as human we need a sence of belonging. how would that be fulfilled!

I am not familiar with the previous post but it sound interesting. Is there any way that someone can elaborate more on the issue. perhaps a repost or a quote. My take on artificial gravity. So fart from loggical though. gravity being a continious accelleration can only be recreated a a constant force. For example Centrifugla force of rotation. I am sure you all recall or have seen the Deep Space 9 stations. continously spining, well the outer most area of this spinder would have the gratest possible gravity effect since centifugal accellerations is dependent on distance from center and also speed of rotation.

I could be way of base here but i could not resist replying to this forum. I am currently doing a paper on the origin or mathematics and trully Zero has been most interesting! maily be cause we have been conditioned to thing of zero as both a place holder and nothing. if you are selling weat in the Fertile cresent market. and you have one sack left, after you sell that one you have nothing and that's it ... Zero was not concrete or necessary why represent nothing with something. I believe that the best place holder for nothing would actually be nothing!, but we are much more conditioned now to think abstractly and analitically . as for division by 0... if we were to look at the limit of 1/x , as x approaches 0 from the right we can find the following 1/1 = 1 1/.5 = 2 1/.25 =4 1/.001 =1000 1/(1e-25)=1e+25 we can conclude that the limit of Y/x as x approaches 0 from the right is Infinity! and Y is any number. by doing this from the left we get -infinity +infinity from right -infinity from left this is not continuous and has not value but doing it with another digit like 1 from the left and the right we get, 1/1.0000000001 and 1/.9999999999 both get close to 1. therefore continiuous and defined. now if you take a value small enouph to be negligable and devided it by another small number this is what you get 1e-136 Very very small 1e-136/1e-136 =1 or 1e-136/-1e-136=-1 or (a number infinitly small/another number infinitly small) = 1 That is perhaps why his teacher might have said 0/0 = 1 because we are conditioned to see zero as a whole number not an absence of anything. we could be able to conclude that deviding nothing with nothing we still remain with nothing 0/0 =0 since 0*0 = 0 both of these statements could be seen as correct. but here is the trick that leave Y/0 undefined. 1e-136/1e-140 =10,000 ... ( and infinitly small number/more infinite number) = large number or -large number ...

I could be way of base here but i could not resist replying to this forum. I am currently doing a paper on the origin or mathematics and trully Zero has been most interesting! maily be cause we have been conditioned to thing of zero as both a place holder and nothing. if you are selling weat in the Fertile cresent market. and you have one sack left, after you sell that one you have nothing and that's it ... Zero was not concrete or necessary why represent nothing with something. I believe that the best place holder for nothing would actually be nothing!, but we are much more conditioned now to think abstractly and analitically . as for division by 0... if we were to look at the limit of 1/x , as x approaches 0 from the right we can find the following 1/1 = 1 1/.5 = 2 1/.25 =4 1/.001 =1000 1/(1e-25)=1e+25 we can conclude that the limit of Y/x as x approaches 0 from the right is Infinity! and Y is any number. by doing this from the left we get -infinity +infinity from right -infinity from left this is not continuous and has not value but doing it with another digit like 1 from the left and the right we get, 1/1.0000000001 and 1/.9999999999 both get close to 1. therefore continiuous and defined. now if you take a value small enouph to be negligable and devided it by another small number this is what you get 1e-136 Very very small 1e-136/1e-136 =1 or 1e-136/-1e-136=-1 or (a number infinitly small/another number infinitly small) = 1 That is perhaps why his teacher might have said 0/0 = 1 because we are conditioned to see zero as a whole number not an absence of anything. we could be able to conclude that deviding nothing with nothing we still remain with nothing 0/0 =0 since 0*0 = 0 both of these statements could be seen as correct. but here is the trick that leave Y/0 undefined. 1e-136/1e-140 =10,000 ... ( and infinitly small number/more infinite number) = large number or -large number ...