mezarashi

o.O The problem with the negative infinity can be easily resolved with the t = -1/x substitution, where as x -> negative infinity, t -> 0. If you do this substitution on his third line will give you good results. An alternative method I thought of was to actually factor the insides of the square root before doing all of that, you will find that it turns out to be something like: (x-a)(x+a), where a = 2 (+-) sqrt3. Then from there doing the same, you'll end up with a cleaner process.

Ah there you go One of these days I should learn how to use Latex

Hmm... well to be frank, you are going to have to know calculus very well to understand the equations governing electromagnetics. I remember having a very difficult time with my last semesters class on Maxwell's Equations and Electromagnetics, even though I've already taken extensive mathematics including vector calculus and complex analysis. At the highschool level, I guess it'd be good to start off with concepts, I think the materials/equations you would find in AP Physics C would be of interest to you. You should ask your Physics teacher for sources. For light, you'll have to keep it completely conceptual. The planar wave equations governing electromagnetic propagation are even formidible to most college students. I don't know how to help you exactly, but if you do let us know what it is you want to know, I'm sure the kind people of this forum will be willing ot help.

Aww. you're right XD. I guess I couldn't take the easy way out. Let me think about it ~_~

Your Schwarzschild ambition is impressive, I thought I'd just light to drop in my two cents, though I might be wrong, doesn't an "electron spin" refer to its quantum state. The best analogy is to visualize electrons as round balls, and the spin is the revolving around itself.

My suggestion in limit solving. Divide the stuff inside the limit by x, you will get: 1 + sqrt(1 - 4/x + 1/x^2). Then substituting in x -> -infinity, you will get 2.

At what level of physics and mathematics are you. Your question is quite vague. For general applications, the formulas are those of Maxwell, known as the classical theory of electromagnetism. They can be used to govern electromagnetic propagation (light) as well as electromagnetic interaction as in electric circuits and devices. This page explicity shows them in their normal forms: http://rd11.web.cern.ch/RD11/rkb/PH14pp/node108.html

Yup. The plane I'm talking about has the lines VF, VH, and FH on it. The point is you want to get a plane to work on. Now this place must be perpendicular to the VDHB right? since that's your objective, to find the perpendicular line. The next part is to ensure that this plane intersects with point F, your point of interest, and lastly, to make it possible to solve, it should also intersect other points on the cube. Once you identify this plane, you can draw out the plane on a 2D piece of paper. The right triangle with points V, F, and H. VF=2 units, FH = sqrt 2, VH = sqrt 6. Since you know all sides of this right triangle, you can figure out the angles using sine and cosine. Now draw a line from F to intersect with VH. Make the intersection 90 degrees. Now use geometry to work out the angles and the length.

I've explained it in my first reply. Follow the steps carefully and draw it out. All the variables are referenced on the diagram you provided.

I feel sorry for Herme3 a bit. Alot of the responses I've seen on this thread dismiss his "theory" is simply because they didn't understand it to begin with thinking it was flawed. Actually it sounds very feasible, just that the concept of parallel universes is not easily conceivable, and I still find it odd to say there must be two out of the blue. I think it's pretty interesting to propose, but you just can't deny the existing knowledge of fusion which already well explains stars and where they are deriving their energy from. If they are getting free energy from another universe, then why the loss in mass of the star as it "burns". On the explanation of "WHY" stars form. I think that's a question of like... why was there an earthquake in Japan last week, or why did that solar flare happen. It simply happens because conditions are right just as random as it may seem. I believe NASA has extensive knowledge of these conditions through experimental observation, and star formation is not as big of a secret as it may have been.

MS Paint? ^^v I didn't understand your explanation above by the way. You used alot of unreferenced variables (they're not on the diagrams), but your method already seems unnecessarily complicated to say the least.

I feel for you Pangloss, but that's how the world works, especially when coming to politics and business. Nothing comes for free, and all actions have motives, incentives for profit and personal gain. If it's any consolation, the WTO is also unfair to a hell lot of Asian markets with Western multi-national conglomerates basically decimating domestic competition. On another note, I heard the US is now reconsidering its free-trade and soon imposing a quota limit with China as the flooding Chinese textile imports is destroying the domestic market. So in the end, don't ask too much from these organizations... the same way I never did have faith for the UN. They are simply places where people with power can play themselves a justification to whatever they want to do.

Seems like you'll be needing some software like HyperTerminal or those similar to Telnet. Both PCs will need modems, and well, it's a matter of learning how to use your software from there. There won't be any fancy logins, unless you're remoting your PC like for example Windows XP remote desktop. But that works through TCP/IP, meaning both computers (remote and local) need to be connected to the internet.

Hmmm, from all the mathematics I've taken, I've always taken the Fourier transform as a definition. I didn't even know that there was an explanation to the equation that defines the concept. Usually what I would be asked to do is show that the fourier transform or inverse fourier transform of a pair (say rect(x) and sinc(x)) is so using the "first principles" which is the given definition. However, the proving of the definition itself will be interesting, so I'll be looking forward to seeing stuff here ^^

From a scientific perspective, I think that atmosphere refers to the bulk of gaseous molecules that surrounds the planet. Although Jupiter's case is a very unusual one... I heard that the entire planet is one big giant gas ball. In the case of Earth for a simple example, the atmosphere moves with the surface of the Earth. If it didn't you would be experiencing winds of up to 3000 km/hour blasting you all day as you (on the surface) move through the atmosphere. Winds usually mean small "local" disturbances in the atmosphere. Even something the size of a hurricane can be considered local, although it may affect millions of people across countries. In Jupiters case, I would think the atmosphere is moving with the rotation of the planet, since we observe the planet as spinning, I guess that is its atmosphere in motion.

I'm not very sure what is meant by "the projection" of F onto the plane, but I'm assuming that question to be something like if you were to draw a line perpendicular to the plane and intersects F, where would that line intersect with the plane. If this is the question then the answer seems pretty straight forward. If it is not I must apologize for misunderstanding. Assuming myunderstanding is correct however, you would draw a plane that is perpendicular to plane VDHB, and colinear with VH. You will get yourself a right triangle with verticle side of 2a, horizontal side of sqrt(2)a, and hypotenuse of sqrt(6)a. Putting the a's asside as just a unit figure, we can find all the angles of this right triangle. Draw a line from F to intersect with the line VH, and assume that it intersects as a right angle. Using the knowledge that all triangles have a 180 degree internal angle sum, you can find all the other angles as well. From here, it's very basic geometry, and I will leave it to you.

Well the fundamental thing to understand here is that you should not take the 3 states of water (solid, liquid, gas) that we as humans experience on a daily basis at what we consider to be normal temperatures and take them for granted. Other elements do not take on the same properties. The state of any compound depends on mainly two things, temperature and pressure. The atmospheric pressure as experienced on Earth allows for water to exist in three phases, If the atmospheric pressure was however below 0.5 atm, you will find that water too will also sublimate. Go from ice to vapor. Carbon happens to do that at 1.0 atm, so it seems unusual to us. Studying the phase diagrams will help you understand things better. A bit too late, but I hope you did well on that test XD

I'm not sure what is happening here, because apparently this is not an identity. A trigonometric identity is one that is ALWAYS true, and denoted by the equal sign with three lines rather than just two. The equation 6cosx + 5tanx = 0, does not even hold true for values of x between -pi < x < 2pi as you had originally stated. I think you are more or less trying to solve an equation for x is that right? 6cosx + 5tanx = 0 6cosx = -5tanx 6cosx = -5(sinx/cosx) 6cos^2(x) + 5sinx = 0 (use identity: sin^2 + cos^2 = 1, or cos^2 = 1 - sin^2) 6(1 - sin^2(x)) + 5sinx = 0 Let a = sin x 6 - 6a^2 + 5a = 0 6a^2 - 5a - 6 = 0 Solving using the quadratic eqation, you will get a = 3/2, -2/3 Since sinx = a, and sinx is ALWAYS < 1, 3/2 is not a solution thus: sinx = a = -2/3 x = arcsin (-2/3) If you try plugging this value, and ONLY this value into the original equation you will find that the equation is satisfied. In anycase, a real trigonometric identity is one like: sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1 Now you can replace x with ANY value you like, and the equation will ALWAYS be true. Pointers about solving trigonometric identities. This process is actually termed "proving" them. You are NOT under any circumstance allowed to shift numbers across the identity (equal sign). For example in the example earlier: sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1, I could not manipulate it into: sin^2(x) = 1 - cos^2(x) THIS IS ILLEGAL. Because you are trying to prove it is always true, by moving the cosine across, you are assuming that is already is, thus contradicting yourself and the proof. This question however was not an identity problem, rather just an exercising solving for x. Please let me know if you need any more help.

Anybody also heard of the new "documentary" kind of film theyre showing in theatres. It's called "Gunner Palace", here's the trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/gunnerpalace.html

If you give it a tap, then of course, the spheres will roll around each other's barycenter. As you have given hypothetically, there is no friction, so there is nothing to stop an eternal orbit. As with the photons, the photons used to "carry" the electromagnetic force are distinctly different. If I'm not wrong, they are known as virtual photons, with some other fancy denotation I have forgotten. I don't think it'll require quantum physics to see the general picture for this concept though

Oooh, a thread on philosophy. I'd like to stick to the Buddhist ways and say, the source of all human unhappiness (aka. suffering) is caused by ignorance. We do not understand our very fundamental nature, our reason for existence, or anything. We are but ignorant and lost fools who roam the crust of some random planet thinking we can play god. Because of the fact that we know nothing, we lack knowledge, we create superficial needs and wants, and when those needs and wants are not fulfilled, we suffer. Even when they are fulfilled, we suffer, but we suffer to a much lesser extent. And that's how I'd like to view things. Of course, as another human who inhabits this Earth, I am part of this vicious cycle. Even though I know it, I must admit, I'm addicted to it. It's sad to know that I would prefer experiencing "some happiness" in exchange for the suffering I will get afterwards.

It would be nice if you could restate your purpose in those manipulations. Actually I don't quite follow them. It is also sometimes a fatal mistake to equate equations simply because they appear to have algebriac equivalance without careful thought. In anycase, it is definitely not appropriate to calculate the "mass" of a photon. A photon may have momentum, energy, wavelength, and frequency, but not mass. You will be able to calculate about everything you need with the use of those parameters instead.

If you have a configuration of two spheres whose surfaces' are just touching each other and none have any velocity relative to each other, then I can confidently say that there will be no motion. Orbital motion is due to some initial velocity component perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force. And about your hypothesis of electrons on the surface. In actuality, did you know that the reason your table top feels hard is because the electrons of the atoms of your hand repel the electrons of the atoms comprising the table . We've taken the word "touch" for granted without really thinking about it. Depending on your application you would assign different definitions (touching distance: the distance where the grav force and electromag force reach a balance of equilibrium...maybe). In anycase, the electromagnetic force is probably the principle force in making solid objects seem...solid. So with this in mind, the notion of electrons of the first sphere repelling the second isn't anything mysterious at all is it

I'm not completely confident, but I strongly believe that the Cl2 will not form, due to the fact that Cl2 is a rather poisonous gas at room temperature. If the Cl- ions did infact bond, they would bubble out of the aquaeous solution and you will be breathing it in, causing serious damage to your brain. Similarly, when you dissolve salt into water, Na Cl, the Cl- ions do not join together, but infact remain ions. This is natural as Chlorine gas is not found in its Cl2 state in nature, and so without any catalyst of sort, it should not form. Conclusion is, your first equation would be right. This is a precipitation reaction? I can't remember if bromide compounds are generally soluable as with their chloride cousins.

Hmmm, well I'm not biology major in college, but I guess I did enjoy watching the X-Files and seeing how parasitic fungus can take control of the host, make it go insane and finally burst out of the hosts' chest. Back to the topic ... let's see: 1. about viruses and whether they are considered organisms. If i remember from my 5th grade science class, organisms are defined by being able to independently reproduce. Viruses (or virii some like to refer as) are not capable of that. They are simply like specially encapsulated DNA that will penetrate a certain host cell and make the cell eventually self-destruct itself, in the process creating more of it kind (the virus), which will in turn do the same thing to its preprogrammed victim cell type. A virus does not grow or change, so I say no. 2-4. I havent read those books so I don't have a clue. I don't believe that brainpox is something generally known to the public? A kind of virus under laboratory analysis or such? 5. I think this question is more of a question of your opinion. It's like knowing you have a very dangerous animal. Say a vicious invisible species that will kill you just with the touch of it's spit. After much hardship, mankind has finally killed off its kind and tamed the very last of its kind. Should we extinguish its species forever, or keep it for the sake of science and completeness of documenting the species that have once lived the Earth.... now you decide. And goodluck on that project, while I continue on my quest to quench my boredom...