Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/26/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    While female and male brains have differences, it would be difficult to pick apart what is truly biological variance between populations and what is cultural conditioning. I vaguely recall a study that found female hippocampi were on average smaller than in males, which was said to explain why men were better navigators. But we also know parts of the brain less used will atrophy. So is it a case of their hippocampi being intrinsically smaller, or a result of gender roles directing its use (or lack of)? When women have risen to prominent historical roles they have pretty much done as men have done - Wu Zetian, Boudicca, Hypatia (but maybe that's because they emerged in patriarchies). There is also evidence of early societies that while not matriarchal, were more balanced. The Spartans are a probably the best documented example, and weren't significantly different from surrounding societies. I've also heard it said men more readily pursue risky pursuits, perhaps leading to voyages such as Colombus'. Assuming this is a neurobiological difference, it wouldn't necessarily preclude risky behaviour from men. Remember Colombus was sponsored by both Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, with the former willing to sell some jewels to fund it (thoough she didn't need to). War would still be conducted by men on the field; aside from differences in physiology making men on average more suited to those demands, sending women to fight would be a flawed strategy. The Romans lost ~300,000 men to Hannibal in the Punic wars from a total population of ~3.5 million - thats a huge proportion. If they had all been women of child-bearing potential Rome would almost certainly have fallen. Overall i don't think there'd be gross changes to the patterns of war, economic cycles, spiritual practices, technological development etc - just a lot of changed details which are impossible to guess at. They say men are from Mars and women from Venus, but we all know they're both from Earth.
  2. 2 points
    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-particle-chip.html This image, magnified 25,000 times, shows a section of a prototype accelerator-on-a-chip. The segment shown here are one-tenth the width of a human hair. The oddly shaped gray structures are nanometer-sized features carved in to silicon that focus bursts of infrared laser light, shown in yellow and purple, on a flow of electrons through the center channel. As the electrons travel from left to right, the light focused in the channel is carefully synchronized with passing particles to move them forward at greater and greater velocities. By packing 1,000 of these acceleration channels onto an inch-sized chip, Stanford researchers hope to create an electron beam that moves at 94 percent of the speed of light, and to use this energized particle flow for research and medical applications. Credit: Neil Sapra
  3. 2 points
    Australia's National Parks and Forestry and community Fire authorities use controlled burning and have never been prevented by "green regulation" from using it. Leading fire experts and former and current heads of fire authorities reject the claims that green regulation preventing burning off is to blame. Blaming environmentalists is a nasty political claim that has no actual substance. The forestry industry has long been antagonistic to those calling for forest protection and regulation that limits their access to State owned forest resources - hating greenies comes with the job. But I think conservative right politics has become especially antagonistic and inflaming those hatreds because those are the loudest voices on climate change, the message is cutting through and that issue is gaining popular support. Australian Greens have no policies that prevent hazard reduction burning - tending more towards promoting indigenous practices of controlled burning. They have never had enough representation to force policies on this. Livestock have been excluded from National Parks because their purpose is for native flora and fauna, not private grazing (a privilege widely abused when and where it was or is permitted); lots of Australians who are not "greenies" fully support that purpose. Reduced opportunities for burning off are more to blame for inadequate hazard reduction burning, as well as poor resourcing of National Park and Forestry management, that have to have teams and equipment on the ground to do it. Record and near record warm winters are making what was previously a relatively predictable and relatively safe activity - hazard reduction burning - unpredictable and dangerous. Fire authorities have always had all the authority needed, to conduct burning off but they also have authority to call a halt to burning off when conditions are making it too dangerous.They decide, not The Australian Greens. My own observation and speculation is that one of the crucial things that is changing with climate change warmer winters is lack of dew; my own observation was that previously, winter burning was often self limiting because cool conditions caused dew to form late in the night or early morning. Fires were lit in the previous afternoon or evening with a reasonable expectation they would go out. With warmer conditions there can be no such expectation; these activities are requiring ever greater vigilance, more people on the ground and more equipment. Around here - in the middle of recent fires - the last few winters would have allowed no more than 1 month of opportunity to fires to burn slowly with low likelihood of escaping containment. That is actually too short a time for large areas with high fuel loads; six weeks can be considered the minimum for a fire to burn out sufficiently to be declared "out" and slow burning trees and tree roots can still restart fires for longer periods than that. When I consider warming of 3C (at best I think) and possibly more than 5C (with the minimum levels of climate action that would be welcomed by Australia's current government) - it is properly terrifying.
  4. 2 points
    The nano-scale. You'll likely need to make your question a nano-more precise in order to receive an answer that’s a nano-more helpful.
  5. 2 points
    Countries that haven't the self-control to avoid shooting down passenger aircraft should certainly not be allowed nuclear weapons. Oh!, hang on... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
  6. 2 points
    IIRC electrolysis is ~1.25 eV, so it would be 7.5 x 10^26 eV for a kg. That’s 120 MJ, or 33.3 kWh
  7. 2 points
    All good points. Right now, my concern is that this will result in serious conflict and increased danger to Americans around the world and yet neither the congress nor our allies were involved. Trump did this unilaterally based on a law that gave powers to the president to respond to the 9/11 attack nearly 20 years ago. This type of assassination of a foreign leader... no matter how bad of a guy he was... should have gone through the proper channels and been agreed upon by the proper powers. Good riddance to this one guy, but there is a coming increase in proxy war actions from Iran and they will ramp it up in the months to come... and there’s no clear diplomatic solution to any of this. More lost blood and treasure in the Middle East. Yay. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  8. 2 points
    Not everything is about your President, guys. Iran has been destabilizing the region for years... yet everyone assumes it is the 'President we love to hate' who is destabilizing the region. Iran has been in a 'proxy' war with the US for years, Using the Hezbollah ( Shia ) political parties in neighboring countries to stir up trouble against Sunni controlled governments and US interests in those countries. Both England and Germany have sided with the US on this act, while Russia and France have condemned it ( China as usual, has been quite non-committal ) Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.
  9. 2 points
    The gauge groups I mentioned are not specifically the harmonic oscillator. QFT accounts for the quantum harmonic oscillator in its gauge groups but that isn't the full story. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/~gripaios/gft_lecture_notes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi79v_N09TmAhVuHzQIHbErDekQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Tq7K0egwVnGx8aslG3PJE Here is a primer QFT takes a considerable time to learn. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjw6qeL1tTmAhVXs54KHaCABBkQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0XQ8pIIPzIxiwafEUsja8F In order to be observed there must be a quanta of action. The external lines on those Feymann diagrams are observable's. (Operators) The internal lines (propogators ) (often thought of as virtual particles) are not observable. Here is the standard model of particle physics (not including Higgs) that is in another post [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math] Color, weak isospin, abelion Hypercharge groups. Couplings in sequence [math]g_s, g, \acute{g}[/math] [math]\mathcal{L}_{gauge}=-\frac{1}{2}Tr{G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{2}Tr {W^{\mu\nu}W_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}[/math] Field strengths in sequence in last G W B tensors for SU(3),SU(2) and U(1) Leads to covariant derivative [math]D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ig_s\frac{\lambda_i}{2}G^i_\mu+ig\frac{\sigma_i}{2}W^i_\mu+igQ_YB_\mu[/math] Corresponds to [math]G_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{i}{g_s}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] [math]W_-\frac{I}{g}[D_{\mu}D_{\nu}][/math] [math]B_{\mu\nu}-\frac{I}{\acute{g}}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] You can find the Higgs on page two https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117992-the-lagrangian-equation/ In essence we were trying to validate and reverse engineer the equation in post 1. In order to do that I had to examine each gauge group of the standard model. Given by [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math]
  10. 1 point
    I’d like to withdraw that previous post. I have a valid point that it’s hard to avoid affecting the election, and also that this impeachment itself is about cheating in that next election so is inextricably linked, but I think directing that to @Raider5678 was rather strained and frankly not appropriate given what he’s actually here saying. He’s right that gaming this out and making choices purely to benefit oneself in the next upcoming election seems inappropriate (though, inappropriate seems also to be par for the course in today’s senate, so who knows), but anyway... Mea culpa.
  11. 1 point
    Thanks for the feedback! A quick check. Router A seems right. Step 2 gets a second route to B through C but since that is longer (=5) you have correctly rejected it. If a third step would be added the router A would get a route to D through B-C but more expensive (=7) so no changes will be made to A's routing table. Router B Seems OK, as argued above Router C has a typo on step 2, I think (0,A) should be (0,C). Also I think the route to A will not change on step 2. Unless there is some weird algorithm or additional information the router will likely keep (1,A) since that is cheaper than going through B at cost 6. Router D seems a little off: 0 | [ (/,/) (/,/) (/,/) (0,D) ] Seems OK 1 | [ (2,A) (0,B) (1,C) (0,D) ] This step could not contain information about A and B yet, how about this: | [(/,/) (/,/) (1,C) (0,D) ] 2 | [ (2,C) (4,C) (1,C) (0,D) ] (4,C) should likely be (5,C) since D->C->B is 1+4=5 3 | [ (6,C) (3,C) (1,C) (0,D) ] (3,C) should likely be (4,C) since D->C->A->B = 1+1+2=4 Important note: I have tried to stay very basic in the analysis above since the exam task does not provide much information. That means that if this is an exam for a specific implementation for instance a certification for a specific brand or manufacturer there could be other things that the exam expects to be taken into account. Additional, non important stuff: I note that this little example looks very simple but contains enough to be used as a basis for a discussion about a lots of additional questions for the interested. Example: if the routers keep the more expensive path instead of dropping them the routers would have backup paths in case of failure. But if they do, additional algorithms may be required. If A knows B can be reached through C, and C knows B can be reached through A, What happens if B goes off-line? Will a package intended for B bounce back and forth between A and C? Such questions is not likely something a network engineer will care much about on a daily bases in a modern environment. Designing the algorithms, improving them, and studying the math behind it is ongoing. The picture reference above is from a book for a course in distributed computing, 1993 edition. Much of it is obsolete now. I guess that newer sources could be based more on interest since the topic contains so much more nowadays.
  12. 1 point
    Yeah it probably isn't, sorry for the hijack...
  13. 1 point
    You want addresses for Rangerx and Raider5678 so you can go run them down ? I'm getting tired of the car/driving analogies myself. ( just joking, I don't have addresses...or do I ? )
  14. 1 point
    You have never clarified the original question. You have allowed us to interpret the OP as we see it, and once we offer a solution to OUR interpretation, you tell us we are wrong ? How about reposting the original question, as YOU interpret it ( but in a clear manner, not like previously ), and then we can discuss it properly.
  15. 1 point
    I am glad your surgery went well. I had a family member have major brain surgery and I know how painful it is. Best wishes on a speedy recovery.
  16. 1 point
    Gravitational waves are affected by the background curvature of spacetime, and you can get many of the same effects that light would be subjected to, such as deflection, frequency shift etc. However, the actual dynamics of gravitational waves are potentially much more complicated than those of light, because gravity is non-linear, unlike electromagnetism; this means that such waves also interact with each other and with themselves. Can you construct an arrangement that acts like a lens for gravitational waves? Yes, you certainly could, but depending on what exactly it is you are trying to achieve, this may be a very complex problem (both mathematically and practically). This is a very complex topic, and truthfully speaking I have not done (or even seen) the exact maths of how this comes about. The general idea is that you start with a wave pulse (i.e. a more or less sharply defined packet of wave fronts) and send this through a region of spacetime that has substantial background curvature due to the presence of some gravitational source, e.g. a black hole. What happens then is that the wave pulse, as it travels through this region, backscatters off the background curvature, which leads to its shape and polarisation to change in some very specific manner. The deformation is such that a “tail” is produced behind the travelling pulse, and that wave tail propagates at less than the speed of light. My understanding (someone more expert at this particular detail please correct me if I am wrong) is that the wave tail travels at below c due to its own gravitational self-interaction - which is a non-linear process.
  17. 1 point
    You auto have known better...
  18. 1 point
    No, it just means that they weren’t emitted simultaneously - which is what one would expect, since these two forms of radiation are the result of different physical processes. This is inconsistent with the basic principles of GR, as well as with the specific mathematics of gravitational waves. The opposite is in fact the case - since the dynamics of gravitational waves are non-linear (unlike e.g. EM waves), they interact both with other gravitational waves as well as with themselves. In this manner you get a number of effects that are exclusive to gravitational waves, and some of these actually propagate slower than the speed of light (specifically so-called “wave tails”). However, a free wave in otherwise empty space must propagate at exactly c.
  19. 1 point
    Please provide straight answers. Have you abandoned the first version of the lifter and wish to discuss only the new one? I am still looking at first version: You state that there is an acceleration. Acceleration relative to what?
  20. 1 point
    You say you understand and then write nonsense like that second sentence, which demonstrates very clearly that you do not understand. Until you can get past this attitude of believing you understand things when you clearly don't, you will not be able to learn and get to understand the things you currently don't understand. There is no such thing as a "tensor force". There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.) No. No. No. This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spouting nonsense and take some time to LEARN. https://xkcd.com/895/ You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.
  21. 1 point
    That is a perfectly valid Newtonian equation. Now substitute values in for the variables. For light, m=mo=0 IOW it has zero rest mass because it can never be at rest. So your perfectly valid equation, when mis-applied in the case of light or heat, gives you the non-sensical solution 0=0. Now you're doing Physics . ( being very sarcastic )
  22. 1 point
    Violation of Bell’s inequalities does not imply such as thing as “action at a distance” - which is in itself a meaningless concept. Quantum entanglement is simply a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes; there is no causative “action” involved. I’m afraid this is completely meaningless.
  23. 1 point
    Please define what you mean by "scopes". It can mean the entire area that is dealt with by the subject (which would be quite difficult to list here as part of a discussion ), and it can mean opportunities to deal with the subject (which again is quite a large amount of things). It always helps to be specific when starting a discussion so everybody knows what you want to talk about.
  24. 1 point
    It's caused by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. You lose the point of my post, namely that it was aimed at cynic. .
  25. 1 point
    There is a classical algorithm, called Box–Muller transform, to convert sampling from a "flat" (uniform) distribution, say uniform over the interval \( [0,1] \), to a Gaussian distribution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box–Muller_transform
  26. 1 point
    The point of determining the oxidation state is really just so you can determine what number to put in brackets. In your case, so you know that it is iron(III) oxide and not iron(II) oxide. You've already shown how you got to the oxide part.
  27. 1 point
    This is from my commented code so someone with more statistics expertise than I can verify but.... Say the mean height of a population of people is 70 inches, and the standard deviation is 4.3 inches. Compute the probability that an individual of that population has a height greater than 70.5 inches: L=70; m=70.5; s=4.3; t = (L-m)/sqrt(2)/s P(x>70.5) = erf(t)/2+0.5 = 0.453716 = 45.37% BTW, rand/srand has been mentioned. Keep in mind that those functions emit pseudo random numbers with a flat distribution. To achieve a Gaussian distribution you would use the Central Value Theorem (already mentioned) by adding a series of rand() return values which in the limit should be normal.
  28. 1 point
    The (1,3)-dimensionality of spacetime has a fairly privileged character, you can’t just add or take away macroscopic dimensions, and still expect everything to work as before. Adding an extra macroscopic spatial dimension would be really bad news - there would no longer be any inverse square laws; gravitational orbits would be unstable; electromagnetism would no longer be described by Maxwell’s laws; atomic orbitals would look very different or not exist at all; and so on.
  29. 1 point
    Here is an interesting side note recessive velocity is based upon Hubble's law. The greater the seperation distance the greater the recessive velocity the formula is [math]V_{recessive}=H_OD[/math] So beyond Hubble horizon based on that formula the galaxies appear to be separating at greater than c. However that is an Apparent velocity and not a true velocity. In point of fact those galaxies move at the same speeds as our own Milky way. This brings a further side note expansion being described as greater than c uses the same seperation distance relationship. However per Mpc in every location the expansion rate is only roughly 70 Km/Mpc/sec this rate is actually decreasing even though the expansion rate based on the seperation distance to our cosmological event horizon is accelerating. So there is no violation of GR as recessive velocity is an apparent velocity and not a true velocity.
  30. 1 point
    There is a big difference between refusing to support your claim, and not supporting your claim until asked. Has anyone here not explained why they feel religion is nonsense when asked?
  31. 1 point
    I have no love for authoritarians and won't grieve at their passing. That is why I don't feel comfortable with the President unilaterally ordering assainations
  32. 1 point
    Kinda depends where you are. There is a definite shortage of Chemistry tutors in my region (SW England) and those there are charging silly money as a result. I was talking about this last night to a friend in Oxford who place science tutors and he said there is no shortage in Oxford and no price premium there. A word about exams. It is difficult to achieve high marks in the essay type questions, and it takes longer to answer a question as compared to the calculation questions. So get your brother lots of (calculation) practice questions - there are plenty of books of these available including cheap second hand ones. On aspect of doing calculations is that you need to know the theory (which you say he does) to attempt them properly, so doing calculations make one look up missing points of theory. Also get him to join up here at SF and post questions. We have several high school chemistry students who find good quality help here.
  33. 1 point
    I’m not challenging that it happens, nor the high frequency with which it does. I’m challenging your assertion that it’s genetic, instinctual, or whatever other similar label you’re using. The fact that not everyone does this, and even you acknowledge many people don’t, suggests that maybe you’re making a fundamental attribution error or hasty generalization.
  34. 1 point
    No. That is not a valid representation of what I shared with you. A valid reference frame comes from a point of rest relative to other reference frames. Photons are never at rest relative to any reference frame. You should study more to find out. I’m not the one who created the labels so you’re really tilting at wind mills here.
  35. 1 point
    Then discuss it already !
  36. 1 point
    Monism? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monism This doesn’t seem to have any connection to your pretty pictures. And how is cybernetics connected to this? What does this mean? And what evidence do you have to support this claim? As this is a mathematical claim, you should be able to provide a mathematical proof. Can you do that? (Unexplained and apparently meaningless geometric constructions do not count. At least, not without some explanation.)
  37. 1 point
    Hi Externet! Some polymers are excluded here: the polyolefins (PE and variants, PP, the rare PB, PMP...) as they dissolve in mineral oil, even at room temperature. The chips you saw sank neatly in oil, this indicated polymers heavier than polyolefins. Transmission oil, brake oil, hydraulic oil is about the same, except that brake oil have additional standards and names. This description is too vague: several families exist with completely different chemical compositions, at least 6 for brake fluid. For instance polyglycol+water would supposedly lose water before the polymer melts and would probably dissolve POM, maybe polyesters. They also include many additives, often undisclosed, that may pollute the polymer chips. Some are denser than many polymers. Not my first choice. While mineral lubricant oil is more stable at heat than vegetable oil, I see drawbacks to it. Almost always, it contains polyglycols to stabilize the viscosity at heat, and these are better solvents for POM and maybe polyesters. They always contain many additives, often undisclosed, that may pollute the polymer chips. When used, they also contain metal nanochips that will botch, or at least taint, the recycled polymer. Vegetable oils are at least better known. They include no additive usually, just the mix of triglycerides. Their stability at heat varies, where saturated oils like coconut or palm survive better than highly unsaturated ones like linseed, and traditional peanut, sunflower, maize are good. This is known from cooking. Used cooking oil contains impurities that are often removed, first by good filtration: check what is done before burning these recycled oils in Diesel engines. In every case, I'd try to have a flash point well over the operating temperature, but this looks difficult. Hot liquid is interesting to melt chips quickly but has drawbacks. Did you consider microwaves? Hot nitrogen with active movement?
  38. 1 point
    Higgs field with above [math]\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu H)^\dagger D^\mu H-\lambda(H^\dagger H-\frac{v^2}{2})^2[/math] v=246 GeV Quartic coupling [math]\lambda=m_h^2/2v^2=0.13[/math] [math]\langle H^\dagger H\rangle =v^2/2[/math] Fermions (matter content) (goal tie in CKMS and Pmns mixing angles (latter for leptons)) will require unity triangle... [math]\displaystyle{\not}D=\gamma D^\mu[/math] self reminder Feymann slash contraction of the gamma matrix with a four vector [math]\displaystyle{\not}a=\gamma a^\mu a_\nu=\gamma_\mu a^\nu[/math] a is any four vector.
  39. 1 point
    Evolutionarily, it's a bad idea because the more variation there is the more chance there is of overcoming any future unknown adversity. Arbitrarily selecting for certain traits may reduce reproductive fitness in a population
  40. 0 points
    Colleagues, thank you for what you are. I wish you every happiness. While I was thinking about how to answer your questions, I understood. That I'm not well educated for such topics. That algebra is part of math, I never thought about it. It's just that all images are geometry to me. And numbers, numbers, proportions are math. If c=0, it's just nothing, no. The mistake in the first post was... That it was wrong to write, which shows a blue, red circle. It is more correct to draw conclusions about the black circle. I mean, what is part and what is quantity. That was right, but not right. Unit of weight unit of time Unit of joy Unit of sensation The unit of thought now A unit of thought. In a second. These are infinitely different units. Each unit, infinitely filled with proportions...Fig.3 The interaction of the ones, occurs through the choice of a relationship. They can't be equal. In real life, we are social. So we simplify and round it up. We find the same things. Same things can only be in math, geometry. I think that's the language of "god." There's a good example. Choosing the relationship to time. First, we choose the time to which we will refer. Of all eternity. Let's say we choose three days. Yesterday, today, tomorrow. Now let's treat these three days. As you zoom in. The passage of time in the present. The time goes on in real time. As we approach, the markup and speed change. Attention. And our relationship to time.
  41. -1 points
    Do you switch on a current? Then it is not DC. That is taught in first semester course material. But somehow you know more? Clearly not. Because you do not know how to learn. That wikipedia quote is missing many relevant facts. And demonstrates how easily one can be scammed. One who is an expert but forgot to first learn. You are arguing and accusing when a responsible person instead would be learning and asking. You demonstrate why wacko extremists exist. Impedance is significant. Earliest radio transmitters simply turned on and off a DC current. Which creates currents at many frequencies. Static electric discharge is also not DC - for same reason. Lightning is simply a static electric discharge at higher energies. It causes radio frequency interference because "that flow of electrons in one direction" create radio frequency noise across all frequencies. Please learn these basic concepts before going off, half cocked, making claims only justified by a soundbite combined with junk science reasoning. First learn how electricity works. Quoting something subjective is the first indication that you are so easily scammed. You have no idea why impedance is significant. You did not even know that static discharges and its cousin, lightning, create AC currents. Only impedance (not resistance) is relevant. But that means becoming educated before lecturing anyone. Had you taken a first course in electrical theory, then you would have never posted such embarrassing ignorance. You simple demonstrate why extremism exists. Experts who did not bother to first learn reality.
  42. -1 points
    You said and I quote " Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion." So you agree that Tyson is merely expressing his opinion since there is no evidence that we are both computer simulations on a hard drive conversing back and forth on the drive
  43. -1 points
    y=y or y+y=y+y
  44. -1 points
    If you can give me an EXPLANATION to what a photon is, NOT a DEFINITION.. then I'll gladly answer your question.😀
  45. -1 points
    The reason you find or take a limit is when the values cannot give you an exact answer in an equation. Then the equation can be graphed, and the limit assumes the value that the function approaches on the graph. It is an extra step that can be taken to make a graphical analysis to find an approximate answer by looking at a graph. You can say that it is a certain value, even though the calculation of the variables in the equation cannot give you an answer. It is another way of trying to deal with infinity or infinitesimals in of itself. The main reason why this method isn't used in a lot of work is because it is not known if it has been proven to be reliable, but it has been proven to be reliable when finding the derivative. Limits can potentially give false values, presumably. I have never seen any evidence of that.
  46. -2 points
    You could try some of my experiments, why yours are better? If once done they gives rise to evidence… from a hobbys Physicist
  47. -3 points
    We measure only three things – mass, length, and time. There are no infinite objects of mass and length, because we do not see them. Infinite objects must be visible anywhere and everywhere. But there are two objects, root material and root cause, both are eternally existent. They are neither created nor can be destroyed. The root material is the material from which all of us are created. This is called dust in Bible. But this is not the dust of the earth, it is the cosmic dust. Bible says we are made out of dust and when we die we become dust again. Since mass cannot be created or destroyed, this dust must exist eternally, that means for infinite time. Since every effect requires a cause, the first cause that will create an object must use this dust. This cause is called soul or the root cause. Thus every object has a soul and that soul has created that object. Bible says also – God is spirit. Vedas describes this theory in more details. Thus every soul is eternally existent also. For more details take a look at https://www.academia.edu/38590496/A_COMPARISON_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE_WITH_VEDIC_SCIENCE
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.