jcarlson

 

 

Planets form from accreted star dust after the formation of the central second generation stars.

 

The planets closest to the center accrete heaver elements' date=' while the outer planets form from the lighter elements being blown outward by solar winds.

 

Keep in mind we only have our own solar system as an example.

 

Life will form in what has been dubbed the “Goldie locks zone" close enough to the sun to form liquid water instead of ice, and far enough to keep the water under the boiling point.

 

This zone will insure the formation of oceans, the cradle for the first single cell life to form.

 

Complex organic molecules do form in space and fall to earth.

 

The primordial ocean chemistry is now set for the formation for the first simple cells.

 

 

At this point science is at loss at explaining what brought these complex self-contained self-replicating system together.

 

However I will venture a possibility; Their seems to have been an almost complete over-sight of two other factors for the beginning of life. One that could energize and kick start this metabolic process and the other that would stabilize it into a self-replicating structure.

 

[Electromagnetism and Light waves']

 

 

I don't see a problem with this, except for this part:

 

Complex organic molecules do form in space and fall to earth.

 

Last I checked, the extreme temperatures caused by friction from reentering the atmosphere would pose a pretty big barrier to any organic compounds coming from space...

 

I'm pretty sure there have been experiments that have shown that lightning strikes, combined with the methane rich atmosphere that precluded our nitrogen rich atmosphere in the early days of earth, and other naturally occuring elements can cause chemical reactions that form organic compounds though.

Uh.

(0,1,1), (1, 0, 1), and (0, 0, 0) are all solutions to x^4 + y^4 = z^4... this is the equation of a surface in R^3, which looks like an inverted paraboloid...

Read my post:

"Especially in small social units like thirty to a hundred people."

 

Obviously if it's some kind of global catastrophy that affects everyone

equally' date=' thre wont be a relative disadvatage.

 

But if one tribe has a bad outcome in a war, and lost 75% of there

menfolk. Then they are suddenly open game for every other tribe with

a food shortage. They can't defend their food sources, and they die.

 

Captain of the troops Sven.

"Vigge, our crops have failed, our tribe will die, what shall we do?

Everyone else is short as well and will not trade,

Shall we raid the tribe to the east, who have 75 men with bow and arrow,

the mighty tribe to the north, who have 250 men with bow and arrow.

Or the tribe to the west who tussled earlier with the tribe to the north,

and now have only 25 men with bow and arrow and 10 of them are lame."

 

Cheif Vigge:

Sven, I think you should attack the tribe to the west, who have only

25 men with bow and arrow and see what the have, if they have no food,

we shall threaten the tribe to east with great war if they do not trade.

 

Every other tribe has similar discussions and so the seven times decimated

tribe gets raided again and again, unless they have friends, but friends

in those kind of climates usually come with a hefty margin attached.

 

Despite what feminist theory would have you believe.

 

Cheers.[/quote']

 

I did read your post. But you can hardly argue that an event that wiped out 75% of the male population of a tribe of 100 people would have any kind of impact on the genetic diversity of the world. The survival chances of the species as a whole would be virtually unaffected. What would probably happen in your scenario is that the male members of the conquering tribe would mate with the female members of the conquered tribe, and in a generation or two the population would be back to 50/50.

THis guy is an idiot. Lets just leave it at that. He obvious doesn't realize that all velocity is relative, and that gravity is caused by mass, not weight.

10. Copernicus didn�t provide evidence to support his theory.

 

11. Contrary to Copernicus, it's not mathematically possible to �calculate� if the Earth is revolving around the Sun

roflmao.

I like how he also mentions "Centrifugal" as opposed to "Centripetal" Force about 18 times on every page...

In humans' date=' maybe, but what about something like bees?

 

The only thing the drone does is mate after which he dies.

 

Even if all the drones are killed, the queen can simply make more drones. Incestious? Yes. Limiting the gene pool? Not really. It's part of the bee's survival strategy.

 

In humans, if 3/4 of the male populations was lost, we would see some genetic limitation in the next generation, but this wouldn't last long. The female population still cares a vast array of genetic differences and in a few generations all would be well.

 

 

 

1) I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of women, but I agree that a loss of man power would see that population would further decrease. Things would tend to become more even.[/quote']

 

I Agree. Also Remember that the population of earth has not always been 6 billion people. if 3/4 of the male popluation were to die, leaving 750,000,000 males (more than 2.5 times than the population of males and females in the US combined). I dont think there would be any noticable loss of genetic diversity at all, at worst it would regress to around the 1700s or so... hardly catastrophic.

 

2) Defend from who? Other packs of waring females?

 

Crazy Amazons.

Got it! nice one

FIND THE MISTAKE IN THE FOLLOWING....

 

1 RS. = 1 RS.

1 RS. = 100 PAISE..

1 RS. = (10x10) PAISE..

1 RS. = (0.1x0.1) RS.

1 RS. = (0.01) RS.

1 RS. = 1 PAISE.

The mistake is the line 1 RS. = (0.1x0.1) RS

from the previous line, you divided the right side by 1000, since .01 is 1/1000th of 100, instead of dividing by 100 like you should have to convert Paise to RS.

ln x = 0 ln 0

 

It's provable from the field axioms that 0*y=0' date=' for any number y. [/quote']

 

Its also not a proof because ln 0 is not a number, it is undefined. and therefore the field axiom 0*y=0 does not apply where y = ln 0, because y must equal a complex number.

We were taught force = mass X acelleration

The thing that gets me about that equation is what if the acceleration is so great that it accelerates up to 99.999c dosn't the mass change? I thought that this equation assumes that mass not should be variable on the value of a. Thats what bugs me about it...

 

~Scott

[math]\sum F_{n} = ma[/math] is classical physics, based on newtons laws. While these laws are fairly accurate when modeling the real world, for extreme situations like what you mentioned above there are modified equations from Einstein's theory of relativity that take things like the speed of light into account.

this ones been talked about recently on this site' date=' but it was quite fun to do so thought id post it here. no cheating from anyone whos seen it in the 'general discussions' thread (only 40 people have, so it should be ok to post this here).

 

(70406535) (6825358770) (23136720258287) (175202) (70406535)

 

(15026273520253570) (40673542535) (26236742535582) (735202582)

 

(447175202535). (7040636787) (36787) (150106175175490)

 

above is a message. the question is, how would azurephoenix wright her name in the above code?[/quote']

 

Well, sequences in parenthesis are individual words, because (70406535) is repeated twice. At least I think. I suppose they could be individual letters as well, but in my opinion its less likely. 70 shows up a lot, but only at the beginning and end of words. 20, 25, and 35 are all very common as well. and 2025 shows up in a few places, which makes me think that is is a combination of 2 letters that are found together regularly in english. Also, (7040636787) and (36787) both have the sequence 36787 in them, so I'm guessing the last few letters in (7040636787) make the word (36787).

 

ah

 

I got it

 

[hide]

(t h e) (b e s t) (m i n d s) (o n) (t h e)

 

(p l a n e t) (h a v e) (l i v e d) (a n d)

 

(g o n e). (t h i s) (i s) (p r o o f)

 

735 = a

682 = b

631 = c

582 = d

535 = e

490 = f

447 = g

406 = h

367 = i

330 = j

295 = k

262 = l

231 = m

202 = n

175 = o

150 = p

127 = q

106 = r

87 = s

70 = t

55 = u

42 = v

31 = w

22 = x

15 = y

10 = z

 

 

It helps when you figure out where the spaces go, until at the end when you realize the numbers that correspond to the letters are in descending order, subtracting 2 less than what you subtracted for the previous letter each time.

 

[/hide]

 

oh, and about azurepheonix, its (735105510653515040653517520236722)

 

edit: and its not proof, because I figured it out

Ducky, the key is that a long time passes before anyone says anything.

Martin got it

the infinite series for [math]e^{x}[/math] is:

[math]

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{n}}{n!} = 1 + x + \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + \frac{x^{3}}{3!} + \frac{x^{4}}{4!} + \frac{x^{5}}{5!} + ... + \frac{x^{n}}{n!} + ...

[/math]

Taking the derivitive of each term of the series one by one, we get

[math]

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{n-1}}{n!} = 0 + 1 + 2*\frac{x^{1}}{2!} + 3*\frac{x^{2}}{3!} + 4*\frac{x^{3}}{4!} + 5*\frac{x^{4}}{5!} + ... + n*\frac{x^{n -1}}{n!} + ...

[/math]

because [math] \frac{n}{n!} = \frac{1}{(n-1)!}[/math], the above simplifies into

[math]

\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^{n}}{n!} = 1 + x + \frac{x^{2}}{2!} + \frac{x^{3}}{3!} + \frac{x^{4}}{4!} + ... + \frac{x^{n}}{n!} + ...

[/math]

so, as you can see, [math]e^{x} = \frac{d}{dx}e^{x}[/math]

well crap... for some reason my latex isnt working...

Pretty simple, but hey, its all I got

An Indian chief captures 3 white men and takes them into his teepee, where it is completely dark. He tells them he has 5 headbands, 3 white, and 2 red, and that he is going to put them on the men randomly, so there is 2 headbands unused. He then puts them in a line, and marches them out of the teepee, like so:

^ c b a

^ = teepee, a = first man, b = second, c = third

so that the third man can see the first two mens headbands, the second man can see the first man's headband, and the first man can't see anyone's headbands.

The chief tells the men that they only have one chance for any of the men to name the color headband on his head. If the man is wrong, they all get killed, if he is right, they all are set free. A long time passes during which the men are completely silent, then finally, one of the men correctly names the color of his headband.

Who was it and what color was his headband, and how did you come to that conclusion?

edit: please post your solutions in spoiler tags.

but the force is not being exerted over a distance

It is being exerted over a distance relative to the water.

I like Dave's Idea. Using streams to convert the int values to text would be easiest.

wheres the problem? lol

edit:

nevermind... it showed up after i replied... wierd.

You can't find the value of [math]\frac{1}{\infty}[/math], because infinity is not defined in the set of complex numbers, therefore you can't perform any arithmatic on it. The only thing you can do that is similar would be to find [math]\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x}[/math] which equals 0.

So how can we know that one of the two is irrational, when in order to determine PI, you have to measure the circumference and diameter of a circle, and even with the most advanced instruments, a measurement will never produce an irrational number because anything used to measure has finite precision?

You say that the differential is always positive' date=' do you mean df, or do you mean dx?

 

...

 

Picking up from here, what do you mean that dx is necessarily positive?

 

Regards[/quote']

 

I mean dx is always positive, and that the derivative df/dx will only be negative due to the differential df, never because of the differential dx.

Would you mind explaining the bold part a little more?

What I meant was, that in a function of a variable, for example [math] f(x) = x^{2} + 3x - 2 [/math], the value of the function is dependant upon the value of the variable (in this example, x), which continuously moves down the x-axis, so that the change in the variable (again, in this example, x), and thus the differential, is always positive.

Do you know of any formula relating time to entropy?

 

Regards

I dont know of any specific formulae relating time to entropy, although I would venture to say that there is, seeing as how time is a measurement of the change in the entropy of the universe. However, entropy can theoretically only increase, not increase, so therefore time would only be able to move foreward and not backwards, so the differential would still be positive.

pi is probably the strangest number on the planet.

On one hand, Pi is defined as a ratio... that of the Circumference of a circle to its diameter.

However, as far as I know, it is a nonrepeating infinite decimal, therefore making it an irrational number, correct?

So how is it that you can take a ratio, and get an irrational number out of it?

Let me rephrase...

In a function f(x), where x is the independant variable, that is, where the value of f(x) changes based on the amount of change in x, the value of x moves at a constant, positive rate along the x-axis, and the value of f(x) varies along the y-axis depending on the current value of x and the function f(x) represents. Therefore it seems impossible to me that the differential of an independant variable in a function could be anything other than positive, and only the differential of the value of the function could be negative.

Since time, in every function I can think of, is an independant variable, it makes sense that its differential could never be negative.

Distance, on the other hand, is often a function of an independant variable, therefore its differential could be negative, depending on the nature of the function.

If for some reason however, the value of time was dependant on another variable, then and only then, could it be negative. However, time, by its nature I would think is not dependant on any other variable, and is therefore unidirectional because its differential cannot be negative.

I suppose if we operate on the assumption that time is always the independant variable in a function (where f(t) is dependant on the value of y), which at the moment I can't think of any scenarios where it wouldn't be, it would only be possible for the differential of time dt to be positive, just as its only possible for the differential of x to be positive in a function f(x).

I saw a geometrical proof one time that showed two pictures of triangles bordering rectangles and that was it. Can't remember exactly what it looked like though.

*edit*

He's a pretty quick/simple one: http://www.davis-inc.com/pythagor/proof2.html