WhataBohr

I have seen brackets by peoples name like lepton, quark etc... what are those??

also some people are moderators and experts how does that happen??

I was watching Stars Wars over the weekend and the death star got me thinking

Could a gamma ray burst from outer space which generates about10^47 J aimed at earth destroy the planet.. I think it would be enough to at least destroy the atmosphere... any thoughts out there...

i have collection of papers by einstien for sure in DJVU format not sure about heisenberg i would have to look... interested?

i read a while back about red giants expansions based on mass, luminosity and graviation... Called " On winds of giants to binary systems by A.Frankowski..... it will should anwser your questions

thanks for the info about latex capability for i am new to this site. I will try to be more complete in my discussions....

some say motion is an illusion... however a good book to start with is motion mountain a physics textbook it is well written for the beginner.. You can download it in pdf format and free as well. They discuss what is motion is depth

for what i remember a star will go to a red giant dependant on it mass(.5-10 solar masses) but i suggest maybe looking the Hertzsprung - Russell diagram to help in the evolution of stars it may be helpful

you might what to take a look at quantum general relativity.. it predicts violent flunctuations in the geometry of spacetime at distances in order of plancks length.. an interesting subject..

my point was that complex analysis deals with many different topics that the poster ignoring and is worth learning more about. ie residues , poles etc

Merged post follows:

f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y) for those math guys so apply Cauchy riemann equations to that....

i prefer to think of gravity in a GR way. Our universe has a distinct geometry and its this geometry that determines gravity and its matter(mass) that determines the geometry,,,.. like the dips on an apple..

equations to look at is the Helmholtz equation.. describes the wave equations

q = wK + du/dt (1st law of thermodynamics)

where Q is the heat transfer rate and Wk is the work transfer rate. They

may be expressed in joules per second (J/s) or watts (W). The derivative

dU/dt is the rate of change of internal thermal energy, U, with time, t.

seems odd.. you might want to look at rolle theorem perhaps

ODE is defines as F(y,y',y'') =0

the 2nd equations appears to be a nonlinear eqn

use the following identites

sin2x = 2sinxcosx

cos2x = 1-2sin^2x

cos3x = 4cos^3x - 3cosx

sin3x = 3sinx -4sin^3x - sinx

i did the proof its actually pretty simple.. good luck

Complex Analysis is not that simple... deals withs residues and poles etc and criteria for functions that are analytical... if u treat z as a real constant u are missing a whole lot. Good luck...

for a complex function to be differentiable on an open set i believe to has to satisfy the Cauchy Riemann equations. du/dy= -dv/dw (partial dirivatives)

I think one needs to look at when light hits a medium part is reflected and some is transmitted.. snell laws. I believe we need to look at propagation of light from a Electrodynamic way (maxwell equations) and Poynting theorem ( conservation of energy) Any thoughts

I know the answer to this but here goes

light travels at c however when it reflects say off a mirror does it slow to zero and reversed direction???

Superposition in physics is used in linear systems and in Fourier analysis. If input A outputs X and input B outputs y then Sum of a,b outputs x+y

How do I prove that:

 

(cosx-cos3x)/(sin3x-sinx)= tan2x?

do you want the proof?

At first I would say no, and that this is the same type of flawed logic that leads people to believe that when a ball is being swung in circular motion on a string, and that string is cut, that the ball will go in a an arc.

But instead it flies off tangential to the point at which it was cut.

 

But then someone pointed out to me that you can put english on a cue ball to make it spin. They then said that if you were to twist the gun so that the barrel was moving faster (in a curved motion) than the bullet inside the barrel (as most guns typically make their bullets spin as part of the design) the bullet would be essentally the same as a cue ball that was hit with an angular force or whatever, and that the bullet would curve.

 

If it was physically possible to spin the gun that fast, would the bullet curve? Or his logic fallacious in some way? I believe it is, but I can't think of how to put Newtons law into words to explain his error. Heck, I may be wrong.

 

What do you all think?

In a local frame of reference, I would agree. However in the larger scale our universe is not quite that simple. Riemann Geometry it can be mathematically proven that parallel lines do intersect and straight lines are curves ones ( geodesics) hence the great theory of GR emerges. Physics locally is simple.