NeonBlack

Because you can vote for more than 1 person.

"Ton" Swanson? Is that Tom's fat brother?

1. The idea of "relativistic mass" has not been used by most physicists for several decades now. 2. Newton's second law says [math]F=\frac{d}{dt}p[/math] (force and momentum are vectors, of course. I don't know how to draw the arrows.) This is just the definition of force. Einstein just modifies momentum slightly so that [math]p=mv\gamma[/math] instead of just [math]p=mv[/math] Again, do not let gamma be attached to the mass so that you have m(v)

I_A: Newton's laws, the "Three laws" at least, (not including gravity) are always right. As far as I know, Einstein doesn't mess with the 3 laws.

Did I miss something? I was definitely up too late last night, so it's possible.

This is not quite right. I am assuming you know that [math]e^{\ln{u}}=u[/math] this means that you want [math]\frac{x-1}{x+2}>1[/math] (since [math]e^0=1[/math]) Maybe this was just an example you made up' date=' but [math']\frac{x-1}{x+2}[/math] cannot be larger than 1. Edit: I should clarify that this is true for a log of any base b. [math]b^{\log_b{u}}=u[/math]

I only skimmed the first page. I think you have an extra factor of 1/c in your B-field term. It looks like you're doing some "fuzzy math." The lorentz force is not conservative.

This may give new meaning to "getting s---faced"

Klaynos: I attended last week's colliquium at my university on the subject. Let me know if you would like to know more about it.

no- it only rules out capacitor plates, I believe. Since the individual plates can gain a net charge, the current in does not have to be equal to the current out. This is the only case I can think of where KCL is violated (and even the entire capacitor is charge neutral) and the voltage rule will always apply.

\palmface

As you said, it's just conservation. What goes in must come out. That doesn't change just because the amount of stuff going in and out changes.

YD: Ohm's laws and Kirchoff's laws are applicable for any circuit, including AC or any other time varying voltages or currents.

yes, Bush is not yet eligible for the award as he has not met the death requirement.

This is based entirely from my memory and I'm about to go to bed so CBA to verify: [math]n!=\int_0^{\infty} x^n e^{-x} dx [/math]

61%, better than 65% better at spotting girls.

There are many ways. My personal favorite is Cramer's rule, which I don't have time to explain right now, maybe you can look it up on wiki. The simplest is probably just to write your equations in the matrix form [math]Ax=B[/math] Then find the inverse matrix of A and then [math]x=A^{-1}B[/math]

Most of the integrals in basic QM shouldn't require a table. What exactly is the psi function you are working with? I see 1 problem and 1 potential problem. Problem: If you want the average r, you need [math]\int r \Psi^2dr[/math] Potential Problem: I notice you aren't diving by [math]\int \Psi^2dr[/math] If psi is normalizable and already normalized, then you don't need to do this. So in general, this is what you want: [math]<r>=\frac{\int r \Psi^2 dr}{\int \Psi^2 dr}[/math]

But wait! Order within the next five minutes and we'll send you a second bottle of Flame On free! That's an 80 dollar value for only $39.95! I think boiling off the water in your body (or even a small part of your body) would be much more devastating that SC. If what Glider says is true, that suggests more of a falling asleep with a cigarette wearing a sweater type of scenario. You'd think if this were the case, they'd find evidence of a cigarette or flame and it wouldn't be deemed "spontaneous." Maybe they were just too dumbstruck to be able to extinguish themselves. "Oh my god! I can't believe this! I've actually spontaneously combusted! I didn't at all expect this to happen..."

I agree with trying to "give it a good wack" The effectiveness of percussive reparation is astounding. Stick a screwdriver or something in it and wiggle it around a little.

I believe that such a thing can not exist.

I had a few chemistry sets when I was young. They were fun, but what I really really liked were the legos, erector set (I'm surprised nobody said that yet), this radio shack electronics kit, pretty much anything requiring assembly or disassembly- old/broken toys, radios, electronics.

Look up electromagnetic radiation on wiki. It looks like there's something on there, I haven't tried to follow it though. In my physics 3 class, we only went through a hand-waving motivation for the final result, but the professor said a complete derivation would take no more than half an hour (that is if you're comfortable with some vector calculus).

YD, you're funny. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain it was you who, no more than a couple of weeks ago threw these in someone's face and said (I'm paraphrasing; I don't remember your words or the thread) "Shut up and don't open your mouth again until you understand these." Anyway, the equations as they are in general will require a solid understanding of vector calculus. You can get a good idea of what they mean if you simplify them. As bignose suggested, you should work with these in 1 dimension. Look at spherical or cylindrical coordinates with no angular dependence. For example, a charged sphere or a long wire with a current running through it. You will be able to handle these with minimal knowledge of vector calculus. I will give a brief conceptual rundown: You asked what are E and B- E is the electric field, which is completely analogous to gravitational field when mass is replaced by charge. The only difference between a g field and an E field is that there are two charges, but only one mass. B field is a bit more complicated. We say that electricity and magnetism are the "same thing" and that's true. I like to think of magnetic fields as a relativistic effect. If you know a little SR, then you know that when you go fast, your spatial coordinates shrink and your time coordinate gets bigger. Look at the lorentz transformations for E&M. E and B are connected in the same way as space and time. (I will try to remember the order in which you wrote the equations) The first one is Gauss's law for electricity. It works the same way as it does for gravity. It tells us that a charged sphere behaves the same way as a point charge in the center would, also if you are inside a charged spherical shell there will be no electric field. The second is Gauss's law for magnetism. It's not really too useful when analyzing magnetic fields, but it is important in electromagnetic theory of light. It also tells us that there are no magnetic monopoles. 3. Faraday's law. A changing B field makes a voltage. Principle for how generators and motors work. 4. Ampere's law. Basically, current makes a magnetic field. You can forget about the J part. That's very nice, but who cares? Take out the J part and notice how symmetric these equations look. About 150 years ago or so, there was a young physicist in England named Jimmy. (I think he was also working as a Clerk or something like that. I don't remember.) Anyway, he took these equations and played around with them putting them together and stuff- as you, YD attempted - and he came up with a very familiar partial differential equation. He said "sweet, the wave equation! Maybe this electricity and magnetism is some kind of wave." He looked at the velocity term, [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0}} [/math]and said "hmm, I wonder how fast an electric wave goes." He punched the number into his calculator and said, "whoa, that's pretty fas- OH MY GOD THE SPEED OF LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!" And thus was born the electromagnetic theory of light, which is why we have radios, televisions, cell phones and wi-fi.

Things like this are not always as simple as your jr. high biology class. Things like eye color are not controlled by one, but many genes. You also have things like co-dominance and shared dominance (I think those are the names). For example: A red flower pollinates a white flower. What do you get? You might think that red dominates white, but that's not always the case. Maybe it's pink (shared dominance) or maybe it's red and white (co-dominance). When my mother was young, she has light blonde hair. By her early 20's it was medium brown. When I was young my hair was very dark black. Today, it's medium-dark brown. These things can be very complicated. Gene expression is still not fully understood.