BobbyJoeCool

Infinity doesn't exist in the real world (NOTHING can be infinte in the real world). Aside from which, a point, which has dimentions of 0mx0mx0m cannot have a volume. Mass requires volume to be contained in, and since a singularity has no volume in which to contain it's mass, it cannot exist.

Yes it was, if you take the literal meaning. It basically says the sun set and rose, and it was the first day. And it says that six more times, and thus the seventh day comes and he rested. Although, it does say the evening and the morning are a day, instead of the morning and the evening... so according to the Bible, the day starts at noon and ends at noon? Is that why every church I've ever heard told of has their service in the morning? Additional, he said "Let there be light." And thus created the sun (during the first day mind you)

no, you're not the only one. Unless you're talking about the kind of creationism that says "6,000 years ago, God created the Earth, and every living thing." ID is basically believing creation AND evolution. But it comes down to this... life was created somehow... either nature did it on Her own (abiogenesis), or some other life form created it (biogenesis). Basically, Creation is a theory about how things began, and Evolution is a theory about what's happened since then (unless you want to apply it to the beginning of life, having evolved from organic compounds such as carbon, which is the base of most organic lifeforms...) Although some creation theories involve the creation of ALL forms of life, and nothing has evolved (but however still has the potential to evolve). But, in answer to your question, no. If no one else does, I don't see the conflict.

- All guns ought to be elimated from the planet! Disagree - Homosexuality should be a federal crime! Strongly Disagree - All drug users should be mandatorily sterilized! Disagree - Death penalty should be option for all crimes! Disagree - The ACLU is a terrorist organization! Disagree - Everything IMM says is the gospel truth! Not everything - Woman shouldnt work in the military or office! Disagree - Hospitals shouldnt be treat the poor! DIsagree - People who develop cancers from smoking should not be treated! Disagree (as long as they have money/insurance) - HIV/AIDS is God's punishment against the homosexuals! Disagree - Immigrants should be deported or thrown in prison! Disagree - Abortion doctors should be put to death! Disagree - Government is an unnecessary evil! Disagree - Taxes are a form of theft! Disagree - Michael Moore for president! Who's Michael Moore? - Voluntarily childless couples are evil and selfish! DIsagree - Legal drugs! All of them! Disagree - Socialize medicine! Agree - Israel, as we know it, should have never been created and ought to disappear! WTF? Disagree - Nuke the Middle East! STRONGLY Disagree - Yay monarchy! Strognly Disagree - Laws against child pornography are mind-control! Disagree - Censor obscene material on TV, radio, and Internet! Disagree (depending on the degree... Censor as in make the rating system a little tighter, yes. Censor so that it disapears, no) - Free public education for everyone! Agree

Suddenly remember's 9/11...

That's because ALL of them get news coverage. Flying really is the safest way to travel, because it's the only way to travel where the driver (pilot in this case) has gone thorugh years of serious training and testing to be in control AND their's a co-pilot for in case something happens to the pilot. The Co-Pilot is not some lacky who's learning how to fly for the first time, (s)he's a trained pilot who just hasn't had the experience the pilot has, and is getting some experience flying. How many flights take off and land without incident every day? How many crashes are there? one-two a month. Do you know how many boats sink, or trains de-rail, or the kicker... How many car accidents there are in that amount of time? You're MUCH more likely to die (or be seriously injured) in your car on the way to the airport than do die on the plane.

Imangine for a second the 2D world that exists on the surface of a spherical object. a 2-D being (thinking that a small plane on the surface of the sphere is his planet), doesn't have a concept of "up" because it doesn't exist to him. The surface area that doesn't have other planes on it (other "planets" as it were) would seem to have nothing to "float" on, and yet it does. We see it as moving along the surface of the sphere. Just as in 4-D space, volume is much as we perceve surface area. So in the hypersphere (which is what I believe the universe to be, and it is a respected theory on the matter), the volume (our universe) is only a small part of the hypervolume that makes up the 4-D sphere. Or, objects don't need anything to "float in." The mass of other objects affects us by pulling us towards it, but there's no rule that you have to move along something. Because if you were moving along something in space, you would have something to form friction against and actually change directions. No matter now much you kick and squirm, you can't change your direction without some sort of jet pack (most commonly used nowadays is Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide). Space it literally nothing. There are particles floating around in it (and planets/stars/etc.) As for black holes, and ripping spacetime... The border between this dimention and the next is very fragile. With enough force (like that generated by the black hole), it can rip the fabric of spacetime and create a rift to another dimention. In theory. No one even knows if this happens, because no one knows what happens inside a black hole because nothing can escape past the event horizon (where all of this takes place). Ripped is a metaphor. Like saying that you "ripped the relationship apart." It's not a solid, tangable object, like spacetime...

Well... put it this way. how often does everything happen in perfect form. The more there is to do, the greater the chance of something going wrong. Hence in an evacuation that size, something was bound to go wrong. It's a shame that so many things seemed to go wrong though.

Yes, hopefully they will re-evaluate evac. plans. Maybe even start with a couple drills? The problem though, with planning this sort of thing is that if one little thing doesn't go according to plan, people panic. When people panic, bad things happen (mob mentality). Another problem is that most people don't bother to have an emergency plan, or know what one is if one is in place for a larger system. At work, I know what to do if the store catches on fire, or if a tornado touches down or if the gas tank explodes (IF everyone isn't dead that is). Not many people know. How many people have an emergency plan for if their house is on fire and all the doors are inaccessable and you're on the second floor, or in the basement with no windows? I know my plan. It is sad though that it takes a natural disaster such as this, and MANY lives being lost to realize that there are flaws in certain things that need to be fixed. Or that it took 9/11 to unite this country under one banner. It's just sad.

yes it does, but I'm saying that these people who are talking about why NO isn't getting all the aid in the world is that it is also needed elsewhere. NO is not the only (albeit the largest) place affected. The media did put the story on the backburner, and went back to gas prices and other such things. I mean, the hurricane missed New Orleans, that else is there to report on? Everything is dandy! Opps! The levy broke, now lets do some non-stop reporting for a week, distort the pubics view and make money doing it! Now, all they report on is "New Orleans S&R operations." And how things are bad in NO... I agree, things are bad. But the media's focus isn't based on informing... it's based on ratings. If they can get people to watch their channel as opposed to the other one, they can get more sponsers and make more money. This is the main drive of the media. This creates a vicious cycle that happens all too often. What people will watch is what get's reported on. What get's reported on shapes the general populations image of how things are (which is VERY distorted). The afore mentioned general population then makes assumtions on what needs to be done based on a false image of how things are. People get blamed for not helping when in fact they are doing everything they can. This ranting is against the media.... nothing else. Reporters... vultures... both in the same category. Reporters wait for situations such as this so that they can make more money because people apparently want to hear about "why this happened." The levy broke because it, like most things that require any sort of upkeep, was not in tip-top, Cat 5 hurricane proof, shape. Oh... they had 48 hours to evacuate, all that time and there were still so many people in the city. How about the people who did get out? What percentage did get out? What percentage refused to leave? How long does it take to evacuate a city using public transportation? How long does it take for the National Guard to get involved (ie: people who are trained to evacuate a metro-area that large) to speed things up? The media doesn't answer these questions because people won't sit and listen to it (I would, but that's me). People want to point a finger and blame someone. Everything is someone's fault. The mayor should have done better in evacuating the city. Bush should be giving more aid. blah blah blah. This is no ones fault but Mother Nature. It just goes to show that no matter how high we rise up, we can be smitten down by Mother Nature and there isn't much we can do about it aside from get out of the way, and start over when She is done destroying things. Honestly though, don't trust what you hear on the news. Do a little research behind it. You'll find that they "misplace" some facts and draw a different conclution than they should, because it sells. Watch the movie "Newsies." The guy yells about a sex scandle to sell copies of the paper. What was it? some side story that talked a little about sex on page twelve or something like that. He's trying to sell copies of the paper, because sex, scandles, etc. is what people want to hear about. A rumor can become news in this way. It's astonishing what passes for "The news at 9." I donated as much as I could spare from my paycheck last Thursday (it was like $35, damn college) to the Red Cross's "Donate to Kat 5" fund or some such thing like that.

I'm going to chime in a little here. First off, I don't know about other countries, but here in the US, the Media blows things completly out of proportion. They report only the exciting, nail-biting news (the news that will attract viewers). So you get a lot of scandels, "incidents," what people are doing wrong, etc. They report facts mind you, but sometimes leave some facts, or make some isolated incident a big deal, and one black getting shot or beaten by a white National Guard, the media can take that and they'll say "look at what the National Guard does to Blacks!" and suddenly, Blacks are being abused. This is just an example mind you, I haven't heard that much on the racism in the NO search and rescue. Secondly, NO (and surrounding areas) has more than a million people. Most of thost people (approx. 6/7) don't have a car, or other means of intercity transportation. Most people use public transportation, walking/biking, or carpool to get from one place to another. Evacuating the city would have been a MASSIVE ordeal, and then you get the people who refuse to leave. People are very possessive, and they don't want to leave their house and all their worldy possessions because they feel that if they lose everything, that they'll have nothing (imagine that) and would rather die. So they figure that they'll take the chance of dying because they feel that if nothing happens, they will have put up a lot of fuss for nothing, and in the time it takes to get out and back, someone could easily break in a steal things. etc. etc. Thirdly, you can say all you want about "diverting funds from the levy repair." This is in hindsight. This happens EVERYWHERE! Find something in your town/city/village that is in need of repair that if some natural disaster came along, it would cause catastrophy. But the funds needed to fix/replace said broken thing(s) is diverted to "more urgent" areas of the govt. Furthermore, anyone remember 9/11? Rememeber all the hype about how there were "signs" of a terrorist attack comming? How the FBI should have known it was comming. Imagine someone's argument for replacing that wooden bridge that connects the town to the rest of the world being that if a tornado comes along, it could be destroyed! Most people (not just govt. officials) would laugh at you. well duh! Tornados are totally destructive! It's what they do! Finally, remember that the hurricane missed NO. It hit some poor town (that I can't even think of the name right now) that no one has heard of. That town is completely destroyed (even more so than NO), and yet most of the relief & aid is going to NO, because everyone's heard of it. (also because that town is much smaller than NO, and didn't requre much aid, and right now really just needs rebuilding). But the media hasn't said much at all about where the hurricane hit (that I've seen anyway). I do believe that the govt. has handled the situation quite nicely. You can't be ready for natural disasters everywhere at all times. Given 24 hours notice (even 48 hours) although it seems like a very long time, it really isn't. You're not talking about evacuating a small town of 10,000 (like the one I live in), you're talking aobut more than a million people! Most of whom can't get out on their own. Next, take into account the feeling of "whew" when the hurricane missed NO, and most people around there were thinking the danger had passed. Next day, whoops! The levy broke! We're all doomed, while relief efforts are helping where the hurricane hit (which the media wasn't reporting on btw, they were talking about NO at the time.) At any rate, that's my two cents.

And molecules Molecules Angstrom (Å)=10^-10 m (or 0.1 nm) so, molecule =0.2 nm-3.6 nm and an atom = .12 nm-.24 nm. Approx... So a Large molecule is 3.6 nm, and a small atom is .12 nm. ratios! .12:3.6... 1:30. so a large molecule is about 30 times bigger than small atom. Grape and Earth? not really. Maybe if you're talking about an object being made up of molecules... then you have several million or billion molecules making up an object, but there are rarely that many atoms in a molecule. Otherwise, if you have a curcular current (like in a circit (sp)), it flows from positive to negative to positive to negative to positive to negative... Magnetism

You of course mean "smote."

lots of biologists... I was thinking Physics or Chemistry. I never really liked Bio all too much. Maybe it was because I had Creationist teachers teaching Evolution...

After all.. it's really should be written [math]x^{2/3}[/math]

as previously mentioned, all creationist "evidence" is based on the fact that it can point towards more than one thing (ie, incomplete). Evidence points towards evolution, and they say, "where did life come from." If they would accept life as "starting" on it's own, they would say, "where did the building blocks come from." and after that can be proven where it came from, they'd say "where did the universe come from." etc... It all goes back to origins. "Where did it come from?" I'm not saying that they're wrong, but mostly, their evidence is based on the fact that something cannot be proven, and that their beliefs can never be proven wrong (unless you want to die and find out for yourself that it.), because they can always say "God causes this to happen, God causes everything to happen." God is the cause, and since God cannot be proven, Creationism cannot be proven (and little to no "scietific" evidence exists. There's the Bible. That's about it.)

you are right of course... opps. I don't think it matters.... I mean... [math]\sqrt[3]{x}^2=\sqrt[3]{x^2}[/math]

ok. there's a formula for this... [math]a^3-b^3=(a-b)(a^2+ab+b^2)[/math] so lets look at the equation again! [math]f(x)=\sqrt[3]{x}[/math] [math]f'(x)=\frac{\sqrt[3]{x+ \Delta x}-\sqrt[3]{x}}{\Delta x}[/math] Ok. again, for confusion, Delta x shall be replaced by y. [math]\frac{\sqrt[3]{x+y}-\sqrt[3]{x}}{y}[/math] [math]a=\sqrt[3]{x+y}[/math] [math]b=\sqrt[3]{x}[/math] Since the first term is already there (a-b) we multiply the num and denom by the second term. [math]\frac{(\sqrt[3]{x+y}-\sqrt[3]{x})(\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2)} {y(\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2)}[/math] by our original formula... [math]x+y-x=(\sqrt[3]{x+y}-\sqrt[3]{x})(\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2)[/math] [math]\frac{x+y-x} {y(\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2)}[/math] [math]\frac{y} {y(\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2)}[/math] the "y"s cancil out... [math]\frac{1} {\sqrt[3]{x+y}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+y}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] now remember y=Delta x [math]\frac{1} {\sqrt[3]{x+\Delta x}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+\Delta x}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] and it's a limit... [math]\lim_{\Delta x \to 0}{\frac{1} {\sqrt[3]{x+\Delta x}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+\Delta x}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}}[/math] So with direct substitution... [math]{\frac{1} {\sqrt[3]{x+0}^2+\sqrt[3]{x+0}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] [math]{\frac{1} {\sqrt[3]{x}^2+\sqrt[3]{x}\sqrt[3]{x}+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] [math]{\frac{1} {2 \sqrt[3]{x}^2+\sqrt[3]{x}\sqrt[3]{x}}[/math] [math]{\frac{1} {2 \sqrt[3]{x}^2+\sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] [math]{\frac{1} {3 \sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] [math]f'(x)={\frac{1} {3 \sqrt[3]{x}^2}[/math] Which, by the power rule as I explained earlier, is the right answer. Kudos to both me, and the Wartburg College Math department who spend all of 5 minutes explaining this to me (after spending 5 seconds figuring it out.)

the variables don't bother me, it's those freaking cubed roots... AHHHHHHH!!! blah blah blah...

good point on that one. I just hate taking the derivative of a nth root. *shudders*

it's like... ridiculusly Advanced Algebra. How do you factor out the Delta x out of the denominator? The most obvious way is to factor a Delta X out each term of the numerator. [math]\frac{\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}-\sqrt[3]{x}}{\Delta x}[/math] good luck. the trick of multiplying by the congigate doesn't work, because you have cubed roots instead of square roots. I tried this.. [math]\frac{(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}-\sqrt[3]{x})(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})}{\Delta x(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})}[/math] [math]\frac{(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}^2-\sqrt[3]{x}^2)}{\Delta x(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})}[/math] [math]\frac{(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}^2-\sqrt[3]{x}^2)(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})}{\Delta x(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})(\sqrt[3]{x- \Delta x}+\sqrt[3]{x})}[/math] for confusion factor, Delta x shall now be replaced by "y." [math]\frac{x-y+\sqrt[3]{x-y}^2\sqrt[3]{x}-\sqrt[3]{x-y}\sqrt[3]{x}^2-x}{y}[/math] [math]\frac{-y+\sqrt[3]{(x-y)^2}\sqrt[3]{x}-\sqrt[3]{x-y}\sqrt[3]{x^2}}{y}[/math] [math]\frac{-y+\sqrt[3]{(x^2-2xy+y^2}\sqrt[3]{x}-\sqrt[3]{x-y}\sqrt[3]{x^2}}{y}[/math] [math]\frac{-y+\sqrt[3]{x^3-2x^2 y+y^2 x}-\sqrt[3]{x^3-x^2 y}}{y}[/math] I gave up here after staring at it for a while (a half hour). I realized that at an intro to calculus level, there's no way to finish solving this. And at any rate, it's not the type of problem you would think would be assigned if it's going to be this long, so you'd have to assume that they can use power rule to make it a simple math assignment problem. Either that or all of us are thinking too much. Where's (is it Matt Grime?) the Math Expert when I need him? If it can be done this way, I'll figure it out eventually (or someone will tell me).

When you talk about the "cubes" being "faces" of the hypercube... Lets go to the 2D visualizing... your 2D being sees the face of the cube as filling space. Surface area to it is as we would see volume in our dimention. So, a hypercube would see volume as we see surface area. The cubes would be the volumes of the hypercube, but actually there are an infinite number of cubes inside the hypercube making up "hypervolume" (is there a scientific term for this I don't know?) just as there are an infinite number of squares in a cube making up the volume. Try visulizing that. yea. Hypercubes are fun.

ohh shudder.. you mean this way... [math]f'(x)=\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}{\frac{f(x+\Delta x)-f(x)}{\Delta x}}[/math] I call this "The evil way." Why... Subsitiute... this is what you get... [math]f'(x)=\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}{\frac{\sqrt[3]{x+\Delta x}-\sqrt[3]{x}}{\Delta x}}[/math] and it gets even more evil from there, because you have to get the Delta x out of the denominator so that you don't get 0 down there. And the way I would go about doing that is attempt to get a common factor of Delta x in the numerator that I could factor out that with the Delat x in the denominator... Oi vey. This isn't exactly the type of problem I would assign to do this way, especially in the beginning of a calculus class.

[math]\frac{d}{dx}(ax^b)=(a*b)x^{b-1}[/math] So, your problem: [math]\frac{d}{dx}(x^{1/3})=(1*1/3)x^{(1/3)-1}[/math] [math]\frac{x^{-2/3}}{3}=\frac{1}{3x^{2/3}}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt[3]{x^2}}[/math]

Ok. You can't be too young to find love, but you can be to in-experienced to understand what it truly is. You can be tricked into thinking you're in love when you're not because you really don't know what it is. You think you do, but you don't.