Connor

if you use n rather than n-1 then the population starts not at the original amount, but the amount on the second day, so you should use your teacher's equation

you don't understand much about... relativity... do you? All these cases that "contradict" Eintstein's theories... were predicted by Einstein's theories... Where did you get these ideas about his relativity?

it has to be a multiple of 9, all the multiples of 9 are the same symbol *yawn*

I try to visualize four dimensions as by looking at our three-space from a point outside, so that I could see every point in it. Then I get confused and start banging my head against the wall.

ah, well, I guess it's pretty obscure (but if you decode it, it's a quote from a cool book)

sorry, evo, I got 69

45 units squared I'll work on the cube problem and get back to you

I'm sorry, I'm not too good at explaining things, but: say you want to find the inverse of A A= |a b c| |d e f | |g h i | augment I to A A:I= |a b c:1 0 0| |d e f :0 1 0| |g h i :0 0 1| row reduce this matrix to: |1 0 0:j k l | |0 1 0:m n o | |0 0 1:p q r | the inverse of A is: |j k l | |m n o | |p q r | hope that helps PS: rref means "reduced row echelon form"

an easy way to find A^(-1) (that I use) is to augment A with I, and put A:I in rref. you end up with I:A^(-1) (if A is independent, of course)

what data? Give me an example of real data by the way, string theory has been under some assault, and is not at all generally accepted

The fact is that the decay of the proton and other such events you speak of are based on mathematical prediction and repeated observation, and have loads of empirical evidence to back them up (if not on the proton, then on dozens of other particles, so the results can be extended to other particles). "Sychronity" and other sorts of ESP (clairvoyance, telepathy) have never been successfully tested in a controlled laboratory setting, and evidence that supports claims such as these are stained with all sorts of biases, including one that you demonstrated very well with your four examples. I do not personally believe in this sort of thing and will not unless there is solid evidence for it.

well, in order for the equation to =0, 5x+2=0 (first answer) or x-4=0 if x-4=0, x=4 and 5x+2=22 (second answer)

One way to experience a relatively safe hallucination (you should have someone with you, and don't go overboard) could be a sweatbox. Heat rocks in a fire or oven. Go inside a small sealed and heavily layered canvas tent. Pour water over the rocks to make steam. People often have hallucination after prolonged periods because of the heat and water deprivation. The darkness and sound of water on the rocks contributes to the hallucinogenic effects as well.

I think you have to assume the wieght of the bag is negligable, and the bag weighs 72 pounds at 18 feet. Otherwise you don't have enough information to solve the problem.

reading this drivel is a strain on my sanity. You clearly have a sophomoric understanding of the basic principles of physics, and your illogical theories just make me want to scream. Please, please, do some research before coming up with this crap, and think before you post

yeah, and with the bohr model the electron would slowly lose energy, and would spiral into collision with the nucleus. That wouldn't be cool.

random number generators generates pseudorandom numbers I can't think of any way to create truly random numbers (as you define it, because dice aren't random enough I guess) other than with quantum mechanics of some sort.

please don't duplicate a thread

That is a very interesting idea - I will have to read up on it

would you please explain that further, aguy2?

so if they use a=0 in the end... isn't that just using continuous time, by a different method?

What I believe is perhaps the most logical end for the universe is a state of extreme entropy, where few "useful" interactions occur. Although this isn't really and end, perhaps it is the final fate of the universe. However, due to attractive forces and the unpredictability of nature, I don't expect a completely static universe or one where matter is spread equally throughout. If all intelligent life in the universe becomes extinct, is that a sort of end for it? With no intelligence there is nobody to observe the universe, and although it will continue, no one really cares, just some thoughts

In order for me to really believe something, I need convincing proof. The fact that there's no evidence against it does nothing for me, because there's no evidence against a lot of things (eg. lochness monster or a fish that can speak and slap you)

is discrete time a generally accepted theory?

not every animal experiences pain. Sure, dogs and cats do, and sharks and octopi, and birds and maybe even C elegans, but an animal must have a neural network to feel pain