Jump to content

jordan

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jordan

  1. Hey everyone. I need a bit of help with the design for my art project. We're working with sculptures of human figures and part of mine is going to be veins. To do the veins I could pretty easily get clear tubing and fill it with red and blue liquids. But to make it even better, I wanted to be able to turn the lights off and halve the only light be that which is running through the veins, almost like fiberoptics. Fiberoptics only release the light at the end though. I want something that you can see light the whole way (so they look like veins obviously). Are there any tricks here to get the light to travel through the veins further? How far do you think I could get it to go?
  2. Haha...no. I'm not contesting Cantor's argument. Let me ask you this, the proof I outlined in my first post, is that the way Cantor proved it?
  3. I'm not objecting to Cantor's theorem, I'm objecting to the way it was proven above by my professor.
  4. One of my professors tried to explain Cantor's Argument today. I'm not sure if he tried to do a dumbed down version or what, but it was kinda weird. He did this thing were we played a game. Player one had a 6x6 grid and player two got a row of 6 boxes. Player one then filled in each row of his grid with 0's and 1's in any order. For example: 000000 -row1 100000 -row2 110000 -row3 001100 -row4 011110 -row5 010101 -row6 and then it was player two's job to create a row of six that did not match any of player one's rows. The method was to take row 1 column 1 and put the opposite number in there. For my example that would mean player two puts a 1 in his first box. Then row 2 column 2...and so on. Usuing that method should ensure that player two can always create a unique set. Carry this on for grids of nxn where n is infitine then it seems to be shown that there can always be a row (as created by player two) of infinite 0's and 1's that wasn't in the previous list and therefore there's isn't a 1-1 corespondence between the natural numbers and infinite sets of 0's and 1's. This isn't to say I don't believe Cantor, it's just this particular proof seems wrong. I tried to explain why I think this is wrong to my professor and he just kinda shrugged it off. I wasn't real satisfied with his answer for me. But before I get to my counter-argument I guess I should check to make sure all the above makes sense to everyone. So is that a familiar proof? Or is that just a simplified version or Cantor's? And most important, does all the above make sense?
  5. There's one thing I can't get past with 4-D graphing. I don't understand where the fourth dimension is. I still don't have a logical answer for where is exists that couldn't be described with 3 dimensions. I realize everything i've seen is a 2-D projection of a 4-D object but it still seems like all you'd have to do to get to the fourth dimension in these pictures is to extend the third dimension out a ways. And yeah, Klaynos, I realize there are a ton of ways to make coordinate systems but are there direct translations of spherical and/or cylindrical coordinates in 4-D?
  6. Can someone show me how to graph a point in four dimensions? Particularly with cartesian coordinates. And then as a follow up, are there equivalents of spherical and cylindrical coordinates in 4-D? And there should be another new system or coordinates also, perhaps? Thanks.
  7. I saw a part of discover magazine (march 2006, page 13) mentions strangelets and strange matter. Does anyone have any insite into what this is cause the article doesn't explain. Links are helpful but I'm really overbooked at school so I probably wont be able to read anything real long and involved. I'm just looking for a general idea of what strange matter is, why we think it exists and what research is being done on it. Thanks.
  8. So putting profinciency in CAD on a resumme would be a big bonus I take it.
  9. Ok, I understand. So let me ask a slightly different question then. You said all plans are done on CAD files. Does that mean that some form of technical computer knowledge is good for aerospace/aeronautical engineering? Or is that not the concern of the engineer himself?
  10. I'm looking into a career in aerospace/aeronautical engineering. I've found a lot about the career but the one thing that I haven't found that I want to see are blueprints. Does anyone have an example of blueprints that might be drawn up but the as/an engineers? Or a link to some blueprints? Thanks.
  11. 1321132132211331121321133112111312211213211312111322211231121122211311123113321112132113222122113211 assuming demosthenes is right... would this sequence ever have a number higher than 3?
  12. If you didn't understand what Severian just said, then yes, that's the best method for you to use.
  13. Nope. You want to use these facts: Initial Velocity=20m/sec Final Velocity=0m/sec Acceleration=-9.81m/sec2 Time:? Find a way to relate these four facts. But note that I used a Final Velocity of 0. The rock wont hit the ground with a velocity of 0 so this is only solving part of the solution. You'll have to take another step after you get your answer from above to get the final answer.
  14. A bit of homework here that I have no way of checking so I figured someone here can quickly refute or verify what I found. Imagine an equalateral triangle 1 unit on a side. Inscribed in the triangle in one big circle. Then on each side of the cirle (moving towards each vertex) is another circle inscribed in the area enclosed by the two sides of the trianlgle plus the perimeter of the circle. Then moving towards each vertex again are three smaller cirlces. Then three more and so on for an infinite number of circles. The question is what is the area of these cirlces? I got 13pi/36...I can show work better if this is incorrect but if it happens to be write I'd rather not write it all out now. Thanks. Ah...found a picture...http://nrich.maths.org/content/99/04/15plus3/circles.gif
  15. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5636&page=1&pp=20 sorry man, you've been beaten to it...
  16. As to the first question, yes, it assumes point masses. As to the second, I don't know if there is a way to take a planet's radius into account. Good question.
  17. Magnitude just means the amount, or strength, of something. It doesn't include the direction of the motion. Acceleration is typically measured as X m/sec2 North (or any other direction). But it can also be said that the same object is accelerating with magnitude X. Vector- A measure of magnitude and direction of an object. (Magnitude is coming in again). Scalar- Just the magnitude, no direction of motion is given. Displacement- A measure of how far something has traveled with the direction it traveled in. Distance- A measure of the total motion of an object. Something moving 5m up: Distance: 5m Displacement: 5m up Something moving 5m up and then 5m down: Distance: 10m Displacement: 0m (the directions and distances cancel each other out) Something moving 3m north and 4m east: Distance: 7m Displacement: 5m northeast This is a really broad question. Is there a particular thing you don't understand? Also very general. It has applications is basic physics everywhere. There's nothing really to explain other than that is reads Force equals mass times acceleration. As you start doing problems you'll use it a bunch.
  18. sin(a+b)=sin(a)cos(b)+cos(a)sin(b) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrigonometricAdditionFormulas.html sin(2x)=2sin(x)cos(x) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Double-AngleFormulas.html
  19. The product rule would work fine for [csc(x)]2 but the chain rule would be f'(g(x))*g'(x). Perhaps you haven't reached this part yet, it usually comes shortly after the product/quotient rules. Anyway, let csc(x)=g(x) and f(x) would be g(x)2 If you follow the formula above this will also give the right answer, and often in less work than the product rule would for the same thing. By the way, one thing that screwed me up about this was the f(x)=g(x)2 part. Don't fill in for g(x) right away. Take the derivitive first and then fill in again for g(x).
  20. When did just being a kid and having some fun lose it value? I've always thought personal interviews are the only way to really judge whether a kid belongs in the school or not. Five minutes of hands on work with a physics professor (for a prospective physics major) and you should know everything you need. The grades and extracurriculars, though they're a nice gauge, just don't tell the whole story.
  21. Haha, it told me that firefox blocked fasterfox from downloading. The irony...
  22. There's ways around discontinuities.
  23. Awesome Phi. I'll give it a shot and report back soon.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.