JaKiri

'General Discussion' 'Discuss life, work, school, anything!'

So what you're saying is Theu faked the moon landings then to make sure that people would think they hadn't been faked they really landed on the moon?

Bear in mind that DNA doesn't actually contain all the information to give an identical you, including things like voice. Identical twins have nonidentical voices, for instance.

I don't feel it necessary at present, as many people have for many years worked through both Relativities and have supported both.

You mean Mister_me's being an idiot. WOWZAH

Add to that conserving lepton/hadron number, spin, charge, and the like and you're in a pretty pickle.

How can massive objects have indeterminant location? And if mass is due to the higgs boson, who knows what the consequences are.

Will all of that, if valid, provide the same result? Will it explain the orbital deviations of Mercury from Newtonian relationships?

Despite the fact that it has been verified to be correct on every single test done on it?

The volume's infinite though. And under current knowledge, it will be impossible to determine whether or not the electron has volume.

The question is, can it be empirically said to have volume when all we can ever detect is a quantum haze?

Bwhahahaha

Only if both are integral; also, bear in mind that an electron has not been proven to have 'volume' as such.

Because it quite clearly isn't.

This isn't a democracy, it's an autocracy.

I'm amazed. You took the shrewd political commentary shown by our fellow board user up there and SHOWED SOME FLAWS IN IT!

I leave at six bells! (not really)

And now I must away!

Hoist by my own petard!

NUKE THE WHALES [edit] or indeed NUKE WALES

'Beware the physics student awake at 6 in the morning with nothing to do.'

Remember that exponents are just shorthand for, say, 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 (2^10). Lets ignore the = 1 from the original eqn for the moment (the conclusion is still valid, you just have to follow the procedure above to get any constant). y(t+1) = 2y(t) Let's say that y(0) = c. y(1) = 2 * c y(2) = 4c = 2^2 * c y(3) = 8c = 2^3 * c From this, it should be clear to see that y(t) = 2^t * c, which is where the exponent comes from; as you're multiplying by 2 every time, after t cycles, you must have multiplied by t 2s, which is equal to 2^t.

To expand on that: the function is of the form y(t) = 2^t + c, because of the multiplication by 2 business, and putting that into the first given we get 2*2^t + c - 2 ( 2^t + c) = 1 2*2^t + c - 2*2^t - 2c = 1 - c = 1 c = -1 => y(t) = 2^t - 1.

[oops misread the topic] Looks like all you have to do is to put y(t+1) = 2y(t) + 1, and the final line follows directly.

Only those with empirically disproveable beliefs need fear the scientific method.