JaKiri

I meant when Andrew Wiles started working on it and finish it.....

Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem AFTER 350 years. Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem IN 7 years (or however long it was).

Leibniz discovered Calculus 10 years AFTER Newton. Leibniz discovered Calculus IN 4 years.

I can't believe you even started to consider that a valid argument, as Andrew Wiles was working with the additional mathematics of over 3 centuries; the amount of mathematics in a certain field in a decade is going to be much smaller. Furthermore, the structure of that point was similar to 'Nowadays, students can prove Calculus pretty quickly, yet Newton took years over it!'

here's the answer: can't go to [math]{1^o}K[/math], but there is a VERY small effect on gravity due to temp loss. even though gravity is weaker, it still influences the matter at a frac of [math]{1^o}K[/math'].

1K. It's One Kelvin. Not One Degree Kelvin. One Kelvin.

i didnt know people STILL did that... you all know (or do now!) that it is very bad for a computer to be turned off directly by the mains or by holding down the power switch until it shuts down... you should turn it off using the proper shut down menu, which for windows is in the start menu... on an OLD machine i had to just quit windows to DOS from where i could safely press the power button (but that was a 10 year old exception).

It doesn't actually matter as much any more. NTFS is less likely to become fragmented, and Windows XP is exceptionally stable. I've had to do a physical shutdown many times over many PC's since the two mentioned features became common, and there has been no obvious detriment to the running of any of them.

at a similar point in time you say!! theres more than 10 years in difference.......

No there isn't. 10 years at most; there's a mere gap of 6 years between Newton finishing and Leibniz beginning.

But that's beside the point; 10 years is utterly inconsequential.

The tempereture outside where I'm at is [math]6.7 \ensuremath{^\circ}C[/math] ([math]44 \ensuremath{^\circ} F[/math], [math]279.8 \ensuremath{^\circ} K[/math]). So when I blow outside, the [math]CO_2[/math'] from my lungs becomes visible. Why does this hapen?

That's not Carbon Dioxide, that's the water vapour precipitating from your breath.

On the topic of constants has there been any research into linking all the constants together.

That's something that string theory is hoping to deal with.

There almost certainly has to be a link between the constants of the fundamental forces, but beyond that things become less clear.

yes but newton did it first and did it BETTER...

I know that Newton did it first, but the fact that it was independently replicated at a similar point in time remains the case; indeed, it seems likely that the work would have been replicated anyway; Newton was working in a popular area, and working from a base of knowledge established by Fermat and the like. There is argument over whether he did it better.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Newton had actually published his results when he acquired them.

It's afternoon here. A curse on your household!

replicated by libniz AFTER newton first invented it... many thousands of students replicate results by newton , gauss, einstain every day. that doesnt mean they are better

After, but independently. Knowing the result, it can become trivial to replicate.

I guess I'm not quite sure how this forum works so I don't know if it's dogmatic.

Who gives a flying dog about how this forum works?

It's how science works.

As for string theory being more than a guess: Yes it explains things. So does my idea.

Your idea explains nothing. String Theory also explains nothing (at the current point in time), but, if it is to come anywhere close to acceptance, has to predict things as well.

Furthermore, you're understimating the need for mathematics. Qualitatively, String Theory is fine. Great. Wonderful.

The reason it's not accepted as theory is that it has no mathematical backing, and that is the problem that is being worked on.

But for having a non-dogmatic point of view you sure haven't given it much contemplation.

Until there's some kind of mathematics involved, there's no need to; furthermore, you yourself said that there's no way to test it, and so the scientific method dictates that it is, by definition, not worth consideration.

The scientific method goes something like this.

1. You start off with established theory. Science being what it is, this is assumed to be false.

2. To test the established theory, you develop new conjectures, and new experiments with which you can compare the new conjectures and established theory (sometimes the experiments come before the conjecture).

3. If the conjecture successfully predicts something that the established theory does not, and is not shown to be lacking by the existing body of evidence for the established theory, the conjecture replaces the established theory as the established theory.

4. Repeat.

Your 'idea' cannot perform step 3, therefore it cannot ever become a scientific theory.

None of you have given any science to go off of. And yet, you claim science as your only support. I don't mind adopting a better idea, but show me that it's better first.

If you like, I (we) can explain all you like about General Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics. However, this was not asked for initially; it is assumed (wow!) that people who wish to be a constructive member of a scientific community, such as this, will fall into one of two groups:

1. People who know established theory, and can debate its merits or shortcomings.

2. People who do not decry established theory until they know what it is.

If you do not know how the current theory acts, how can you possibly construct a valid argument against it?

It does not give any information about the number of these elements, thesefore you cannot use the word 'ALL', because it gives you the illusion that you can know the Size of this collection, and I do not see how you can define this Size.

Oh sweet jesus. That's not only wrong on an actual level but a fundamental one as well.

what sounds do you have when you start it up then look if you find the answer in this table:

http://www.computerhope.com/beep.htm

Even the link itself says that it isn't to be relied upon, because that's the beep codes for one specific mobo manufacturer.

To find out the answer, op, you must check your mobo's manual.

I didn't understand a word of that.

nope.... newtons definition of a fluxion or "derivative " was more rigorous than libniz's. liebniz used the vauge concept of "infinitesimals"' date=' while newton had the precise form in terms of limits...

 

yes lebniz's notation is (blagh) but newton has more substance.[/quote']

 

That doesn't change either of the facts that it was replicated, and this comparison is rather silly.

 

more superior

 

Most excellent!

Iain M Banks.

jakiri: unfortunately this is not a eintstein vs newton vs liebniz thread

I never suggested that it was; merely that Einstein's work was revolutionary, whereas Newton's most used piece of work was replicated at the same time.

And of course that we use Leibniz's notation (I always spell his name wrong first time round).

It doesn't deserve the name 'Lovecraft' if it is. Howard Phillips was a master of tension. Also adjectival overload.

"Only" is simply not true.

It will be for many users, who were not wise in the ways of science.

i can't believe u left Newton out just like that Jakiri

In this university Gravity was discovered and the foundations of modern science laid.

I've no idea who you thought I was talking about.

It's a shock. It's easy, and bad game making, to make something that relies on a linear sequence of shocks. There's no tension, there's no artiface.

Try playing System Shock II.

How would you define 'Left', 'Right' and 'Neutral'? How can you have people who personify this? How in any way is this possible?

cos he develped the important part of maths known as calculus

So did Liebniz.

What I want to know is if any of you have better ways of explaining pi (and/or calculating it).

pi/4=1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-...

"As far as I know' date=' you can't."

 

What? Even the mods can't? Or did you just mean the "small people" ? ) I thought the only thing mods can't do is stuff like heating a burrito so hot that they could not eat it. [/quote']

 

You can't.