Ragib

I think its a very good idea..but right now i dont have the time to really take it all in and think it through, but as I said, if your sole purpose is to make a perfect sphere, its impossible. Irregualr structure of atoms, Pauli's Exclusion Principle.. I mean maybe someone could somehow aviod using atoms, but Pauli's Principle is a Law Of Physics, your not about to break it anytime soon or the Physics Police will hunt you down.

O sorry i completely ingnored complex solutions, and I completely showed utter stupidity of Forgetting an n-th degree polynomial has at most N solutons.. and i completely forgot about using Euler Identity, which seems to be what you used when you said : "All others can be written as ln(2) + 2*k*pi*i, with k being an integer." O my im embarrassed...thanks for the posts

o i guess, but isnt that what makes the difference? seperates the pros from the amatuers

yea i heard that too..though i have no idea what he did other than that very famous experiment.

ParanoiA: Think about it this way. If space is curved then so must be time. This is because if c is constant, then light will take a different time to travel from one point to another, because the path is different. To another observer, this difference in time is the time dialation you are inquiring about.

Infinite complex solutions? Would that only apply to Chenbyshev Polynomial Approximations, not to the actual equation? Why would there be an infinte number of complex solutions, unless u mean there is a finite number of solutions that are repeated, like x= -1 when (x+1)^2=0

god damn it 88 posts and still not even a fundamental particle...mesons are boring..

Not to mention Eddingtions law was not as concrete as some of the more famous laws, ie 2nd of Thermodynamics, conservation of energy. if it broke one of those, it would be quite extra ordinary to say the least, and would show a deep misunderstanding in our view of the physical world

New Scientist isnt actually that good you know, i find real journals like Physics is reliable.

pljames is obviously not a scientist, no offence. umm if u posted on the relativity section becuase everything 'relates' in some way to another..umm ur kinda lost lol, but its alrite. Ok trying to grasp chaos..lets say you have one thing thats dependent on another. example of squaring numbers ok? say we start with 1. we square over and over and over, still one. say we had 1.1 though, after just 3 squares you get 2.14358881, thats only 3 times, or say, 3 flaps of a butterflys wing. that small difference in the start made a big difference in the end, becuz we use that value, get another, use that, get another, so even a small difference will be amplified over time.

However in such complicating systems such as weather, its practically impossible to take all such small things into account, one reason why my weather man said it would rain on my birthday...i canceled my party and it was pure sunshine...anyway i hope i got the point across

which, as i just try to open it, has crashed..

20 days without a post may not have left...either way hes still reeli smart, and hes on http://www.physicsforums.com alot too, he has a few thousand posts there, hes still active there i think

electricity and water and metal lol, sounds fun. but how exactly are you going to make a perfect sphere anyway? from what it sounds like ur doing to me, your going to need ur magnets perfectly distributed, which is possible to calculate with calculus..but to get the magnets to stand in those places youll need things to hold them up and those will disturb the magnet, even a tiny bit, no perfect sphere...not to mention theres the limit of paulys exclusion principle. but overall, sounds like ur a young budding experimentalist, or some kid who found that project on da internet and posted it here to sound smart

Yea me 2, in like 4 posts ive read of yours, i already know that your going to be on my imaginary ranking of scienceforums.net intellects, up with matt grime, atheist, swansont, woelen and ajb. trust me, if anyone had all their brains combined, heisenberg was a dwarf.

yes of course you guessed correctly, i bet the person were trying to help doesnt even read this thread anymore

aww damn it, i was hoping no1 would notice lol...yea it says it only converges for x between negative 1 and 1 on da link i gave anyway.. to tell you the truth im not that knowledgeable when it comes to this kind of math, ive heard of chebyshevs method of polynomial approximation, but ive never really tried to apply it before, i guess if you do you remember it when you need it, like now..

Aww i was hoping no one would ask and assume im smart i used a computer program to estimate it for me..although now i see your reply it seems like that would have been the smarter way for me to go after i got my computer estimates..my goal was 10 digits but i was stumped on how i would do better, other than maybe newtons method but i was reeli sleepy lol, newtons method would have been too long i rekon anyway

umm basically, if you want to solve a log, you use a taylor power series for the natural log, and then u can use the identity that LOGa B= (LOGn B)/(LOGn a)

it actually doesnt take that long if you onli do the first few terms, and happen to have a low x. if you dont have a low x, factorise into its primes, bring the power down, much easier. anyway, using this you get about 3 decimals accuracy in about 2 or 3 minutes, which i guess is alright...

o i almost forgot the actual power series lol

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/3/983c61be3acc035a433782c3fbff0f3b.png

o and did i mention that its even worse with non-intergers..happy calculating

umm just incase u actually did want the solutions to those examples, for 2^x=x^2, x=2, 4 and to 5 decimal places accuracy,x= (-23/30).

as for 2^x=x^3, 1.3735 to 3 places. sorry i cant do better lol.

I cant believe there is any argument here at all, and that matt grimes has crushed everyone. of course 0^0 is undefined. If you choose any of your solutions, 0, 1 or infinity, there are proof from those axioms that a=b where a and b are any number. so even if your perfect theory shows what 0/0 is, your going to have to persuade us 0.35424=4353452

haha i know this is a pointless post..but 97^2= 679 lol that is awesome! almost as bad as when i screwed up badly in a test, when i did 100/27 and got 268...i dont know how lol..wat was worse was that the topic was consumer arithmetic, and i used that value for the next 5 questions..i cried...

o lol i just got completely lost after the vector field stuff, i was hoping u just wanted how to get the surface area of some part of a sphere, i thought i cud help..:'(

don't you love the chemists and their mumbo jumbo? i swear, i dont know why people say physics is harder than chemistry, it is so not...lol

lol gcol why are you so cruel, maybe he just forgot..or maybe he just doesnt remember his pythagorean triads and thought 3,4,5 wudnt be right angled. either way, atheist is nice. btw ted, the side opposite the right angle, called the hypotenuse, is what you want. to get it with any right angled triangle, you add the squares of the smaller sides, then square root that. or, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 where c is the longest side, and a and b are the smaller ones.

O crap! thanks atheist, i did mistaken it for f(z) by z..my bad..and i just remember what the real function looks like, sorta like a hyperbola..my bad..

umm well, wen you want it itergrated, are you looking for the exact integral, or are u wanting the area under it for a certain purpose? if so, try using simpsons rule with 13 function values nice time consumer. you get 2.3816 between 0 and pi, same for 2pi and 3 pi, 4 pi and 5pi so on in the period. o btw if you use 99999998 segments you get 2.3962, i did it by hand nah jokes