rktpro

The sense of being 'you' and existing wouldn't be transferred to the new brain...it would just be a copy of you with it's own sense of self and existence. The potential to carry on your work in the way the original you did it still remains though. Does that make sense?

That would mean that humans are soul rather than a body. When someone dies, he dies with the feeling of himself dying. This also can mean that humans are not brain, something else which provides some sort of power to it.

Your grade 10 class proved that the square root of two is irrational?

Yes.

The length of Kali Yuga is believed to be 432000 years long and just 5000 years have passed on since we entered Kali Yuga, we are no where near the end of Kali Yuga.

 

http://simple.wikipe.../wiki/Kali_Yuga

Surya Siddhant is an interesting ancient text on highly genius divsion of time.

I think I have got to something.

 

From what I can tell, we have a hi=2 and a ho=4 and a focal length that doesnt fit into the equation.

Is this correct?

 

So m= 2/4 = -di/do

m= 0.5

 

If I am correct we now have magnification - now what?

Do we multiply our focal length by 0.5 to get a value, then add said value to our focal length?

 

So, 10x0.5 = 5, 10+5 = 15

Here it goes,

The focal length given is 10 cm. Because the lens has not been specified, it is obvious that focal length= +10cm and the lens is a convex lens.

Now you must know that, magnification=v/u= image height/object height. [hint: remember to use sign convention. Perpendicular distances downward to principle axis are negative]

Thus, say you get magnification=v/u= x. Now v = ux where x has some value.

Put this in 1/v-1/u=1/f , that is the lens formula.

Remember to use sign convention where ever you plug values.

articlevol,

First decide what you believe in. You mention 'Kali Yuga', a Hindu term. It seems that you are impressed by the Indian scriptures. And after that, you mention the Bible.

There are countless dissimilarities between the content of the two holy scriptures.

I've proved the existence of square roots in an analysis class. It takes the completeness axiom and a certain amount of cleverness. There is no way that it is taught in grade 10.

What I am saying is that root of an rational number has been proved to be irrational in grade 10. There are over 20 proof for that.

I am having serious trouble with this question and I'm hoping to get some assistance with it. The question goes as follows:

 

Suppose a lens with a focal length of 10.0cm produces an inverted image half the size of a 4.0cm object. How far apart are the object and image? Show all your work.

 

Any help is appreciated.

What you need to know is-

• Magnification
• The lens formula

Just a google for that.

A quick google will produce lots of notes on how to prove the Square Root Theorem For all real [math]y[/math], if [math] y \geq 0[/math] then there exists one and only one non-negative number [math]x[/math] such that [math]x^{2} = y[/math].

It is taught to all school goers in grade 10. I recall it was root 2 which was first proved irrational and the uniqueness of root 2 was also proved. connector must go through it.

Thanks for finding a working link.

 

Reason #2 for not using the Feynman Lectures on Physics (the acronym does not do it justice), that physics teachers are averse to an apparent competition with Feynman, is, in my opinion, one of the best reasons for purchasing and reading that book, and should be a reason for using it in a class.

 

There are very few introductory texts, in any subject, written by a true master. I can think of no other such texts, suitable for freshmen, at the moment. The Feynman Lectures on Physics are a rather unique example.

 

What I have found to be the case, particularly with mathematics and physics books, is that books written by top-drawer scientists and mathematicians are the most clear and insightful. Unfortunately most such books are written at a very high level and are not accessible to the neophyte.

 

In the Feynman Lectures on Physics one finds nearly all of physics, at some level, viewed through the eyes of one of the most insightful and productive physicists of all time. Yet Feynman manages to communicate this insight with no advanced mathematics and assuming no previous background in physics. It is his incredible physical insight that allows him to explain so much with so little. Mark Kac was correct -- Feynman was a magician of the highest caliber.

 

Other introductory physics texts have undergone many revisions and new editions. The Feynman Lectures on Physics have been slightly improved, new illustrations made, digitized, and a very few small errors corrected, but the original text survives nearly as originally published -- there is a reason that classics are classics. Competing with Feynman is both silly and futile. But using Feynman to either enhance one's own understanding or to help one to explain the essence of physics to others is pretty smart. If you are going to steal, steal from the best.

Sir, IMHO, it is all about your background and what you want to do next. In many chapters things are well explained and sometimes a point is just touched. If you are someone who enjoys physics, you got the right book and if you want derivation for something or just problems to solve, you need to have other books too.

The lectures, no doubt, given by the most brilliant man. The only problem I found was that if you are self-studying you can't survive on that book only. It gives you the sight to experience a topic, but for the 'scenes' you need to have other books too.

I read the title and thought you were going to ask how to make it at home.

So, assuming that in a hypothetical situation, where 100 m can be actually measured:100√2m obtained as a distance. What would you say about my original question. Is it that a point can't be observed at that angle but at any other angle closer to it or is it that a point can't be at 100√2 units from an observer.

Yes, that is the defintion of pi.

 

Pi does have a pattern though and that pattern is that it is completely patternless. This means that you can expect no repeats what so ever in the decimals. My brother used it in his memorization of pi digits contest. He managed to remember 1050 digits all correct in 7 minutes. The trick is to know it is patternless.

Unless you get Feynman point.

I really don't see how you can say that a measurement of root 2 is impossible to measure out precisely and at the same time believe that you can measure out 1 or 2 exactly. We can calculate the values of root two to any precision. Certainly to as precise as you could ever, even theoretically measure. The infinite number zeroes coming after the number aren't written down but in a sense they are still there.

4.000000000000000.......upto infinity is same as 4.0

And simply because 4 can be represented in form of p/q but root 2 can't.

Lets take the example of trigonometry of heights and distances.

We usually come across something like: the height of a point is 100√2 and say angle of elevation used in the problem was a

Now, √2 is irrational no. and so would be 100√2. This distance can only be approximated. So is it that a point can't be observed at an angle a but at any other angle closer to it or is it that a point can't be at 100√2 units from an observer.

Sorry for my ignorance.

Thanks

I remember fairly well that we used to plot under-root of two on a number line.

So, I'm trying to draw a diagram for ionic bond, the question asks me to choose two atoms that could participate, and draw the valence shell

 

I chose Mg and S.

 

So, Mg has 12 protons and 12 electrons, and 2 valence electrons. S has 16 protons, 16 electrons and 6 valence electrons.

 

In the diagram, I drew two atoms with 3 shells, and I will draw an arrow pointing the electron transferring to S shell from Mg's outer shell.

 

How does that sound? Only one electron is transferred to S shell, is this correct? Or two? Because in Mg's outer shell there are 2 valence electrons...

 

Thanks guys.

Hint:The transfer of electron must be such that both atoms become stable.

Yes, I do. It is due to the refraction of starlight by the moving air pockets in the atmosphere.

An interesting point you must note here is that scintillation or twinkling is possible due to turbulence of atmosphere and continuous change in apparent position of the star. Also, the turbulence is the cause of change in amount of light entering the eye.

Two plane mirrors inclined at an angle [latex]\theta [/latex] to each other, with an object placed between them will create [latex](n-1) \frac {360 ^o}{ \theta } [/latex] of images. Is this because of the repeated reflection of the images?

Are we allowed to produce a mirror lengthwise to show a reflection of an object that would otherwise cannot be located? see attachment.

Yes it is because of repeated reflection on rays.

Talking about the possibility of the pic you uploaded, it depends upon the observer. For Example, get your friend to sit near a dressing table with a large mirror fitted on it. Now you move yourself such that you now take a position as the position of 'object' in this pic. So, you are out of the range of frame of the dressing table but your friend can see you in it, exactly in line to your original position.

You can watch his movie 'gandhi' in mute and see for yourself with your notarary sense and perception!

In mute mode, Barack Obama seems to be telling people about black magic.

Have you seen the movie 'gandhi' ? It says about gaining independance of india from english rule. What i think is that m.k.gandhi was a gujarati who was not fighting for any peace and justice, but a riotist instigator. The movie infact is a portrayal of bringing out the animosity of riot in indians.

As far as I have read, he always promoted non-violence. You may google all details like his reaction about Chauri Chaura incident.

I'd like to know what do you think about sending our nuclear waste to the Sun? Nuclear waste are vey radioactive and dangerous for people and for the enviroment, so, let's take them out of Earth, and let's send them to the Sun. And there, they will be disintegrated because of the high temperature of the sun.

 

What do yo think about that? Y want to listen your opinion!

 

Thank you!

Not dangerous than getting bankrupt.

Steel contains iron+carbon. Maybe, your electromagnet is weak. Trying using battery of higher volts and increase the number of turn of wire around the electromagnet.

IMHO, Since we don't know who's who on the internet, it is necessary for the forum itself to list the experts. SFN has done that. You know, even if you are new, that a 'Physics Expert' would have said the right thing. Saying that you have a PhD doesn't and shouldn't work.

And what's the problem in all of it. Everyone knows that someone with a PhD talks and types like a thesis.

Links, links all around but not a link to the original premise means that the person is joking/wants you to believe in everything/retard.

There are mermaids in pacific. I have spent all of my life on ship.