thedarkshade

I'm fairly sure that's what he's saying.

Well that's wrong then, cause it does have a solution.

You can see that just looking at the inequation, without doing it at all!!

Isn't theory all that matters? (other than custard)

I think reality matter more, because we live on it!

We now have theories and models about time travel and wormholes too, but how possible are they???

The original inequality, log(x-1)- log(x+2)> 0 is NEVER true.

What do you mean NEVER true???!!!

Like there can't be a number (for x) so that the inequality would be valid?

... but it seems im surrounded by people who prefer to bodge stuff and fix it later.

Looks like everywhere is the same situation:doh: .

But then there's Newtons Third Law. If the earth is rotating around you, you must be falling towards it at the same rate that it falls towards you...

Theoretically yeah!

Why they happen is theology and making them happen is engineering. Whether engineering is science is doubtful (say's an ashamed engineer).

But ain't engineering a product of science?

So, it's no different than the rectilinear motion I learned about in my high school physics class?

Well there are a lot more complex things, but yeah, it's no different. After all, movement is a product of force, so how could it not be!

Could I get a simple example of how a mechanics problem is solved without the concept of force?

Sure! For example you have a question like this: "If a car moving with a velocity of 12m/s, for 10 sec reaches an acceleration of 15m/s^2, then what's the final velocity?"

It is understood that some force causes this increase in energy, or this acceleration, bur to solve this you don't need to know how much force is put on the car. All you got to do is find final velocity, and to do that you absolutely don't need the concept of force!

The kinetic energy of the fan is the same before and after the event. But I have spent some electrical energy. Has the enegy been lost?

If it is lost, then the law of conservation of energy does not hold.

In thermodynamics a very basic thing to know is that when you transfer energy to a system, not the entire transfered energy is now part of the system. Quiet a lot of that transfered energy is used in the forces that resist to this energy transfer. In other words, some energy is "lost" (not actually lost, it's used), while we transfer it to the other system.

Isn't all of science just a description of what actually happens?

It's a bit more I think! It's knowing why they happen and making them happen!

How do we do physics without forces?

It's not really like we're doing physics without forces, we're just excluding force as a concept, as a definition. Everything includes forces, so the fact that force is actually everywhere is understood, so we don't need to mention that every time, that's why tvp45 said that you can do all the physics without the concept of force. BUT YOU CANNOT DO PHYSICS WITHOUT FORCE. That's like doing maths without multiplication or addition.

WELCOME TO COMMUNITY DUDE!

Yeah, CGP are cool, try them! And the tree is right, do maths to learn maths (awesome tree;))

GravityConstantSecrets

The gravity field is everywhere “felt” the same;

Not everywhere! The gravity pull on poles is felt more than in the equator! If a body in equator wights 1000g, in poles will weight 1005g. It's nearer to the center of earth (earth's gravity center).

A solar system is not a universe.

That far too simple. Everybody know that! I think he was referring to something else, but is just did explain it the best way!

ANTIGRAVITY??

What about magnet levitation. Check the link:

I mean, an object staying like that in the air, it makes you think about anti-gravity.

I think the reference was to the fact that you had m1*m1 in your formula, making the two masses always identical.

Oh damn! You're right swansont, it slip me it should be:

F=G m1*m2/r^2

Sorry guys!

No. Electrons, protons, and neutrons (and positrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons) are all attracted by gravity. Since all atoms (and anti-atoms) are composed of these, you shouldn't expect any to repel gravity. In fact, nothing has been found that can repel gravity.

Precisely!

Well the distance isn't generally related to the thrust, but if you want to be pedantic, shouldnt those two masses be different?

Not necessarily! Any two materials (same or different materials) with any mass (same or different) at any distance have this attraction force between them. And that force is measured with the formula above!

"Gravity" is a force, not the effect of the force, so you can't resist it. No matter how much thrust you get upwards from a rocket engine, the gravity acting on you is still the same.

Well according to Newton's universal law of gravity, the force of gravity depends also on the distance, so it matters.

F=G m1*m1/r^2

There's a lot of stuff to talk about II group elements. We all know that their characteristics change in a periodical way, but there are some slight deviations which don't fit with what is said in the book.

1. According to official data it is said that with the increase of the atomic number (the addition of electrons and protons) the melting point of the elements in II group decreases. So higher atomic number, smaller melting point. But the deviation is:

ELEMENT MELTING POINT

Be 1285 C

Mg 650 C

Ca 845 C

Sr 771 C

Ba 726 C

Ra 700 C

Ca has a bigger atomic number than Mg, but as you see Ca has a higher melting point. And according to what is said above the melting point should be lower!!! Any idea why?

2. With the increase in atomic number, the density increases too. As following:

ELEMENT DENSITY

Be 1.85 g/cm^3

Mg 1.74 g/cm^3

Ca 1.54 g/cm^3

Sr 2.63 g/cm^3

Ba 2.62 g/cm^3

Ra 5 g/cm^3

So as you see again, Mg has a bigger density than Ca, when it should be the other way around!

Any idea?

Try here @ 2.3.a.iii:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=54&a=14

A good way to help! Not funny man!

Seriously dude, you obviously don't know when to stop, and you sound like a raving baffoon.

Would you sound the same iNow?

So how do all of our rockets and planes work, and what is that birds do then? .

The guy was asking about alloys, and there are no such that resist gravity! For more, molten metals in the center of earth serve as the source of gravitational pull!

Bird and rockets use something else to resist gravity. Something called energy! Using that it's understood that one can resist gravity! Think of picking a stone from the ground! It's that simple resisting gravity, bur the stone itself can't resist, can it?

I'm having some troubles with some software which require activated windows, but my ones pirate!

So could anyone help me somehow to activate this pirate xp professional??

Any link, hint, trick or help would be appreciated?

bombs in a crowded place are never a good idea. at best, no one will be hurt and you'll be arrested.

 

at worst, someone will be injured, you'll be arrested and be spending some time hoping to god you don't drop the soap.

Oh come, it's not that big deal! I just want some revenge for the ignorance toward my ideas! It's not that I'm kinda nerd or something, but ignorance hurts man. I mean, I am expelled from entering school's lab! That's awful man!

So could please some please tell how to get some, excluding electrolysis!