fuhrerkeebs

It didn't get published.

...I wonder why...

I read about Kaluza-Klein string theory years and years ago, I was just a boy. So far as I am aware, space is three dimensional. That pretty much puts a damper on that.

The Kaluza-Klein unification attempt was neither a string theory nor was it in 3 dimensional space. It extended the metric tensor to a (4+1) dimensional spacetime and used the extra spatial coordinates for the electromagnetic components.

When I first say that movie I couldn't believe they were using such a simple problem to show his genius. Such a good movie tainted by such poor details like that...

I never said I didn't buy it, just that it was kinda strange, but quite interesting

I know, I was trying to answer the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

Humans take in and care for stray animals all of the time, I see no reason other animals couldn't have developed some sort of compassion like humans.

It depends on how many terms are in the sequence. Assuming that the last term is a+(n-1)d, you get the values:

a=512/(n+1)

d=-192/(n²+n)

Someone might argue that creationists believe that God came out of nowhere. The truth is that we believe that God has always existed, just like the laws of physics. Saying that intelligence has always existed makes sense. Saying it appeared from nowhere does not make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either way. How can something be around forever? Even if it's around forever it still needs come into existence...somehow. You just confuse things by saying it's been around forever. Oh, and I don't think the laws of physics have always existed...I believe the arose naturally from symmetry breaking.

According to evolution, there is no form of intelligence guiding natural selection, so how could it make something as complex as humans?

Yes, but how do you expect to get the "form of intelligence" guiding natural selection without evolution. Unless, of course, you're talking about some magical being that we can't see or interact with and that has always existed. Yeah, I think that second option sounds about right.

A possible explanation could be that the universe isn't just 10 billion years old but much much older like 10^10000 years old or so, so that the combinations could be reached.

Yes, but your argument seems to assume ergodicity. And besides, I don't think there is anything out there that supports a 10^10000 year old universe.

You solved your equation wrong. Working backwards with your equation you get E²=m²c⁴-c²m², which isn't right. Where did your momentum go?

Yeah, just use the potential energy that you're particle is interacting in. If there your particle is in an electric field, with one electric charge at the origin forming the field, then you would use V=kq/r^2, where k is Coulomb's constant. Same thing goes for any other potential energy. Then, just solve the equation (sometimes it isn't solvable exactly, however, and you're going to have to rely on numerical methods).

what is scalar potential?(V®)

It's just the potential, such as gravitational potential or electromagnetic potential. The negative gradient of the potential is the force, if that helps.

another question: how do I get from \lambda and \omega\to\psi(r,t)?

Just fourier transform.

Why can't you just substitute x -> x*log(e) and use the Lambert W?

What I meant was, was it because light speed is constant that the Michelson-Morley experiment resulted as it did, or just because of the way reletivistic velocity additions are calculated.

It's because the speed of light is constant. The Michelson-Morley experiment was done before we knew how to add velocities relativistically.

Obvously the formulaes are correct, but what if the speed of light is always measured to be C, because of the formulaes.

I believe it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that seemed to show that the speed of light was constant, and this experiment was performed a few years before Lorentz or Einstein introduced the famous theory of SR.

This number should be finite because the Law of conservation of energy has to hold.

Why can't the conservation of energy hold when the number is infinite?

It's a point that works when put into the equation. Lets say you had the equation y*3=2*x, then (3,2) is a particular point that fits into the equation, and a general point (x,y) is called an ordered pair.

Make an implicit plot and check the values (or you could go the easier, faster, and older route and just solve the equation for one of the variables yourself, and plug in any ol' number to get a pair).

Just as a funny side note, you guys should try googling "miserable failure" and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It's hilarious.

Scientific theories also need predictive power. Can you give me an example of evolutionary theory making predictions?

Answer ...but then again, creationism doesn't predict anything...at all.

Why not use that famous (I think it's famous) formula Gauss came up with to sum all of the number from 1 to x, such that it equals (x)(x-1)/2, and if you want to sum on the interval a to b, use ((b)(b-1)-(a)(a-1))/2. There's a very nice, intuitive way to figure out the formula for the young kids which I'm sure is easy to find after a quick google.

[edit]Sorry, I just noticed that bloodhound pretty much posted the same thing.

I disagree. They more accurately reflect your ability to do well on tests (or other assignments), which is, in part, due to learning.

Most of my classes at my school only count tests as 20% of the grade. The rest of the grade is due to things such as class participation, homework, classwork, etc. I definitely think your grades are more representative of your work ethic and not your intelligence.

light is a wave not paritcles

I'm sure you've heard of a photon?

Having read both links,the only bias i found was from the evolutionist paper.

Whoa now buddy. The first article is definitely biased against evolution, as is shown clearly in this (incorrect) statement:

Notice how they are now trying to use this evidence, which challenges their current view of evolution and origins, and twist it to support the now defunct dino-to-bird theory.

Whoa. That's like porn for nerds.

 

In really complex games such as Halo or whatever, how do they program it to do what it does?

I mean, how do you get the computer to manipulate the 3D objects and such, with lighting and all that? What language do they use? Etc.

Personally, I'd go with Sayonara's suggestion and use a dev. tool, like Direct X. However, if you wanna do it yourself there are multiple ways of manipulating 3d objects, one of the most popular being matrices and spherical coordinates. And you can do it in any language, but alot of them won't give you the results you want, as alot of them are way to slow to handle all of the information.