CPL.Luke

yes it does, but we don't nee to worry about it, as no heat is leving the gas through any means other than the work done on the bullet.

wikipedia says that its still 16 ounces over here but our ounce is different (slightly smaller) I think our gallon iht be 10 pints

don't count out nuke yet, when a nuke goes off on earth we feel the kinetic energy in the form of a wave that loses energy to the air behind it, wasting destructive potential. in space you would feel the full blast of the em wave, and if you were close enough fission/fussion fragments. That would easily cause catastrophic damage to a ship. (don't forget that a single crack in the hull caused by a sudden temperature shock could be lethal)

woops there's a typor in the above equation the final solution should be y(ln(y-c1)-t*ln(y-c1)=c_2 which can be solved for t c_2/(ln(y-c1))+y=t and the closest thing that I can get to for a seperated y solution is c2(y-c1)^(y-1)=e^t

note that while T does change from a to b we don't need to consider it because there is no heat transfered out of the gas/bullet in practice there will be heat loss due to friction, and the barrel will heat up absorbing some of the energy. This would be accounted for by saying that Q does not equal 0 and takes on that cm (delta T) form that you were putting in before, however dthis expression would be in refference to the temperature change of the bullet/barrel, not the gas.

calbiterol you are adding in an extra term, temperature does cahnge by the term cm(delta t) is unneccesary as this would be heat, which we are asuming is zero matheatially we use the first law of thermodynamics delta E=Q+W delta E=W= nr delta T=delta PV=w (on bullet) now to solve for W and thus delta E we have to find the force on the bullet E_0=PV E_0/x=F then we can integrate to get the work done between the starting point, and the end of the barrel (E_0ln(b)-E_0ln(a))=W since we can chose a system of units where a=e we can see that that is the proper expression under the first law of thermodynamics for the work done on the bullet

the example in france I was talking about was not yet socialism, socialism didn't find a strong hold in france until the 1960's. The planned economy I was mentioning was that of De'gaul about as much of a capitalist as you can come by.

I take it you go to a CC? One thing I learned in my jump to University is that a number of professors (by no means all) are far smarter than I am at the moment. I didn't get that at my CC, perhaps you like I need to go to a full university. Why does a large school equal large classes? maybe in the 100 level courses, but in the upper division courses they can still be small, for instance my techniques course only has 15-25 kids in it, I can and have gone over to the proffessors office several times in order to have more time on a homework problem, and there is also a SI instructor who does a review session twice a week.

yes however it is clear that in today's legal structure corporations have been very slow to adapt in the face of new obstacles (just look at Ford continuing to release giant SUV's that don't sell). Sometimes planning and direction are a necessary part of an economy. Look at what France did immediatly prior to WW2 where they had growth rates of pu to 7% per year. The government did real research into various economic endeavors and then forwarded the information to the proper people. They also offered up a large number of lucrative contracts that would be profitable for all involved in order to get the ball rolling. There isn't a free market solution to everything.

I remember hearing a statistic a while ago that stated that even the new giant oil field in the gulf would only sustain america for an extra couple of months a our present rate of consumption. I agree with your viewpoint that market forces will take care of this problem on their own. However we now burn 5 times more fuel than we discover or there abouts, and I would say that its a dream that its not going to run low sometime in the nex 20-50 years. Also considering the threat that running ou of energy poses to our ay of life, it seems silly not to put some government money down on the alternatives and for the government to try and push the market along a little bit. ^(I also mean a very little bit) say a 5 cent fuel hike every year, and maybe increased thresholds for fuel efficiency and emissions. This would have the dual purpose of allowing american auto manufacturers to compete in europe and japan.

my bad I forgot one of the constants of integration if you rearange the equation so that yy''=y'(1-y') you can integrate to get int(yy'')=y(1-y')-int(-yy'')+c1 c1=y(1-y') which is seperable int (y/(y-c1))=t y(ln(y-c1))-ln(y-c1)+t+c2=t y(lny(y-c1))-ln(y-c1)=c2 if c1 does not equal 0 then y=t+c2

hm the other thread on this subject got far to heated for any meaningful information to be gleaned from the thread. However the thread also had some interesting ideas in it which I think are worth a closer look at. Just to reiterate some of the points from theprevious thread which seemed to have gotten garballed. Peakoilman stated that Geologists had predicted the peak of American oil production in the 1970's, this prediction came true. Also he stated that a number of oil companies/geologists are predicting that oil, and coal are about to peak and or hve peaked in the majority of the world. I am very interested in 2 things happening in this thread. 1st I think some sources from both sides would be a nice addition to the threads that have been poted here numerous times. 2nd I would like to see if the side for I would like to see if anybody who has opposed peakoilman's viewpoints can pause and analyze the science/logic of Peakoilman's viewpoint.

the solution is y=ct just use integration by parts ^where c is solved for by using the initial condition

unfortunatly the US is under the jurisdiction of a commander and chief who at this moment we all hate (his approval ratings hover in the high twenties to low 30's right now) we all know every mistake he's made, and the terrible kinds of partisan politics that have been involved in the execution of the iraw war/detainee issues/ you name it. The latest of these measures is the detainee bill which removes the right of habeus corpus for non-US citizens in the eyes of the US legal system. (ie if US authorities pick you up somewhere for doing something they don't likeyou don't get a trial or even the right to contact anyone). I feel that this is changing though, these measures will be rolled back come the 08 election, and the we can be the country that we used to be. ^also in contradiction to what another poster stated The US set up a number of very nice camps to house German POWs during WW2, these camps followed every regulation set forth in the Geneva convention. Even the one stating that any captured general was to be given a cottage and a secretary.

actually some of the best beers in the world are produced in America by microbrueries I suppose nobody here has had any of the dixie beers, magic hat, or Troegenator? its just that large breweries in america suck at prodcing anything that a cow would want to drink. (excepting some Sam Adams brews)

there is now a new version of the fusor device that is capable of producing energy. There was a google talk given on it not to long ago.

hmm does it epand or something?

alot of time figuring out how to do various mathematical operations in a computer. there are now hardware functions for addition and division, and there are algorithms for graphing. the graphing algorithm works the same way that a human works as they graph, plot a number of points, and then a draw lines to connect the points. By plotting enough points te straight lines begin to look curved.

is just a way of filling up the matrix, just think about what conditions you would have to impose for the derivatives of your functions to be linear combinations of the other derivatives of your function. ie. for one of the rows of the wronskian to be a linear combination of the others.

thats only if the functions are linearly independant. by taking the determinant (wronskian) you can find out whether or not they are linearly independant.

in terms of survivability the human race is on the cockroach level at this point, in the event of disease, the population is large enough and diverse enough that no single disease could wipe out every member of humanity. In the event of nuclear war the hman race is spread far enough, and is located in enough locations that no nuclear war could be effective in killing everyone (especially once bombshelters are taken into account), Similarly with asteroids and the like. The worst case scenario would be that our level of human is incapable of reaching he next step and branching out onto other planets, as we will always destroy our civilisation before that occurs, however over the nex several million years I'm sure evolution would lead us to the point where we could take that step, although evolution may change us slightly so htat we couldn't get back to where we are now, (although I can't think of a situation where such traits would become desirable).

if you mean how fast elecrons become aware that there is a voltage present in the wire, then that would be the speed of light in the medium (as this is the speed at which electric fields change)

no he will actually see the ball fall slower, and this has been experimentally verified. if you look at the velocity transformation laws of special relativiy you will see that the velocity in the y direction will change and become slower, this is a direct consequence of the speed of light being constant (which from your posts I assume you still think is correct, correct?) just imagine a laser that fires a pulse out into space in the y direction of some coordinate plane with the laser at the origin, a rocket travels along the x direction towards the laser at .9c. in the rockets frame how fast does the light move in the y direction as measured by some observer in the rocket ship?

gravity, however the person standing on the platform wil see the ball on the train falling slower. also the basic results of special relativity are very simple mathematically and only involve some basi algebra. the laws are also very simple, for instance momentum in special relativity is given by (gamma)mv which is a very simple law.

swansont if the twin in the space ship was accelerated uniformly so that there was no way that they could tell they are the one accelerating, wouldn't they see the earth as accelerating and thus see its clocks run at the same rate at which earth see's the rockets clocks moving, and thus there still would be a paradox? or does GR have some remody for this?