CPL.Luke

for y=mx +b couldn't you take a derivative of it and get y'=m+b this being a constant number it would just tell you that the rate of change is zero right? ( also shouldn't you never see y=mx^n +b as y=mx+b is a way of writing a linear equation (slope intercept form))

I am not sure but wasn't there an ancient culture that used base 13

base ten is easier to learn, you don't need to memorise and work with 6 extra digits (hey you said give an advantage, never said how important it had to be)

relativity? maybe fairly wide usage I would say...

you can only use it to find the area underneath the curve if f(a) is equal to zero correct? nevermind found my answer

as far as I have studied in algebra (not very far yet) imaginary numbers come in the form of bi for a number like the squrt of -4 you can break it up into the squrt of 4 multiplied by the squrt of -1 you then define the squrt of -1 as i so then you have squrt(4) *i which reduces to 2i or bi complex numbers come in the form a+bi (this is used to handle the quadratic formula when you encounter a negative number underneath the radical sign) in order to really understand complex numbers you need to understand the quadratic formula. as i don't know how to input the html to create those fancy looking equations you'll have to wait till someone who can comes along

oh yeah sorry about that I'm just used to hearing it C=2Pi r rather than C=Pi r2 and I converted it to the area equation in my head.

as a unit of measure (radians) there are 2Pi radians in a circle 360 degrees is equal to 2Pi radians 180 degrees is equal to Pi radians 90 degrees is equal to Pi/2 radians 45 degrees is equal to Pi/4 radians etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radians more on radians but in trig radians are basicly used to measure angles

why not use integration by the fundamental theorem? isn't that simpler and more accurate?

I was asking because that method seems flawed, using inscribed polygons with ever increasing numbers of sides would forever be trying to approximate it, it would seem that if you tried using integral calculus on it you would get an exact value or even if the numbers irrational value was native it would seem that integral calculus would provide a more accurate value oh yeah I was mistaken in believing that the greek letter was a lowercase theta it really was an uppercase phi here is the wikipedia article on it and its many uses in mathmatics and physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_%28letter%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Definition_of_the_Golden_Ratio

I thought lowercase theta was used as a counterpart to the uppercase theta, in relation to angles Pi comes up in trigonometry (sin,cos,tan etc.) because a common way of measuring angles is in radians. basicly a radian is an angle where the angle measure is lage enough that the arc length is equal to the radius. since Pi is the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference, there are 2Pi radians in a circle. an angle measured at 180 degrees is equal to Pi radians, an angle measured at 90 degrees is equal to Pi/2 radians. you will never see a decimal approximation when working with radians and you will always see them measured with units of pi. this is partially to do with accuracy because any decimal of Pi is an approximation, so if you continually converted radians into decimals you would lose accuracy. also just wondering but I had heard that a method of calculating pie was by using inscribed polygons, and this led to it being an irrational number. has anyone ever tried to use integral calculus to find an exact value of it? or is there more to its irrationality than that? also its C=Pi r squared not Pi r 2 (just in case that wasn't a typo) Ps. how do you make it write out the formulas properly?

but then the question of time dialation do to velocity, to those who know more about relativity is the question not applicable? or...

well you know I would have to say that imho gravity is wroking normally and that some other effect is affecting the probes, because if gravity for some reason is tugging at the probes harder now than it was a while ago, then that would have to mean that some part of gravity got stronger over distance instead of getting weaker. now if you carry this idea out further then everything should be clustered closer to the center of the galaxy because objects on the outer rim of the galaxy are fealling a stronger force pulling them in then their counter parts are which are closer to the center of the galaxy also does anybody have a good chart of the probes respective courses? (better than the one on space.com) because otherwise we don't know if they have just been adjusting course towards the sun for a long time now or if they are now feeling a stronger attraction by gravity towards the sun,(insert other possibility here)

an easy way of thinking about it is E=hf energy=(plancks constant)(frequency) in my science class we calculated plancks constant using led's a multimeter and a spectrometer we graphed our results as energy vs. frequency in a scatter plot. In this scatter plot the slope of the line of best fit is plancks constant

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=041018_pioneer_path_02.gif∩=The+paths+of+Pioneer+10+and+11+and+the+similarly+distant+Voyager+craft.

I think the only way you could do it would e to use high energy electrons so that the electron could ionize the elements in the detector but would continue passing through. however then your altering the path of the electron through the detector in an unpredictable fashion and would screw up any results you would have come up with however the wavelenth of the electron will then decrease (correct?) and the two slit experiment would be harder to pull of in the first place. however I think a similar experiment has already been performed somewhere (can't remember the results) however if you managed to pull off this experiment, I think you would find that you have a wave pattern until you turned on the detecectors and then you would get the classical result.

you can't smash a culature of bacteria into anouther culture, it doesn't work like that. particle physisists smash atoms together. (and smaller things)

I think he's reffering to when matter is accelerated to near light speed.

my point was that a sattelite faces the same temperatures an astronauts face shield would. and yet a sattelite survives just fine, therefore materials do exist which can handle the kind of "temperature" extremes that the astronauts faced check up on your thermodynamics, its much faster to conduct heat than it is to radiate it, without an atmosphere you can only radiate heat and thus things will heat up and cool slower. Im assuming that was do you actually know Im guessing you don't nor do you know the constraints placed on a launch. any device capable of sending out a visible signal to the earth (not radio waves) would have either been A) to large (limited volume capacity of appollo craft b) to heavy (costs alot in fuel to send something to the moon) c)to time consuming (apollo 11 astronauts only had 2 hours on the surface) the images I posted, if you bothered to look at them show a near pitchblack ground (ground is in the shadow and would be illuminated by a second light source). Also if there truely were extra light sources I would expect to see multiple shadows, not just a slight illumination of objects in shadow that could be caused by starlight. whos attacking whom? take a look at those photos and then tell me that things are illuminated in the shadows

2 things wrong with this 1) by saying no material can withstand this then how do our sattelites do it, they are subjected to the same temperature extremes (there will be an apparent contradiction between the first flaw and the second flaw, the second one is more accurate) 2) space is a vaccuum and thus has no temperature. temperature is a measure of kinetic energy in matter. while things in space will eventually cool to a certain temperature and never go below that temperature this is because of ambient light sources and the cosmic background etc. it takes a long time to reach that temperature, because all of the heat must be radiated off an object instead of rellying on convection. Likewise it will take a long time to heat an object in the sun's rays. the moon is very far away (240,000 miles I believe) it would have taken either a very bright light source or a sign bigger than a football field. in short, assuming nasa thought of it, they would have made the decision that it would take to much time, effort and money to do what you describe the appollo 15 landing site has been viewed http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html and common a spaceshuttle costs a couple billion dollars something tells me the government isn't that interested in covering up the moon landing hoax, now that the cold war is over it would be a big embarassment sure, but not one important enough to cover up with the waste of several tens of billions of dollars (the other 3 won't be flying anytime soon) not to mention the fact that we now relly on the russians for soyuz craft to support the iss. I don't know when I look at the images I see a darker shadow then I have ever seen in my life http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=v_Aldrin_on_moon_02,0.jpg∩=Aldrin%20on%20the%20moon. and http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html go to the pictures of the evas and moon landings those shadows are all pitch black if we had never gone to the moon how did we know that it infact was brown on the surface and not white? and as to why the astronauts never gave an interview, the odds are they were scared out of their minds. Know why? because there were hundreds of reporters on their lawns asking for interviews and hounding them where ever they went. I personnally would do the same and not say a thing until the reporters got the message and left. and while normally I don't do this alright stop saying that the replies you recieve are personall and silly when you insult the intelligence of the entire forum and pose that you are more intelligent than every one here from here http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=110005&postcount=41 etc. for future reference can you please stick to the facts, because quite honestly whenever you end up saying stuff like you don't know what your talking about, because I could easilly point out many things that you clearly don't understand what your talking about. however as I am trying to avoid making myself sound like I am trying to flame you I will not do this.

well it sounded like it is a substantial excess that you could detect, 1 microcurie

"With the exception of the use of 1 microcurie carbon-14 urea radioactive drug capsules for in vivo diagnostic use in humans," so its for some kind of test not a radiation therapy

I had heard ounce that we all have trace amounts in our system because nasa boched a launch that was carrying a nuclear reactor with a few hundred grams of plutonium in it that got spread all over the earth. and that you can detect this trace in every person on the planet

"With the exception of the use of 1 microcurie carbon-14 urea radioactive drug capsules for in vivo diagnostic use in humans, all internal or external administrations of byproduct material or the radiation therefrom to human patients or human research subjects must be done in accordance with a medical use license (or authorization) issued pursuant to NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 35, "Medical Use." NRC licenses the use of byproduct materials in diagnostic devices in the practices of dentistry and podiatry as part of medical use. The medical use of plutonium in nuclear powered pacemakers is licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70." so I took that to mean only carbon-14 is allowed for injestion radiation therapy is normally carried out using xray machines correct? also plutonium is man made, the odds of you having any in your system are low (except because of botched space launches and such) I don't think anybody would have come up with a therapeutic index for it because I don't think anyone would have tried using it therapeuticly, or would have only found it harmful.

yeah plutonium is toxic when injested no matter how little you intake for radiation therapy you don't use things like plutonium. the only radioisotope allowed for injesting is carbon-14 you will never find what you are looking for, and if the question would later result in an experiment you may want to read this http://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/med-use.html