Endercreeper01

Pi in base n*pi is 1/n. In fact, x in base nx is 1/n

When you have an object moving near the speed of light, would the density or the volume of an object change from mass increase?

You either need to have the density or the volume to change in order for the mass to change

Oh

I thought you had to make an application or something like that.

I don't do the above.

And is it possible to get mod any other way?

What do you need to do in order to be a mod?

Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad.

And what about diseases that you don't get genetically?

Are there any effects my theory lacks?

No, I mean if you keep practicing something, such as memory, will there be a limit to how much it will improve?

Is it the same for our brains?

What about the good genes in people with disease in their Genetics?

You can't just prevent the ones with bad genes from not reproducing.

It depends on if you are thinking of light as a wave or a particle. In a vacuum, as a wave, the wave is not a straight line, but as a particle, it would be straight. In a vacuum, there is nothing for it to interact with as a particle. As a particle, it wouldn't be like that because of special relativity. If the path was longer, then c would be greater then 299,792,458 m/s. This s not true because we have made measurements with special relativity and the Lorenz factor. If c was different, then the Lorenz factor would be different in the measurement, and therefore, special relativity (sing the value of c we have measured) would not be 100% accurate, and we would have to use a different c.

When is the limit?

And what about the brain?

Is there a limit to how much our bodies can adapt? For example, if you lifted weights and you lifted more and more, will there be a time when your muscles can't get stronger?

What if your gene had traces of disorders. Would you be happy?

Yes, but wouldn't it be cruel to restrict people from reproducing based on their genetics?

We could also set the value of D to the drag coefficient it would have if it was a cube with length 1 times the length of the object

And also, we need to change D to the coefficient of drag it would have if it was a rectangular prism with that characteristic length, since D depends on Re and Re depends on characteristic length

I would rather be intelligent because you can use intelligence to make you happy

What do you think? Do you like my theory?

1. I know how to create graphs, but not how to put them on top of each other

2. It is likely that they are talking about the coefficient of form drag only

3. it gets changed because the average angle from the angle of attack is cos(90-a). This is because the angle of attack is measured parallel to the velocity, and the angle we use is measured perpendicular to the velocity. Therefore, we use cos(90-a). Because cos(90-x)=sin(x), we can rewrite it as sin(a)

4. I don't know how

Yes, can you share some?

I am trying to make a theory. I might try to publish it

1. I don't know how to plot them over each other

3. In this case, it is different. C_f0 is just the C_f it has with no angle of attack. The angle of attack effect goes to both terms because of the distributive property. This is why it is C_f0sin(a)

2. It must be roughly 0 because there is little intercept at a=180

4. Then it would be about 1.8. The method I used was fitting parameters and my theory. Because a is measured parallel instead of perpendicular to the velocity, it would be sin(a)

Yes. Plot experimental data, the best correlations in the literature, and your correlation. All on the same plot. You should show us that your predictions lie right on top of the experimental data points.

 

This would be the very basic requirements -- demonstrating that your idea actually, you know, works. I want you to show us that it works.

Ok, I will show a plot.

Let's go back to a previous plot.

My theory predicts that C_f=C_f0sin(a) where a is the angle of attack. In this case, C_f0 is about 1.8 because the value of the function at 90 degrees is the form drag it has with no angle of attack, and the sin of 0 is 1, so then you get C_f0. Now, let's make a plot of this equation: C_f=1.8sin(a)

The 2 graphs are exactly the same, except that the second one uses radiants.

Yep. Those are graphs.

 

But they don't show how well your correlation works. So, I don't see how in any way it answers what I am asking.

 

One more time... I am asking for you to present just how well your correlations work. That is, show me just how useful your formulas are.

 

So, you want a plot of my equation? Or do you want me to present it in another way? I am confused about what exactly you want me to tell you.