devrimci_kürt

Are prenuptial agreements a death knell for romance?

thanks friends... I understand very well

what is the difference between result and conclusion?

Mission Impossible

ok.. ALAN GUTH? what do you think about his Inflationary theory?

you are right... well, who is gary novak.. I don't know...only I saw on the internet..

The total context shows that there was no big bang. The distance problem is an example. Physicists claim the universe is about 15 billion years old. When they look at a galaxy which is 15 billion light years away, they say they see it shortly after the universe began. How did it get that far away in such a short amount of time? If it traveled at the speed of light, it would have taken 15 billion years to get that far away from the earth in addition to the 15 billion years for the light to get to earth. It doesn't add up. One tenth the speed of light would be a more realistic velocity for matter to travel. It would then have taken 150 billion years to get that far from the earth. this is not my idea... Excerpt from Gary Novak what do you think ?

that is, then(In this case ) time will never end.. Do you agree with me about this?

in short, time hasn't ended.... right?

I wonder if time ends, what happens afterward?

or killing oneself as a baby:-)

Elif Şafak Aşk (The Forty Rules of Love)

Part 1: Kinetic energy is not ½mv². A 4kg object dropped 1m (meter) has the same amount of ½mv² as a 1kg object dropped 4m, because force times distance equals ½mv² for an accelerating mass. But a rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities requires twice as much energy as fuel for the large mass as for the small one. Therefore, both masses do not have the same energy; the rocket does not transform energy in proportion to ½mv²; ½mv² is not kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel does not produce a consistent amount of ½mv². Part 2: Kinetic energy is mv. A 4kg object dropped for 1s (second) has the same amount of mv (momentum) as a 1kg object dropped for 4s, because force times time equals mv for an accelerating mass. A rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities uses the same amount of energy as fuel for both masses. Therefore, both masses have the same amount of energy; the rocket transforms energy in proportion to mv; mv is kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel produces a consistent amount of mv. All logic and evidence of energy points to the same conclusion. The logic created the need to derive the mathematical proof. About ninety percent of physics is corrupted by the error. excerpt: http://nov55.com/ener.html I didn't understand İs not Kinetic energy ½mv².

What is proof of E=hf ?

Euler's conjecture a^4 + b^4 + c^4 = d^4 ... İs there its integer solution... my friend said, (95800)^4 + (217519)^4 +(414560)^4 = (422481)^4 COMMENTARY: ^=EXPONENT

Is there an implicit age limit for mathematical productivity?

Why does physics use the symbol p to represent momentum? It doesn't seem to fit because there is no p in momentum I know, m stands for mass. but Why p in momentum?

what is the entropy of a black hole ?

Where does Hawking's calculation fail?

equilibrium or chaos ? who know, maybe from equilibrium to chaos

excuse me..my native language is not english.. artspeak barfsome, bodywhomping, campylobacteriosis, cyberwidow, depurpleise, fibroephithelial, japeful, middle youth, Othello syndrome, pancuronium bromide, Patagonian toothfish, People’s Monarchy, petrol-head, portfolio career, rocktabulous, schlockbuster, story arc, stylephile, telangiectasia, Teletubbified, trammel-netter, truncus arteriosus, xenozoonose..

We are looking for new suppliers are who can supply is with sulphite paper bags." http://www.dilforum.com/forum/tercumeleriniz-icin-destek-forumu/70850-bu-cumleyi-cevirebilir-misiniz.html We have been having this discussion ....... Is this sentence right? We are looking for new suppliers are who can supply is with sulphite paper bags." are- is -bags

is friction a conservative force or is it a nonconservative force? why?

yes..