Finally?

Someone posted this on DeviantArt. Damnit, I was gonna do this when I grew up! :D Oh well, her theories aren't proven yet.

thats a fascinating article - nice to know someone is still trying to link relativity to quantum physics :P

I don't envy her job though :P I used to get a headache just listening to my old physics teacher babble on :P

"hoping to blend Einstein's general relativity with quantum theory"

WOW rnt the emperors new cloths great?

man that makes u look so intelligent, keep it up

Quote from Harbinger:
man that makes u look so intelligent, keep it up

try having someone tell you that light isn't a form of energy :P I had someone try to prove that to me once, I couldn't stop laughing :P

well actually it isnt really officially known if light is a particle or a wave

if your going to assume light is a wave and disregard the theories of it being a particle then YOU are an idiot

Quote from DoWhatUWant:
well actually it isnt really officially known if light is a particle or a wave

if your going to assume light is a wave and disregard the theories of it being a particle then YOU are an idiot

hmm? when did I mention anything about particles and waves?

visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, it also shares characteristics with both particles and waves. I made a passing reference to the first, I deliberately avoided the second.

if you want to troll, do it on someone elses time junior.

she's not bad looking :roll:

ROFL

Quote from Akuma:
she's not bad looking :roll:

Yep thats the only thing of any relevance, shes a female scientist and good looking too :)

well if light is a particle then it has energy rather then being energy if its a wave then it is energy so dont call me jr old man

Bah, they're all just different forms of energy anyway :D

if you want to be pedantic then everything is energy

so stfu u noob

Quote from DoWhatUWant:
well if light is a particle then it has energy rather then being energy if its a wave then it is energy so dont call me jr old man

umm, yeah so its still energy as Meph said, so how is this wrong?

Prove 1.9999999(infinate) = 2.0

1.999(etc) = x

(1) 10x = 19.999(etc)
(2) 1x = 1.999(etc)

and with simple equation solving skills (elimination)

get equation (1) take (2) and you get

(1) - (2)

9x=18

solve for x (and x = 2)

(i wanna look smart too!) and yes i know its completely unrelated but its slightly interesting

hrm
but the 10x would have a 0.9 to one less degree than the 1x
so really

10x - 1x is 17.9999999999...................1

so your proof is dodgy
as per most proofs that prove the obvious

noone can quite prove that 1 = 1 so they make something that looks ok
but relies on a "approximation" that really makes the whole proof pointless because you can just use that "approximation" straight away, and say "FFS 1 =1!!!! what are you stupid???"

let

a = b

then a^2 = ab

a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

(a - b)(a +b) = b(a - b)

a + b = b using a = b

2b = b

therefore 2 = 1 dont you just love maths

well if your gonna be pedantic then matter is not energy until you actually convert it to energy and although something has energy does not MAKE it energy. So under the definition of light being a particle then light is not a form of energy but rather a particle being affected by energy.

u cant devide both sides by (a-b) :)
im gonna prove zeniths thing using sequences and series - god im sad bbs :)

1.999999.... = 1 + .9 + .09 + .009 ....
To come up with an expression

A(n) = 1 + 9( (10^-1) + (10^-2) + ....... + (10^-(n-1)) + (10^-n) )

S(n) = 1 + 0.9(( 1 - ((0.1)^n)) / (1 - 0.1))
S(n) = 1 + 0.9(( 1 - ((0.1)^n)) / (.9))

as n==> infinite (0.1^n) ==> 0
S(infinite) = 1 + 0.9(1)/.9 = 2

if memory servs correct :?:

matt you **** you werent supposed to tell........

yes the flaw in the argument is that you cant divide by zero i.e (a - b) so the argument is a fallacy 2 is not in fact equal to 1. heh

but light is neither a particle nor a wave. it has properties of both...but it is neither...

so don't try proving that light is not energy because you are assuming light is a particle... when it isn't.

we assume it is energy because that is as far as our knowledge extends...

im assuming it is because that is an argument that cant be ignored and who ever said its neither you cant prove its neither any more then you can prove its one or the other all im saying is that its a valid argument to say that light is not energy and that it cant be proven right or wrong one way or the other.

of course you can prove it is neither, it has properties of both therefore it breaks the definition of both a particle and a wave...

therefore, neither. simple logic there.

dependent upon a proof that its properties are not cause by interaction with something that we cant even observe let alone define.

i didn't say that you could define light yet, i said you can rule it out of the given definition of both a particle and a wave. which you can considering that these definitions are unchanging.

if it has properties that are within both categories and extra unidentified properties than it cannot be defined within waves or particles.... it is something else.

hey fuckstickle

you CAN prove that light acts as energy

you CAN'T prove that it isnt energy

hence

meph is right, and your a stupid head
stfu

i didnt think we would be on second page zenith here
1.999999.... = 1 + .9 + .09 + .009 ....
To come up with an expression

A(n) = 1 + 9( (10^-1) + (10^-2) + ....... + (10^-(n-1)) + (10^-n) )

S(n) = 1 + 0.9(( 1 - ((0.1)^n)) / (1 - 0.1))
S(n) = 1 + 0.9(( 1 - ((0.1)^n)) / (.9))

as n==> infinity (0.1^n) ==> 0
S(n==>infinity) = 1 + 0.9(1)/.9 = 2

if memory servs correct

The same principle where light is both a partical and wave also applies to all mass :shock: he he :)

thats again based on an assumption

your equation is due to that summation APPROACHING the equation u used

but obviously, 1.99999 is aproaching 2
god damn

its the same as the other proof on the other page :P

back up found:
"Question 6:
The number is 0.272727.... etc.

You can do this in two ways. Probably the easier is to let

x = 0.272727....
100x = 27.272727....

Subtracting 99x = 27 and so x = 27/99 = 3/11

Alternatively, we can consider this as a GP with terms:

27/100 + 27/10000 + etc to infinity with a = 27/100 and r = 1/100

Sum to infinity = a/(1-r) = (27/100)/(1-1/100)

= (27/100)/(99/100)

= 27/99

= 3/11 as before."

Yeah, its the sum to infinity proof :) its easier this way :?

-edit oops link http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56890.html

seriously your annoying me now matt

a - b = the difference between a and b

( infinity - 2) - infinity = 2 yet according to your logic it = 0

the fact is its not alright accept it move on

no one is denying that 0.000000....................1 is so close to 0 its indistinguishable from 0 but that doesnt make it the same and saying that it is is an approximation as harb correctly said

the mathematicians that created the concept infinity understood this when they created it as do all mathematicians this day. It has become an acceptable standard to assume they are the same simply because for any real life situation the difference makes no difference (heh) and just complicates a problem.

how can I argue this so that im right, and both of them are wrong

shit

stupid thesis

lol harb

well you could say im just copying you and call me a bitch witha stupid hat......

Nelson stop it before ur hand gets too hot...

Quote from DoWhatUWant:
well if your gonna be pedantic then matter is not energy until you actually convert it to energy and although something has energy does not MAKE it energy. So under the definition of light being a particle then light is not a form of energy but rather a particle being affected by energy.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd point out that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (and no antimatter bullshit either)

Anyone who pays attention in Physics will have been told that light is a form of energy that acts as both a particle and a wave. As far as the matter vs. energy argument? study the makeup of atoms in enough depth and you might just notice that the line blurrs when you get deep enough.

Quote from Mephiston:
If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd point out that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (and no antimatter bullshit either)

Matter can be created or destroyed, its converted to and from energy. The conversion too energy (known in atomic explosions or any other type of beta and gama radiation decay) is destroying the matter

The conversion from energy (where atoms soak up radiation) is creation of matter

The rule ur refering to is very very old, befor the time of nuclear physics

and where is my etiquette i forgot some simple pieces from my proof

LHS = 2
RHS = 1.9999....
RHS = 1 + 0.9( 1 + (10^-1) + (10^-2) + ....... )

Takeing 0.9( 1 + (10^-1) + (10^-2) + ....... )

A(n) = 0.9( 1 + (10^-1) + (10^-2) + ....... + (10^-(n-1)) + (10^-n) )

To prove its a geometric progression
b/a must equal c/b where a = 1 b = 0.1 c = 0.01
RHS = b/a = 0.1/1 = 0.1
LHS = 0.01/0.1 = 0.1 = RHS
Therfor b/a = c/b and it is a geometric progression
r = b/a = 0.1
a = 0.9 (the first term)

Since this is a geometric progression and r is less then 1 and greater then -1 we can use S(infinity)=a/(1-r)
S(infinity)=0.9/0.9 =1
RHS = 1 + 1 = 2 = LHS

Therefore the experssion 2=1.9999.... is correct

Sif no1 has seen this before ? - its 2 unit stuff in NSW which means most ppl should have at least seen it

Quote from Matt:
Matter can be created or destroyed, its converted to and from energy. The conversion too energy (known in atomic explosions or any other type of beta and gama radiation decay) is destroying the matter

Matter is a form of energy, it simply gets converted to/from another form of energy.

The energy does not get destroyed, only modified.

Quote:
Therefore the experssion 2=1.9999.... is correct

No, there is a difference of 0.1^infinity between the two.

Give up he's a half wit dude

he doesn't really know what he's doing, he's just following rules
which is why his argument is flawed.

and matter can be destroyed, antimatter explosions exist as far as I know, complete Dissolution of matter.

but the old E = MC² shit is the deal, the M is actually change in mass.

when they carry out nuclear fission or fusion, there is a difference in total mass between the original nucleus and the new one, that difference produces the energy in the reaction. As per that equation.

Quote from Matt:
Matter can be created or destroyed, its converted to and from energy.

Is that not a contradictary statement ?

Just asking :twisted:

Quote from Harbinger:
Give up he's a half wit dude.

Bud, that like saying grass is green and the sky is blue..
He proves the fact every time he hits the Submit... button..

i got a headacre

is that like a headhectare........

EOS
bored and lovin it

I have a few words for you people..

Why are all these equations stating the equalibrium between two numeric values are unbalenced thus not being equal..

lol sorry i have no idea if that makes sence but it looked smart :twisted:

i wish i could be as smart as you guys but maths hurts my head as a matter of fact so do big words..

brb panadol..

OMG, didnt ne of u idiots go to the web page????

Here it is again for thouse who conveniatly forgot http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56890.html
VISIT IT!!!! see what they have done and why

Think about IT Q6 the example they give they prove 0.2727272727... to infinity = 3/11. Just like 1.999999... to infinity = 2 HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND? seriously u lost! pack up and go home

Like OMG its a F@&*ing standard question! Use sequences and series to show that 1.9999' = 2 its so generic they dont even bother testing it in hsc exams cause everyone has done it over and over. U will find examples on the web page and in any half decent book covering 2unit material.

Quote from Sly_Fox:
[quote:9801b73085="Matt"]Matter can be created or destroyed, its converted to and from energy.

Is that not a contradictary statement ?

Just asking :twisted:
[/quote:9801b73085]

NO it isnt SLY so STFU

and im telling you right fuckin now

you take ANYTHING to INFINITY, which is an IMAGINARY figure

then its an APPROXIMATION, which you can do FROM THE START

i.e 1.9999 is pretty close to 2, 1.9999 = 2.

god damn, your so damn thick.

and if you say CONVERT, then it isnt DESTROYED.

that's what sly was saying.

But then nothing is destroyed at all, only reduced to components, so really its still destroyed. woopee doo

Umm i think you will find the statement is

Matter can neither be created or destroyed

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2000exams/hsc00_maths/97MAT2_3.PDF
Q5 d - a 4 mark question
Quote:
(d) A ball is dropped from a height of 2 metres onto a hard floor and bounces.
After each bounce, the maximum height reached by the ball is 75% of the
previous maximum height. Thus, after it first hits the floor, it reaches a height
of 1·5 metres before falling again, and after the second bounce, it reaches a
height of 1·125 metres before falling again.
(i) What is the maximum height reached after the third bounce?
(ii) What kind of sequence is formed by the successive maximum heights?
(iii) What is the total distance travelled by the ball from the time it was first
dropped until it eventually comes to rest on the floor?

the ball will never stop bouncing !

But using sequences and series a figure can be reached - this is a 4 mark 2 unit Q5 question its SHIT EASY

Oh look heres the report on it

Quote:
i) (1 mark)
Most students scored the mark in this question. Some students were
confused by the `after the third bounce'. Careful reading of the
question was necessary to see which term was required. Candidates
should also check that they have copied the numbers in the question
carefully to their writing booklet. A common error was to write 1:125
as 1:25.
(ii) (1 mark)
This question was generally well answered. However, a few students
who were using correct geometric formulae in parts (i) and (iii) wrote
A.P.
(iii) (2 marks)
Few students gained full marks for this part of the question. Many
students had di±culty associating `coming to rest' with a limiting
sum. Those who realised they had to calculate a limiting sum often
then didn't take into account the `up and down'. Students often
quoted the formula incorrectly or even if using S(infinity) = a/(1-r) interpreted
it to mean the number of bounces rather than the distance travelled.
Many students wasted time by doing unnecessary exhaustive calculations

Its the same thing. Anyone who has done intergration should have done sequences and series cause its what u use to derive it.

omg u are pig ignorant arnt you

I quit

its interesting to note that he resorts to cutting and pasting instead of working it out himself :P

Shouldn't it be easy?

1/3 = 0.3 recurring
therefore
3/3 = 0.9 recurring but also = 1...

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/math/algebra/algebra2/algebra2_03/extra_examples/chapter11/lesson11_5.pdf
Check out example 3

http://www.mathsnet.net/asa2/a3rd.html

This one is great - http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf

http://www.mat.bham.ac.uk/C.J.Sangwin/Teaching/pus/infsersup.pdf

Plus the two i already posted

HOW MUCH PROOF DO U NEED!!!!

matt, you aren't even arguing against Harb. you've made up your own argument to argue and have been continuing it for the last five or six posts...

BLERGH!

and i am not getting into this, not after Physics, Chem, Economics, English and Maths exams...

bagerk to higher education :P