Forums

ve7rkt · May 3, 2005

Are YOU SURE because from YOUR MESSAGE it appears THAT PERHAPS the one TRUE PROPERTY of everything IN THE physical universe IS CAPITALIZATION.

ve7rkt · May 3, 2005

Are YOU SURE because from YOUR MESSAGE it appears THAT PERHAPS the one TRUE PROPERTY of everything IN THE physical universe IS CAPITALIZATION.

spacechump · May 4, 2005

"He developed the Theory described in his books while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements they contain." Really? Calculate? Mathematically? WOW!!

spacechump · May 4, 2005

"He developed the Theory described in his books while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements they contain." Really? Calculate? Mathematically? WOW!!

yevaud · May 4, 2005

Wow. And to think I wasted all that money on college. I could've just bought the Reader's Digest version... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · May 4, 2005

Wow. And to think I wasted all that money on college. I could've just bought the Reader's Digest version... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · May 4, 2005

well, I can tell you right now it falls apart, as one of the assumptions is invalid: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Physical Universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE<hr /></blockquote> Rotation doesn't fit that, try it. Rotate a book around all three axis...Lay it flat in front of you, looking at the front cover. Now, rotate it upright (standing up, facing you). next, rotate it 90 degrees counterclockwise about the verticle axis (now standing up and facing to your right). Then rotate it about the horizontal axis pointing away from you (i.e. it down and to the right, laying it on it's face). You have done 3 90 degree rotations about different axis. Do those steps in different orders. If it is truly commutative, you will always end up with the book in the same position, since A*B*C = A*C*B = C*B*A = B*A*C = B*C*A. But it won't work. Heck, you can do it with two steps. Rotate it up around the verticle axis 90 degrees, then around the horizontal axis that runs parrallel to the table edge (i.e. flip it up towards you). Start over with it in the same spot, and instead rotate it up towards you, then around the verticle axis. You don't get the same thing. Rotation is not commutative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · May 4, 2005

well, I can tell you right now it falls apart, as one of the assumptions is invalid: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Physical Universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE<hr /></blockquote> Rotation doesn't fit that, try it. Rotate a book around all three axis...Lay it flat in front of you, looking at the front cover. Now, rotate it upright (standing up, facing you). next, rotate it 90 degrees counterclockwise about the verticle axis (now standing up and facing to your right). Then rotate it about the horizontal axis pointing away from you (i.e. it down and to the right, laying it on it's face). You have done 3 90 degree rotations about different axis. Do those steps in different orders. If it is truly commutative, you will always end up with the book in the same position, since A*B*C = A*C*B = C*B*A = B*A*C = B*C*A. But it won't work. Heck, you can do it with two steps. Rotate it up around the verticle axis 90 degrees, then around the horizontal axis that runs parrallel to the table edge (i.e. flip it up towards you). Start over with it in the same spot, and instead rotate it up towards you, then around the verticle axis. You don't get the same thing. Rotation is not commutative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

RixPJ · Mar 9, 2008

This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'.  It was taken last August.

Full Size version: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/PaulRix/Astronomy/Moon28Aug07largemosaic.jpg edit:  It seems that my image links are not working using the IMG tags.  Does anyone have an idea as to what I am doing wrong here?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

RixPJ · Mar 9, 2008

This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'.  It was taken last August.

Full Size version: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/PaulRix/Astronomy/Moon28Aug07largemosaic.jpg edit:  It seems that my image links are not working using the IMG tags.  Does anyone have an idea as to what I am doing wrong here?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

PistolPete · Mar 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'.  It was taken last August.

Full Size version: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/PaulRix/Astronomy/Moon28Aug07largemosaic.jpg edit:  It seems that my image links are not working using the IMG tags.  Does anyone have an idea as to what I am doing wrong here?   Posted by RixPJ</DIV>Wow, that's awesome.  You can't even tell where the stitching was or anything. As far as the UBBCode, I think that they've disabled most of it.  If you want to post a link, what you do is that you first type in the title for your link:LINKThen, you highlight the text.  An icon that looks like a link in a chain in the toolbar directly below the text box should unghost.  Click on it and a dialogue box will appear.  In the dialogue box, you can then enter the link URL and a title for your link.  Note that the link title will not change the text you used to create the link, but will instead be the text that shows up when you highlight the link.To upload an image (not recommended for high-quality images) click on the icon of the picture of a tree in the toolbar below the text box and follow the dialogue box that pops up.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

PistolPete · Mar 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'.  It was taken last August.

Full Size version: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/PaulRix/Astronomy/Moon28Aug07largemosaic.jpg edit:  It seems that my image links are not working using the IMG tags.  Does anyone have an idea as to what I am doing wrong here?   Posted by RixPJ</DIV>Wow, that's awesome.  You can't even tell where the stitching was or anything. As far as the UBBCode, I think that they've disabled most of it.  If you want to post a link, what you do is that you first type in the title for your link:LINKThen, you highlight the text.  An icon that looks like a link in a chain in the toolbar directly below the text box should unghost.  Click on it and a dialogue box will appear.  In the dialogue box, you can then enter the link URL and a title for your link.  Note that the link title will not change the text you used to create the link, but will instead be the text that shows up when you highlight the link.To upload an image (not recommended for high-quality images) click on the icon of the picture of a tree in the toolbar below the text box and follow the dialogue box that pops up.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

doublehelix · Apr 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'. Posted by RixPJ</DIV>That is so cool!  I would never have known that you stitched together the images unless you said something.  How difficult was it to do the stitching?In this picture, I am really impressed by the beating the moon has taken, judging from all the remains of impacts seen on the surface.  It's still a beautiful rock.-dh  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

doublehelix · Apr 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an image I put together using my LX200 SCT and a Philips SPC900NC webcam.  It is comprised of 39 separate stacked webcam images that were stitched together using the freeware program 'Autostitch'. Posted by RixPJ</DIV>That is so cool!  I would never have known that you stitched together the images unless you said something.  How difficult was it to do the stitching?In this picture, I am really impressed by the beating the moon has taken, judging from all the remains of impacts seen on the surface.  It's still a beautiful rock.-dh  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> doublehelix, Community Manager Imaginova </div>

drwayne · Apr 7, 2008

A few that leap to mind(1) Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics - Elmer Anderson(2) Quantum Mechanics - Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.(2) Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences - BoasWayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Apr 7, 2008

A few that leap to mind(1) Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics - Elmer Anderson(2) Quantum Mechanics - Cohen-Tannoudji et. al.(2) Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences - BoasWayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Leovinus · Apr 8, 2008

CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Leovinus · Apr 8, 2008

CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · Apr 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas.  Posted by Leovinus</DIV>aka "The Rubber Book"Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Apr 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics -- bigger than 10 bibles and more information than any 1000 people could digest CRC Mathematical tables and formulas.  Posted by Leovinus</DIV>aka "The Rubber Book"Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

doubletruncation · Apr 8, 2008

Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

doubletruncation · Apr 8, 2008

Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Apr 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. Posted by doubletruncation</DIV> 1.  Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3:  An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet.  Can be read at many levels.  Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety.  2.  Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10.  A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.3.  Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics.  The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory. 4.  Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics.  The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Apr 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Definitely "Numerical Recipes" by Press et al. Posted by doubletruncation</DIV> 1.  Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3:  An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet.  Can be read at many levels.  Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety.  2.  Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10.  A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.3.  Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics.  The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory. 4.  Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics.  The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · Apr 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.  Feynman -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vols 1-3:  An excellent text and the best overall survey of physics yet.  Can be read at many levels.  Covers a vast amount of physics at an introductory level but with a depth that requires some sophistication to appreciate in its entirety.  2.  Landau and Lifshitz -- Course of Theoretical Physics Vols 1-10.  A masterful exposition of theoretical physics, but at a high and demanding level.3.  Jackson -- Classical Electrodynamics.  The standard for advanced electromagnetic theory. 4.  Goldstein -- Classical Mechanics.  The standard for mechanics of the Newtonian variety. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Jackson as a useful book?  Its a classic to be sure, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used it to solve a work-related problem.  I think of it more as a "rite of passage book".  Waynep.s.  A good friend of mine who took E&M after me had a professor who thought he whould be cute and make a minor change in a Jackson problem and assign it for a take home test.  He ended up with an insoluable problem that kept most of them awake for most of the weekend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Forums

ve7rkt

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

spacechump

Guest

spacechump

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

RixPJ

Guest

RixPJ

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

doublehelix

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page