Recent content by ejungkurth

Imagine my surprise as I showed up for Linear Algebra courses only to find that I was the only one, including the professor. As it turns out, linear algebra is incredibly important to computer science, let alone its theoretical aspects in various fields. You will find on inspection that modern...

What would you suggest as an alternative?

It's not clear that you have tied B to either F[x] or g(x). First relate B to F and g. Assume for the moment that I am not the person who doesn't have the answer.

adastra, Per aspera, I suppose. Do you have an account at your local university library? They generally can be procured for the equivalent of 50 USD per year. More than worth it, in my opinion.

You should probably read Newton's Principia to develop an insight into his method, although I think he was more about presenting results than he was about how he reached them.

It's not so much that modern theories contradict classical theories, it's that observations gathered over time are not always consistent with the theories that have been developed over time.

I'm not at war with my imagination, I'm using it. To tell you the truth, I didn't think this thread would go beyond the first couple of posts. I'm not trying to mislead anybody, I'm just trying to exercise my capability to think abstractly. If I lost that capability, then I'd be stuck calling...

Well, hopefully, your experience has not been having had rockets fired at you. However, jerk is defined as a change in acceleration over time. Even in the falling body example there is jerk because the acceleration is increasing.

Here's the thing: I happen to be a great believer in Newtonian mechanics. I think its awesome in its explanatory power. It is certainly the greatest achievement in physics, as not even Newton could calculate the positive effect it has had on the human condition. However, I've been reading a...

Because the gravitational force increases as the inverse square of the distance and the masses remain constant. Therefore the acceleration must increase as the inverse square of the distance. We are able to treat the acceleration as constant because the difference between the true value and the...

Whoops, I meant the coefficients of any term with a power greater than two, not four.

Here's I guess what I'm trying to say: The way we currently look at things, the acceleration due to gravity is quadratic, because the force increases as the inverse square of the distance and the masses remain constant if we disregard relativistic effects. But say we don't make any assumptions...

I can't figure out how to quote properly :( >Huh? I was replying to the poster who surmised the object was accelerating without moving. >Say what? Where did you get this from? A finite change of velocity in "zero time" would of course be an infinite acceleration--but where do you think...

I reread my previous reply and realized I sounded like an infinite jerk. I apologize.

Mea culpa. Inverse square of the decreasing distance.