Recent content by fdarkangel

being a freshman on the subject, here's a freshman reply: the energy conservation can be violated by \Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}

Heisenberg stated quantum mechanics with matrix calculus, which was shown to be equivalent to Schrödinger's with partial differentials. partial differentions seem to be quite more adorable to physicsts, i guess.

you can try a basic tool such as GNU Plot.

it does, for integer results. i expanded the algorithm to generalize. basics of both division methods are same. the initial explanations i made about 1/0 and 0/0 are still correct. please don't be so pedantic, the interger-only algorithm is consistent and sufficient enough to explain 1/0.

no, I'm not studying field theory and green functions (yet), as far i know, field theory is covered in quantum physics. i'll have wait next year for them. however, being familiar with electromagnetic theory , this last post clarified it all. huge thanks!

when will you give up trying to show the statements that i haven't said as if i said? i was not telling what the true term is. i was telling what the wrong term is. you may speak english well, but you're either a bad reader, or you try to show people that you're right with imaginary events...

i guess you're implying the irrational numbers. i was not willing to expand the algoritm for non-integer results. i have never given any irrational number input. if you mean the non-integer results.. well, here it goes: let A and B two reel numbers. subtract B from A until A is bigger or...

so, you prefer to insist on such time-waste. then so shall it be. if you stop insuting and emphasizing how "great" you are, i'll point you to the post #7. 1st, a parrot does not know what it's "parroting". 2nd, you're yet to explain the source of posts such as post #1. as maybe you can tell...

i had started to gain impression that you're a pretty presumptuous character. i was not willing to say this explictly, but you're forcing me to say this. i was trying to remind you humility, not to give an "administrative advice". but you threw away humility twice. i still think that saying...

i'm trying to remind something. but this discussion is getting away from it's origin. i just would like to suggest that, as an admin, please consider twice before starting such discussions.

at this point, i'd like to remind how misused terms can cause deep misunderstandings. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html oh, and btw, i remember my modern physics teacher emphasizing that the term "energy-type" causes such misunderstanings among students.

i can see that. then can you simply explain why I'm incorrect?

you sound too confident. i guess, in order to categorize "things" into types, there must be a real difference (i hope you're not too pedantic and understand what i mean with "difference": an inequality between terms). please go ahead and explain how your list of energy types are inequal...

i see... these names refer to the "role"s of energy, closely related to affects of the energy, not types of energy. there has been different discussions on nature of energy, such as existence of negative energy, dark matter, etc. but these topics are beyond my current knowledge (well, I'm a...

really? can you see the definition now?