Recent content by jimgavagan

Drakkith: Yes, I mean imperceptible in size - nothing to do with brightness/dimness. DaveC: "On earth, a 1m object at 100m will be noticeably higher in contrast than a 100m object at 10,000m." This is more along the lines of what I'm getting at. So, why wouldn't they be the exact same...

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh awesome! :D Very much appreciated!

Yes, "intuitively understand," thank you again. This is something I got from a friend that might "show" why x*y = x / (1/y) is true. 8 / 16 = .5 8 / 8 = 1 8 / 4 = 2 8 / 2 = 4 8 / 1 = 8 8 / .5 = 16 8 * 2/1 = 8 / .5 Yes or no? Why?

Supposedly this proof answers my question. 8 / 16 = .5 8 / 8 = 1 8 / 4 = 2 8 / 2 = 4 8 / 1 = 8 8 / .5 = 16 8 * 2/1 = 8 / .5 I'm just wondering how this proof answers my question?

Bingo, we just showed it with our different descriptions of the same thing. Your description of 5*3 is the same as my description of 5 / (1/3), showing both that they are the same operation and that they have the same conceptual visualization. Well done! P.S. - By decimals, I meant the 0 <...

Inverse square law looks right. So how do we solve the inverse square equation to figure out the distance at which an object becomes imperceptible given the size of the object?

Note I did not say absolute darkness, but dimness.

I understand the brightness thing, but let's just assume there's not a lot of light anywhere in this scenario. I'm just wondering if the ratio of the distance-to-size of an object is the same for all objects regardless of initial size at 0 distance and, if it is the same for all objects, what...

I follow, but I'm just wanting to know how to think about multiplying numbers. To illustrate: "Similarly, I tend to think of 5/(1/3) as "divide 5 into 'one-third' parts" which I interpret to mean, "make it so that 5 is 1/3 of the whole" (the whole would therefore be 15)." I understand this...

What is division? 12 ones split up into 3 things is 4 ones (per thing.) 1 one split up into 100 things is 1/100 ones (per 1 thing.) Thus, "5 ones split up into 1/100 things is 500 ones (per 1 thing)" is probably better understood as "5 ones split up among hundredths of a thing is 500 hundredths...

Kind of just a random question I thought of that I thought was a physics question - I apologize in advance if it is not a physics question. Here goes: What is the relationship between the size of an object and the distance from your eye at which the object becomes non-visible? Obviously...

Hello guys, I was looking for more like an actual picture? Thanks for these replies though, they probably can't hurt! Jim

I need to understand physics (and other) concepts but I'm having trouble visualizing what the equations mean. One example would be an applied math thing - I want to understand what about electromagnetism exactly the Maxwell equations are describing exactly so I can gain insight into what math...

This is why I'm avoiding pure math --- axioms. There's no such equivalent thing in science as an axiom. It leaves pure math too open, almost like a programming language. Probably not a good idea for me to go into pure math if I don't understand any of the axioms, anyway; and, anyway, 1) the...

I was specifically trying to avoid that interpretation, actually, lol - I was saying that those 6 courses are the only ones that are PROOF-BASED. I was therefore wondering if those 6 proof-based courses are sufficient for the full pure math experience, or if I should go somewhere else if I want...