Recent content by Libertine

Just for the curious: I did managed to get the answer in the end - it was necessary to use the third term of the expansion. Thanks.

Some English, some current affairs, some Maths (half a module), some Science. GCSE level Maths. Not even a little bit. Less than 10% of universities will count it as an A-level. However, some schools make it compulsory (like mine), because they get extra money and their exam results look better.

Ok, thanks guys. I'll have a go doing that (although my Taylor Series expansion knowledge is sketchy at best).

An ellipse has an equation which can be written parametrically as: x = a cos(t) y = b sin(t) It can be proved that the circumference of this ellipse is given by the integral: \int^{2\pi}_0 \sqrt{a^2 \sin^2 t + b^2 \cos^2 t} \ \ dt Prove that, if a=r(1+c) and b=r(1-c), where c is a...

Yes. Momentum involves direction as well.

I think you'll either have to do it by parts, or through substitution as TD said. I can't see any other easy way of doing it.

How does the universe seem to be becoming more orderly since the Big Bang?

You insert the value of x and see if it matches, e.g. f(x) = -2x+1 f(-x) = -2(-x) + 1 = 2x+1 so it isn't even... Do a similar thing to test if it is odd (be careful with the brackets)

Yes. So then you have its velocity in the centre of motion, when t=0 and can hence derive equation of motion.

It's a scientific theory...

K.E. = \frac{1}{2}mv^2

If there was an acceleration of 4m/s forwards, then the magnitude would just be the 4. If you have been given it in vector form (e.g. 4i + 3[b]j[/j]) then Pythagorus would have to be used.

Right hand side. You start with K.E. = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 Then multiply both sides by m, but to keep them the same you must divide by m, i.e.: K.E. = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 . \frac{m}{m} K.E. = \frac{m^2 v^2}{2m} K.E. = \frac{(mv)^2}{2m} Then use the fact that p = mv to get: K.E. = \frac{p^2}{2m}...

That step is incorrect: -b-d =/= -(b-d)

I don't think that's right. Speed and Distance are both scalar quantities - they have no direction to them. So (unlike velocity), a negative speed does not mean going backwards - it's not really comparable to anything in the real world.