Recent content by The Guru Kid

Interesting. I think this'll tell us more about the history of our solar system than discovering a new star that is part of our solar system.

The policy makes sense because physicists or students of physics are scarcely indifferent to the matter. Most of them are either for or against it so the forum would completely change it's color if we started discussing relegion. Either way, there's plenty of forums out there that'll discuss...

Think of the Energy equation: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 when m = 0, E=pc. The equation by which you get 0/0 only applies for m>0.

I was researching about the highest possible EM wavelength and came across "the length of the universe" concept. Is it just the length of the visible universe? or the universe possible? thanx

Would there be any rotational motion at all? In order for an object to rotate (say a wheel for example) it needs to have frictional force on the other end to counter the force on one end. On a frictionless surface, the wheel would not rotate at all. Since the table in this case is...

It might help if you looked at it in terms of differentials. Like v= dx/dt instead of x/t.

I'm sorry i still don't see how my method is wrong. If you want to use unit circles, that's fine, but my method works unless it's one of those math coincidences. If someone could explain why it's wrong, i would be grateful. :smile:

Well i guess you have to understand why we took the limit in the first place. suppose we just had the equation w/o the limit. Then solving for x you get 0. But in current mathematics, you cannot do that since it gives you division by 0 (in the times befor Sir Wallis, mathematicians like Fermat...

Actually that wouldn't be too hard. Ignoring the limit and rearranging the equation gives you sinx = x. That's only true when x = 0. The only reason the limit exists in the original equation is because you cannot divide by zero. p.s. first post, hope I'm not wrong :smile: