Thu 11 Oct, 2012 04:59 am - Well , the numerical difference between our results is due to the fact that on the first hand you gave an approx. mean , it should be (51/49)+57 which is not exactly 58.04 . Base change is a term... (view)
Wed 10 Oct, 2012 11:10 pm - You might wanna try by changing the base of the variable by writing the new variables as y = x - 57 , so that the new mean is mean(y)= mean(x) - 57... (view)
Fri 5 Oct, 2012 02:42 am - I was out of touch from the forum for some time so noticed your reply lately; thanks very much for the ribbon , and about the general integral you mentioned I have some simple results for... (view)
Fri 14 Sep, 2012 04:08 am - Calculation of load of track ... etc. are not the main headaches of physics.
Some of the many theories of mechanics or in broader sense of gravity
are:-... (view)
Fri 14 Sep, 2012 03:59 am - As far as I know of historical matters Newton himself derived mv^2/r .
What I am trying to show is that Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent
when dealing with... (view)
Fri 14 Sep, 2012 02:28 am - I would proceed by thus , let y = (sec x)^2
then dy = 2 secx secx tanx dx = 2 ( sec x)^2 tanx dx
so, 2 (tanx)^2 (sec x)^2 dx... (view)
Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:53 am - Hm; I know that's a trivial upper bound , am looking for a better approximation , without an infinite series of course . (view)
Fri 14 Sep, 2012 12:35 am - By considering force components what I find is ,
( P / v ) - kMg - Mg sin b = Mf , whence P = Mv ( gk + g sinb + f ) (view)
