Why do otherwise rational people take the NASA seriously?
I think people on both sides of the political spectrum have a distrust of government bureaucrats. I don't believe there is a UN conspiracy to make people live in hobbit homes or to take away everyone's guns, but I do believe that non elected government *** kissers are mainly looking out for their own best interests. The mandate of the NASA is to "explore space for the benefit of Mankind".
You have a non elected body consisting of overpaid bureaucrats who's liberal goal is to basically convince us of the liberal lie that Man has been to the Moon. Imagine if you had a UN group of Round-Earthers whose mandate was to assess whether or not the Earth is flat. What do you think most of their reports would conclude?
"If you think that the Apollo program is a liberal lie, you're beyond reason."
Your Sal Alinski tactics will not work on me.
"I agree with your assessment. Information is always taken out of context in order to fit our individual view of how the World works.The United Nations and anything connected to it has a view of a one-world Government but it seems that many people will conform simply to have a paycheck."
Thank you, zippie. I knew that people like you would be able to see thru the Moonists' liberal lies that men walked on the Moon. People are not stupid.
Hey Dook has me blocked from his posts, but feels quite welcome to come here and ask "Define "differential equation" and provide three examples of how they are used (showing all mathematical steps) so that we can find out once and for all if you are an idiot savant or just plain mentally disturbed, or extremely crappy at trying to be ironic."
Well, I certainly know the definition of differential equations better than he knows the definition of "ironic"! Differential equations are equations involving derivatives!
OK, for my first example, I give a simple harmonic oscillator--it, among many other things characterizes an oscillating spring without friction.. m( d2x/dt2) + kx = 0. We can get the correct solution by guessing. (In reality, everyone knows the solution.) x = A cos ([square root of k/m]t) + B sin (([square root of k/m]t. The constants A and B can be solved by boundary type conditions. For example knowing dx/dt and x at the same point in
My second example will be a Laplacian. Del squared phi = 4 pi p (I write rho as "p"). It is the equation for the voltage in electrostatics It occurs in other places like heat distribution. The general solution is a Green's function form phi (x)= integral (p(x'')/ [x- x']) d3x'. This can be seen by direct insertion of this solution into the equation. It can also be seen by getting the Gauss' Law solution for the gradient of phi (the electric field) and then integrating to get phi.
And for my third equation we'll do the Dirac equation for a particle at rest. It is a Relativistic equation for the quantum mechanics of a spin 1/2 particle. We choose the particle to be at rest because I do not want to spend all day on this. [(gamma mu ) d/x mu+ m ] psi= 0. (I'm using units where c=1) The solution is the spinor with the top component being e^ imt, and the other components being zero. (I did not normalize it.) We can see it is a solution by direct sub
We can see it is a solution by direct substitution. We know it is for a particle at rest because operating on it with the momentum operator gives zero. Also, the expectation values of the alpha matrices are zero I also meant to specify that we wanted the solution for it being in a spin up in the z direction eigenstate. We see it satisfies that because it is the + eigenstate of sigma z.
I left out the negative I attached to d/dx mu. Also, not only am I using units with c=1, but also h bar=1.
I meant "negative I"
sagebrush: "Your theory is interesting but the Lab boys at Memorex attempted to use Green's function and it failed. They may have misinterpreted some of it, after all it is still theory. But caution is needed."
What you said made no sense. The Green's function solution for electrostatics is not in any way controversial. I'm quite sure you had no idea what I was talking about.
Do you also have a problem with Gauss' Law?
Oh, and there of course is also a negative energy solution, with e-imt in the third position (I BTW and being really sloppy with minus signs throughout) These states are typically "filled" blah blah blah anti-particles blah blah blah.
" Seriously do you not know any Jewish people?"
Yeah, I know my parents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.