[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]0, 1, 2

You want to find the fourth.

n= 0 + (1*4)
n=4

OK, let's try:

3, 2, 1

You want to find the 4th term.

n=3+(1*4)
n=7

Doesn't work there. Let's try the negative difference (2-3 = -1)

n=3+(-4)
n=-1

Only works with steadily increasing integers...sorry. :upset:

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

ok for a sequence going down lets try using subtraction insted.

3,2,1

find forth number

n=3-(1*4)
=1 so that doesnt work how about if you use division and subtraction?

3,2,1
n=3-(1devided by 4)
=2.75 doesn't work eather. o well its a cool fromula and if you use the negitive differacne it works.

lowsound

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]I love you, Paul.

Lowsound: Your theory would work with something like...summation or something.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

im going to present it to my teacher tomorrow

lowsound

Do the chickens have large talons?

you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

You mean that light travelled 300 times faster than its normal speed?

That's weird.

:confused:

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

in my understanding it it would only work if the gas was super heated and its the rapidly moving atoms that push the light beam to go faster. but im not much of a sciance guy, history and math are my subjects

lowsound

im merging this with the casual

[QUOTE=gaslight]You mean that light travelled 300 times faster than its normal speed?

That's weird.

:confused:[/QUOTE]
yeah man, something like 3.454 x 10^16 miles per hour. hauling as[SIZE=1]s[/SIZE]

Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?

[QUOTE=irishslappop]you fellow seem to like chem better then physics :angry: but anyway, my teacher found an article the other day on the net that said a swedish scientist shot a beam of light through a chamber of super heated siesium gas (gas form of a type of crystal) and it went over 300 times faster then normal like. special relativity is at question now. einstein must have turned in his grave.[/QUOTE]

Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav

Even I can go 300x the speed of light. You should be praising me!

[QUOTE=gaslight]Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?[/QUOTE]
yes, the entire theroy of special relativity is based on light (C) being constant

[QUOTE=gaslight]Isn't the speed of light supposed to like a universal constant or something fancy like that?[/QUOTE]

yes acording ot enstine, thats what e=mc2 is based off of, if that is actually true the atom bomb might actaully be made to be more effencienct and cause more dammage. using that gas combinded with what it already is

lowsound

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

most of it works if you keep it to the boundrys that are set up when somethign is discovered.

lowsound

E=MC^2, meaning energy is mass moving at super high speeds.

If that experiment is true, then all of our modern physics, metaphysics, and time travel/origin theories (string theory, wormhole theory, etc.) are flawed, untrue, and that time travel is very possible.

:thumb:

-Gav

300 times more efficent A-bombs? I know what I want for Christmas.

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]Cesium? Fun fact: when you put solid cesium into water, it practically explodes!

Moving on: 300 times faster? Holy ****, that is insane. 9.0x 10^11 m/s.

If so, then the speed of light is not the constant of the universe. Therefore, according to the string theory, we are all royally ****ed, as the universe will collapse into a dense vortex of mass and kill us all instantly.

If that's true, Einstein just got owned. It doesn't matter, though. Math is flawed anyway. :p

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]
yeah thats how you spell it. but now that the entire universe doesn't have a single constant and we are in complete and total chaos.......we're screwed.
btw gav do you know how many dimentions must exsit for string theory to acually be possible? yeah like 16 or something lol. idk about that :lol:

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]E=MC^2, meaning energy is mass moving at super high speeds.

If that experiment is true, then all of our modern physics, metaphysics, and time travel/origin theories (string theory, wormhole theory, etc.) are flawed, untrue, and that time travel is very possible.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]
as far as we know it's only void in the case of super heated gasses.

[QUOTE=gaslight]300 times more efficent A-bombs? I know what I want for Christmas.[/QUOTE]

not nessarily 300 times more efficent, but in therory since light isn't constant and can be changed the bomb could be made more powerful. i don't know how they work, but in therory it would work.

lowsound

^ Yeah, I've heard 16. If you think about it, there are tons of forces.

On any particular object on earth right now, at least 24 different forces are acting upon it at any given time.

I LOVE science discussions...I have afeeling that irish and I can make this a two-man science/math show.

With regards to the 300 times c, it could be some weird interface and reflective property with cesium. I think it's an observation error. That's just insane. In our universe, nothing is constant. That means chaos, or there's some other constant out there we have yet to find.

If that's true, physics is royally ****ed.

:thumb:

-Gav

[QUOTE=irishslappop]as far as we know it's only void in the case of super heated gasses.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but think how many super heated gaseous masses there are in space: billions. More than billions. There's literally about infinity. That's a lot to **** up the universe, my friend.

Maybe a black hole is a destruction of that constant?

Let's talk about the worm hole theory. I love that theory.

:thumb:

-Gav

Maybe the gas buggered up his measuring devices.

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]E=MC^2, meaning energy is mass moving at super high speeds.

If that experiment is true, then all of our modern physics, metaphysics, and time travel/origin theories (string theory, wormhole theory, etc.) are flawed, untrue, and that time travel is very possible.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

time travel is possable because we are traveling through time right now, what you are trying to say is that we could then in therory speed it up slow it down. or even go backwards. wow this really fricks with a lot of stuff

lowsound

well a bombs aren't really produckts of light........they are acually quite simple. a nearly perfect sphere of some type of nuclear material (uranium or plutonium) is made and around it in another perfect sphere are very high, very pure exlosives that leave no trace of themselfs after exploding. when the sphere of explosives explodes with equal force on all sides of the nuclear material it compresses into a perfect ball untill it reaches critical mass (when the atoms acually start spliting and releasing the power within an atom) then the chain reation just starts and huge amounts of energy are released. a poor but sufficent explination.
who ever said pot heads couldn't be smart?

hey guys.

OK guys, I have been here since way too long ago, i post only rarely, and i like to think that my posts are unique and interesting. Regardless, i hate seeing all these people take temporary breaks (I assure you that that's all they are) so im gonna jump into the casual thread and see if i can do some damage.

In regards to time travel, I understand how in theory it can slow down or go backwards, but I cannot see any practical application to this, other than for pulling the most kick-arse pranks.

[QUOTE=I0Play0Bass]Yeah, but think how many super heated gaseous masses there are in space: billions. More than billions. There's literally about infinity. That's a lot to **** up the universe, my friend.

Maybe a black hole is a destruction of that constant?

Let's talk about the worm hole theory. I love that theory.

:thumb:

-Gav[/QUOTE]

don't know that therory, but if you think about it black holes could deffently be constant. it has been proven that stuff does escape for them (hawkins disproved), so it can now be a constant force, right?

lowsound

worm holes are crazy i dont know too much about them besides that they may weild us the ablity to travle into the past.......

[QUOTE=gaslight]Maybe the gas buggered up his measuring devices.[/QUOTE]

I thought that, too, but lab equipment is made so it's near perfect. Most professional lab stuff is accurate to about 0.0000000001 places. Pretty **** accurate, if you ask me. Possible, but highly unlikely.

:thumb:

-Gav

[QUOTE=irishslappop]well a bombs aren't really produckts of light........they are acually quite simple. a nearly perfect sphere of some type of nuclear material (uranium or plutonium) is made and around it in another perfect sphere are very high, very pure exlosives that leave no trace of themselfs after exploding. when the sphere of explosives explodes with equal force on all sides of the nuclear material it compresses into a perfect ball untill it reaches critical mass (when the atoms acually start spliting and releasing the power within an atom) then the chain reation just starts and huge amounts of energy are released. a poor but sufficent explination.
who ever said pot heads couldn't be smart?[/QUOTE]

but couldn't you take light and speed it up enough (if this is correct) to make the atoms split, causeing the same effect?

lowsound