/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11605036
>eleven hundred pages of "precalculus"
Jesus fuck
>>11604865
By convention, "molar concentration" pretty much always means molarity, which is the same as moles per liter.
>how can one get a ratio of the number of moles from a molar concentration ratio?
Multiply molarity/molar concentration by the total volume of the solution.
>If the molar concentration ratio between two samples together in a mixture is 2:1, then does that imply a 2:1 ratio of the number of moles of each sample.
Yeah, but don't call it molar concentration, call it molar ratio; these aren't the same.
>>11604676
wiki says peaches are something called "drupes"
>>11605006
Yes.
>I calculate it with a known mg/L
Find out the mass of the gas that entered and divide by density (the mg/L thing) to get the volume differential.
>>11605030
>what is your honest opinion of vegans
I think vegans are doing something good

>I wish to thank my father Joe Tooker for always making me do my algebra homework when I was in eighth grade and for teaching me about computer assisted design software when I was in elementary school. These skills have proven useful to me. As a fellow man of physics and mathematics, his interest in such things is surely the original interest that drives this research in the sense that such things pass to sons from their fathers.
Cute! I'm sure he was/is a great man.

>>11103462
pretending to be a retard makes you a retard
pretending to agree with retards makes you a retard
pretending to seriously consider what retards say makes you a retard

stop it, op

>>11031244
You calculate the dot product of the vector you are interested with one of your (unit) basis vectors. The direction of the vector of interest is the inverse cosine of the dot product over the magnitude.
[math]\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{e}}_i=v\cos\theta[/math] and theta is the angle between the vector and the basis vector.

>>10997872
based if true

Okay, so we got a mass [math]m[/math] of gas spinning round in a circle with radius [math]R[/math]. Gas has charge [math]Q=\rho m[/math] where [math]\rho[/math] is charge density and angular velocity [math]\omega[/math].

A current found wherever there is moving charge so [math]i=\frac{dQ}{dt}=\frac{\rho m\omega}{2\pi}=\frac{\rho L}{2\pi}[/math] where [math]L[/math] is angular momentum.

Biot-Savart Law says [eqn]\mathbf{B}=-\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}\int_C\frac{\mathbf{r}\times i\ d\mathbf{l}}{|\mathbf{r}|^3}[/eqn]

We have the two vectors in the cross product be perpendicular over the whole path [math]C[/math], and we can simply determine the direction of B from the right hand rule.
So in terms of magnitude [eqn]B=\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}\cdot\frac{\rho LR^2}{R^3}=\frac{\mu_0\rho L}{4\pi R}[/eqn] .

So yeah, you were exactly right. The magnetic field is exactly proportional to the product of charge density and angular momentum and is inversely proportional to the radius of the circle.

>>10629495
Adiabatic, 100%. You never used a bike pump? They get warmer with use. Also, >>>/sqt/

>>10468177
The circle indicates that the surface fully encloses a volume, i.e, when Gauss's Law for magnetism applies. Top integral always equates to zero. The bottom integral refers to any old surface, doesn't equate to zero in general.

>>10448145
Momentum is to force as velocity is to acceleration as power is to energy

>could it really be him
How was jail, Jon? What happened? Can you timestamp?

[math]\mathbf{g}=-\frac{MG}{R^2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}=-4\pi R^{2}\rho\cdot\frac{G}{R^2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}=-4\pi G\rho\ \hat{\mathbf{r}}[/math]
where G is a constant, M is the mass of the planet, rho is ave. density, R is radius, and r hat points radially from the planet. The gravity on the surface of a perfectly spherical planet depends only on its average density. Radius doesn't matter.

>>10404032
>If IQ threads are fine
They aren't. Anyway, I gotta 16, what do I win?

Now THIS is the the kind of content I can get behind
>lorentz force on a touhou lamina

>>10265720
A/C current

>>10215213
Going clockwise starting from upper left
>1.
50%? I'm not actually sure. I think I am wrong but idk why.
>2.
Neither. Portals are completely and utterly nonphysical. Portals violate causality. The answer can be whatever you want it to be. Just make a test map in hammer and see what happens.
>3.
Always switch doors. To see why, imagine there were 100 doors, 99 with goats. You pick one door, 98 are revealed to be duds. The remaining door is much more likely to have a prize than the original picked.
>4.
Yes it takes off. Airplanes do not apply torque to the wheels on takeoff. Speed of conveyor is irrelevant.

>>10163768
>the definition of the exponential function
but that's not the definition, anon. The Maclaurin of e^x is an identity that needs to be proven, not a definition. The definition of [math]\exp(x)[/math] is Euler's constant, that is, [math]\lim_{n\to\infty}(1+
frac{1}{n}^{n}[/math] raised to the [math]x[/math] power.

>>10097473
They dislike Trump, or they are actual commies? These are not the same.

>>10013762
to make sure people like you dont reproduce

>>9995903
>>proposition
Usually synonymous with theorem (see below), especially in the sense of Euclid.
>>corollary
Something that goes along with a theorem; a statement that is similar to but that has a distinct proof from another related statement.
>>lemma
A miniature theorem; usually stated to work as a part of a larger proof/statement.
>>theorem
A statement that has been proven a priori given the rules and axioms of the maths at hand. Theorems are absolutely true statements that follow necessarily from certain initial assumptions and logic.
>>postulate
An axiom, but especially of the physical sort. The rigorous theory of relativity begins with some postulates (like c is constant, all acceleration is equivalent, and others) that have no proof, but instead are taken for granted.
>>conjecture
A scientist might call it a hypothesis, but a conjecture is a statement that has no known truth.Conjectures are not known to be true or false in the absolute sense.
>>claim
Literally, a claim.