/sci/ - Science & Math

Hey guys, I'll just jump in here and ask my question instead of starting a new thread.

Here are my credentials:
6.2/4.0 GPA
Perfect score on ACT, SAT, LSAT, FE, PE and GRE
500+ community service hours
Head of MUN (We won 1st in Nationals)
Varsity Track & Field, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Tennis, Hockey, Rowing, and Bobsledding
I'm a black woman
I have an enormous penis

What is the probability of me getting into a community college in Mississippi? I really need the advice of a bunch of anonymous idiots and have no one else to turn to.

thanks /sci

>>1973899
lol, if you go to college you'll probably have a drug problem no matter what.

You guys are soooooo dumb. I was just at the store the other day and bought some electrons and made electricity just fine.

E = mc^2

>>1971105
You do that and I'll pray for him.

The world is too big for this stuff to actually work. There's no way you could get everyone on board unless you started a cult and it just kept growing and then you started your own country and shit. By that time the guy with the biggest dick would be raping all the woman to spread his seed and your little energy bullshit would be taken over by the thugs and mafia. It's science fiction and not practical.

tl;dr

Yeah your method is way off. First right out the j(x + h):
(3(x+h) - 2)/(2(x+h) +3)

then right out j(x):
(3(x) - 2)/(2(x) +3)

j(x + h) - j(x):
(3(x+h) - 2)/(2(x+h) +3) - (3(x) - 2)/(2(x) +3)

You need to combine under a common denominator and then expand the equations (using the FOIL method). Let me know once you get here and I'll keep going.

A = 440*e^(0.29863*t) is the working function.

show me the setup and I can solve it for you

I'm past my partying stage. A lot of people don't go out on a Friday night when they work a 9-5 M-F.

>http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae170.cfm
What is that magic equation? Well, there are actually several. Here is one that can be used of you know the time it takes an object to orbit the object you want to find the mass of (T) and if you also know the distance between the centers of both objects (r): M=4 pi2*r3/T2G. 'M' is the mass of the orbited object in kilograms; 'r' is the distance between the centers of the two ogjects in meters; 'T' is the time it takes the orbiting object to orbit the planet or sun you want the mass of and 'G' is the Universal Gravitational Constant (6.672 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2) and pi is 3.14. Note that all this tells you is the mass of the orbited object. This will not tell you the mass of the orbiting object. There is no way to calculate that without finding something to orbit it!

>>1970344
You would measure and control the spacecraft electronically, or weigh it before you left Earth.

The mass of anything in space is relative to the objects around it projecting their gravitational forces upon it. Check out gravitational mass, I believe that's what you would use.

Pick a guy and write about his methods and findings and discuss them.

Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Euler, etc.

Ok I've made like 4 posts in this thread because it's so fucking stupid.

Derive with respect to x means it's is a partial derivative. Look it up.

The first post is right.

/thread

Hey guys sorry to interrupt the thread I need a huge favor.

Derive the following for me: x
Thanks a bunch /sci.

because he shoots heroin up his cock vein every single night before he kisses his great great great great great great great grandkids goodnight.

3xy^2 + c

EE
Yes

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

>>1969048
Right next to History of Rock as a big fucking waste of time.

>>1968419
While I did know that fun fact and find it amazing, all it really does it show how much stronger the US's 20th century military is. The 21st century "Air Force" is basically all based on satellite communication and gps tracking of long range missiles and unmanned aircraft.

Sure the US air supremacy is unrivaled and not useless, but technology has pushed this part of the military into an almost mystical Terminator like scenario. A world with kamikazee drone aircrafts carrying million dollar bombs being flown by an ITT guy in Las Vegas, Nevada to a destination on the other side of the world.

Reminds me of atomic packing factor but it's a bit different.

Visuospatial Working Memory Strategy: top 63%
Verbal Reasoning: top 17%
Focused Attention: top 12.4%
Deductive Reasoning: top 8.7%
Working Memory: top 16.9%
Mental Rotation: top 37.7%
Visual Attention: top 13.3%
Verbal Working Memory: top 68%
Planning: top 6.8%
Paired Associates: top 50%
Visuospatial Processing: top 25.7%
Spatial Working Memory: top 33.7%

2nd time I took it today. I did much better in most areas and worse in 2 of them. I'd be willing to bet I'd would do even better if I tried it again.

>>1966446
I'm not the quoted, but is all that quantum shit useful beyond scholarly dick waving? Could you get a job with that type of info? I'm actually curious, I only took General Chemistry 1 and 2 and really enjoyed it.

A few legitimately intelligent people, many people that aren't as smart as they think they are, and an enormous amount of complete fucking idiots.

You're basically going to want to combine the equations and set it equal to either 180 or each other based on where they are on the line and solve for x.