Prev: Pearson vs Spearman vs other correlation for sampled data?
Next: Some of MY History to you
From: Androcles on 27 Jul 2010 23:02

"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message
news:HVM3o.372610$Hs4.97536(a)hurricane...
|
| "Jonathan Doolin" <good4usoul(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:117decdc-5f48-43c0-8178-f24d32170d0c(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

|
| There's two ways of thinking of acceleration. The standard way to
| think of it is as the differential change in velocity over a
| differential change in time. So you can always break down any
| particular change in velocity as several smaller changes in velocity.
| If for instance, somehow a particle were to accelerate by .9c in a
| hundredth of a second, and then accelerate by .9c in the next
| hundredth of a second, and continue doing this for a whole second, it
| would seem like the acceleration must be 90 c in one second. But
| you're overlooking of course, that velocity is not additive.
| =============================================

Droolin Doolin's multiplication table

1 x 10 = 9.9
2 x 10 = 19.8
3 x 10 = 29.7
4 x 10 = 39.6
5 x 10 = 49.5
6 x 10 = 59.4
7 x 10 = 69.3
8 x 10 = 79.2
9 x 10 = 89.1
10 x 10 = 90

What an idiot!


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Pearson vs Spearman vs other correlation for sampled data?
Next: Some of MY History to you