Pre-Book of Nook - Ever read them?

I ordered some books of the handy-dandy Half.com site:1 - Nuclei & Particles: An Introduction to Nuclear & Subnuclear Physics - Emilio G. Segre2 - Plate Tectonics & Geomagnetic Reversals3 - White Dwarfs-Black Holes: An Introduction to Realistic Astrophysics - Hannelore Sexl, Roman SexlApprox 700.pgs eachJust was wondering if anyone lurking in the forums has read either of them and would give me a heads-up on what exactly I will find and I will get out of them. (they were a major bargain, couldn't help myself) ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-02-2002]

Thats nice TC but if you are going to spend money on physics text books read up on calculus first so you can understand them....

Oh and shouldn`t that be relativistic not realistic?

Whoa, Nellie!!!TC, you're trying to fly before you can crawl!Buy "The Mysteries of Terra Firma: Exploring the Age and Evolution of the World" by James Lawrence Powell, only $12.50 in hardcover from Amazon. It's short, well-written and full of useful and interesting background information.--Percy

"Thats nice TC but if you are going to spend money on physics text books read up on calculus first so you can understand them.... "
--I know a good amount of calculus, I have skipped around, but I do know calculus, physics is almost one in the same, but its a bit different method of applying the matter.-------------------

"Whoa, Nellie!!!
TC, you're trying to fly before you can crawl!"
--LoL, why did I have the feeling that I would get a good dose of this? "Buy "The Mysteries of Terra Firma: Exploring the Age and Evolution of the World" by James Lawrence Powell, only $12.50 in hardcover from Amazon. It's short, well-written and full of useful and interesting background information."
--Seems allright, though I've been looking for more technicals, I've only read 9 or so geology related books, and its been getting tiring reading the same basic and realtively intermediate material on the subject for a time now. Besides, they were great deals! Who wouldn't pay 5$-20$-25$ on books that retail 144$+ ------------------

"Oh and shouldn`t that be relativistic not realistic? "
--It was a copy/paste, unless the seller has the fault, that should be the name.------------------

---

TrueCreation writes:
LoL, why did I have the feeling that I would get a good dose of this?

---

Don't just laugh and pose this question rhetorically - try to answer it. Like most people here, you're participating not because you enjoy hearing yourself type, but to persuade other people to your point of view. You're drawing a lot of patronizing reactions, so maybe it's time to take a step back and ask yourself how you're doing.

---

Seems allright, though I've been looking for more technicals, I've only read 9 or so geology related books...

---

That's great! In fact, that's tremendous, since one geology book is all you need as long as you comprehend it. The next step is to integrate what you've learned into your writing.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I know a good amount of calculus, I have skipped around, but I do know calculus, physics is almost one in the same, but its a bit different method of applying the matter.

---

OK then TC answer the following...1)Solve (x³ + 3xy²)dx + (3x²y + y³)dy = 02)What is the Fourier transform of xe^x2?3)Find the solution of the wave equation corresponding to the triangular initial deflection.f_(x) = 2kx/L if 0 < x < L/2
= 2k(L - x)/L if L/2 < x < LInitial velocity is zero.....(added by edit - Incidently this question is about a string under tension....)Off you go TC....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 04-02-2002]

I just got Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals, along with Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, both are very impressive! Also, the book on radioisotopes has lenghthly and extensives on U-235 : pb-206 along with asthenosphere, lithospere and mantle composition. They seemingly make some relatively bold claims and I am anxious to see their support (according to my breif pass of the book). Great studies on Nucleic decay and Radiohalos. Extenses on algebraic and physics applications encompassing the initials, and of course a good pass of theoretical acceleration of radio decay, fission tracks, and quantitive energy production/elimination and effects. Well, in the most part, they both seem to be very insiteful, I may as well be able to give radioitopes my grasp and the pushover of its argument against creationists, in this particular forum of course. I should be getting my other books pretty soon too, mabye Monday or Tuesday.
--As a side note, I would hardly call it 'homework', more appropriate is 'scrap-work', I'll take the time to give it some brain power later on. Well of course, Fourier transform and wave equation is good calculus.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
As a side note, I would hardly call it 'homework', more appropriate is 'scrap-work', I'll take the time to give it some brain power later on. Well of course, Fourier transform and wave equation is good calculus.

---

No I`ll tell you what TC you let me know when you want to take the joz do you know calculus test and I`ll put some new questions up and you can attempt them within an agreed timeframe....That way I know that you did them yourself and didn`t recieve outside help to the limits of how you can know anything over such an indirrect medium as a debate board...I`ll work through the questions myself and propose a time limit of twice the time it takes me, thus you won`t face anything I can`t solve myself and if you really "know calculus" you should have ample time....See I`m a real suspicious B*@!ard TC it takes a lot to convince me....

I guess this means you are abandoning the other threads?CheersJoe Meert

--I will attempt to answer your questions. After taking more than simply my previous breif pass, I must say however, that these are defenantly not the type of questions that would be asked for your question for me on whether I know college calculus or not. These problems are easilly 2nd year questions, and very cumbersome to solve, nor are they of the stature that I am used to in my physics knowledge (it is rarely required in a panoramic view of physics). This is what I can tell you:1.) My first thought was that this looked like a total derivative of (x^3y+xy^3), but then it doesn't really require any diffeq, you could solve it by having it use a lot of very sophisticated substitutions. In this light, your answer after going through a series of cumbersome steps (took me about 20), is y=sqrt(-3x^2+2sqrt(2x^4+C))2.) Your Fourier transform does not have a solution if I am not mistaken because you can't fourier transform functions that diverge. Are you sure it's not e^-x^2? Because if you have e^-x^2, that's the formula for a gaussian and the fourier transform of a gaussian is also a gaussian (a bell curve). Sorry, I hope looking at a book isn't cheating, I had to verify so that I could be some-what sure that this could not be done.3.) This is very tough. Unfortunatelly I can't just get the solution out of a PDE book because I do not have one, so I would have to just fourier the triangle. You wan't to use cosines because it's symmetric I believe, though I have not found the solution to this type of problem, I basically do not know how to do this fully. This does not invalidate my understanding of calculus, you are simply giving me far too advanced questions for such a test given what I asserted.--What I am more used to doing within calculus is say something along these lines, along with your first two questions, the former most likely.--Graph -4x²+25y=100, integration(though there are some parts I do not fully understand within integration), something along the lines of finding dy/dt for y=e^t^3, logarithms, etc.

​

--Again I must emphesize that these are not the questions that I should have been asked to be up to quallifications on what I asserted to verify my knowledge of calculus, I did not say that I know first, second, nor third year calc, initially I did not even mention calc but physics. In which the mainstream of it is not as complicated as advanced calc. I have learned my physics and calc for the most part from these books:

​

-Physics - Principles and Problems; Merrill
-Cliffs Quick Review - Calculus; Bernard V. Zandy.
-TAN:Calculus For the managerial, life, and social sciences - Fifth Edition, Brooks/Cole

​

--I hope my answers may have shed some light, or clarified what I have meant by my level of knowledge in physics/calc. And Meert, no I am not leaving the other topical forums.

​

------------------

​

1)Nope its an exact first order diff eq... So you solve for u(x,y) not y(x) if you catch my drift....2)Dammit, yes there should be a - sign in there, I got too busy with the superscripts making it look nice....So its xe^-x2 off you go....3)You`re pretty close just do the maths and see what you get....If you don`t want to bother with another pass just let me know and I`ll bang the answers up for you....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 04-16-2002]

I still think Calculus was a Roman Emperor, cite pls Happy Reading,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.