What proof do we have for the theory of relativity?
Q. Beyond mathematical proof which in itself is theoretical, is there any other type of proof to say Einstein was right or is it a theory proved only by other theories? Thanks, I've heard about this but am not convinced, how are muons identified, what are they made out of, what sort of things affect them? Can any of these questions be answered? for all we know muons might be some bizaare life form that replicates itself on the way down, falls through suddenly appearing black holes or are a combination of particles some travelling many times greater than the speed of light. To be absolutely certain of what's going on you'd have to know a great deal about these particles, are they sub atomic? if so, then we don't even know whether they are… [cont.]
Asked by purplepeace59 - Sat Oct 13 16:33:05 2007 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Special theory 1. Quickly moving atomic particles have a longer half-lfe before they decay, indicating that time appears to be slowing down for them. 2. In an atomic clock, the beat of the Cesium atoms is slower when it is warmer. This is because they are moving faster when they are hot, so time slows down again. 3. Physically moving atomic clocks beat slower, for the same reason. 4. E=mc squared confirmed by nuclear reactions 5. As you try to accelerate a moving particle using an electric field, it doesn't go past the speed of light but its energy keeps increasing indicating its mass is going up. general theory 1 The orbit of Mercury precesses due to the curvature of space-time by the sun 2. Stars behind the sun can be seen… [cont.]
Answered by J - Tue Oct 16 19:27:44 2007

I need anyone who doesn't believe in "Love" to give me scientific proof behind their theory that love is FAKE?
Q. need anyone who doesn't believe in "Love" to give me scientific proof behind their theory that love is FAKE? Someone made a compelling arguement to me one time about how "love" is just a fabrication of the mind and he had scientific facts behind it something about oxytocin,dopamine, and seratonin anybody know what this is all about??? Thanks!
Asked by Nilfie - Wed Aug 5 21:38:17 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments

What proof\theory do atheists have to disprove the existance of God?
Q. Christianity has the Holy Spirit as a witness to the things Jesus said... What i mean is atheists do not beleive in God because they cannot prove that God exists but at they same time they are incapable of proving that God does not exist I am just asking a question...i dont have anything against atheists or any other religions for that fact. Most of my friends happen to be atheists and they are much better than most so called christians. (most of you are using the argument that...lack of proof does not infer existence) bu thats not what i intended and i am not talking about unicorns...i guess it boils down to 'beleif' and your own choice...not some emprical\scientific proof.
Asked by Either/Or - Mon Oct 23 01:05:03 2006 - - 14 Answers - 0 Comments

A. If you believe, there is no need for proof. If you do not believe, there is once again no need for disproving. No one knows either way - it is simply a matter of belief or non-belief - that's all!!
Answered by small - Mon Oct 23 01:42:19 2006

Should we be still calling evolution a theory, dont we have enough proof through fossils that its fact?
Q. Do we call it a theory because we dont have proof, or is it because we dont want to offend the religous nuts. What aspects of Darwins theory do we doubt?
Asked by jojo - Wed Aug 30 11:26:32 2006 - - 24 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Religious zealots are always kicking at it. Here's something for you: It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or… [cont.]
Answered by Purple Moogle - Wed Aug 30 11:58:52 2006

***Fellow Muslims***- What proof is there that the theory of evoloution is incorrect?
Q. Atheists say that the theory of evoloution is correct and muslims have no proof that it is incorrect. My muslim friend also thinks that the theory of evoloution is incorrect. Astugfirullah! What proof is there that the theory of evoloution is incorrect? [Note] Have you always seen how I always write "***Fellow Muslims***-" before I write a question? What do you think when I write this, "***Fellow Muslims***-" ? :P
Asked by RIGHTLY GUIDED - Sun Jun 14 10:27:19 2009 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments

A. theory of evolution should never be taken synonymous with darwin !!
Answered by MUhammed K - Sun Jun 14 14:56:43 2009

Is there really sufficient empirical proof to support the theory of evolution?
Q. Or is it mostly about inferences, guesses and theory (understood in the scientific sense of the word)?
Asked by sokrates - Sun Apr 8 00:48:28 2007 - - 24 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Let's see; Adaptation has been observed in both the lab and in nature. And we see mankind gaining in height over the centuries. Which, if evolution is not true, would be impossible to happen. There exists literally millions of fossils of animals that are now extinct. Some marine fossils can be found in mountains and deserts, indicating changes in earth that took place over millions of years, which is just about the time needed for evolution to take place. We have cataclysmic disasters (volcanoes, meteor collisions, etc.) that destroyed the majority of life on earth. Which is another way of showing adaptation and brutal way of natural selection. We have animals with organs and body parts that have no real function (e.g. the appendix… [cont.]
Answered by barefoot_rob1 - Sun Apr 8 01:10:05 2007

Is not the use of the theory of evolution as proof that the a God does not exist just a cover-up?
Q. Evolution is a method or process and the fact of whether there is a God is looking at or for a possible starting point/source? The question about the existing or nonexistence of a God is about an intelligent source as the originator and not about the method used. Give it some good thought and then please state your view.
Asked by cjkeysjr - Thu Jan 1 18:50:10 2009 - - 18 Answers - 0 Comments

A. I cannot prove God exists or not by creation or evolution because God could do it anyway He chooses. All matter had to start somewhere. And God started it. In Genesis, Moses wrote this happened in 6 24 hour days. It is said that Moses met with God in the Holy of holies so it could have been given to him. Your question, if I hear you correctly, you are saying that the theory of evolution was invented to undermine religion. If I heard you correctly, I would agree with your statement. Darwin was a mason, and evolution tends to go against the original sin and fall idea. Jesus confirmed and did not deny Genesis as written. This website favors the intelligent design theory
Answered by Mistoday - Thu Jan 1 19:05:20 2009

Fastest proof for theory that parallel rays entering parabola hit focus?
Q. Please, no calculus except derivatives, if possible. We've talked about this property in class about a million times (i.e. how satellite dishes work), but no teacher has ever provided a proof. I came up with one a while ago, but it's too lengthy for my taste (~1 page). The parallel lines I'm referring to are the ones that are parallel to the line containing the vertex and the focus, and in many cases, the y-axis.
Asked by daprofessa15 - Mon Aug 13 19:04:25 2007 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments

A. For this proof, you're going to need to know vectors and a tiny amount of multivariate differential calculus. Consider a curve (like a parabola), and the tangent vector, S, on this curve at the point (x,y). 1) Lemma: If there are two vectors of unit length, u_1 and u_2, such that the dot product (scalar product) S.(u_1 + u_2) = 0, then u_1 and u_2 make equal angles to the normal to S. Proof: If the dot product is 0, then since S is perpendicular to (u_1 + u_2), the normal to S is parallel to (u_1 + u_2). But then: cos(u_1, u_1 + u_2) = u_1.(u_1 + u_2)/(mag(u_1)*mag(u_1 + u_2)) = (u_1.u_1 + u_1.u+2)/(1 * mag(u_1 + u_2)) = (1 + u_1.u+2)/(1 * mag(u_1 + u_2)) = (u_2.u_2 + u_1.u+2)/(1 * mag(u_1 + u_2)) = (u_2.u_2 + u_1.u+2)/(mag(u_2) *… [cont.]
Answered by nealjking - Tue Aug 14 18:04:03 2007

Is it still a "Conspiracy Theory" when the "Theorists" have proof?
Q. Proof of the "theory" being true.
Asked by True Aquarian - Thu Apr 3 14:10:34 2008 - - 17 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Yes. If you are an ignorant, brain-washed sheep of a person who's brain is so small you can't accept a different version of reality than the one you've had beaten in your head all your life. If you're dumbed down by drinking flouridated water, eating anti-depressants like candy and attending the state-controlled public school system. If you follow your leaders like a lost puppy because they lie to you and tell you, "Everything's going to be alright, we've had problems like this before". If you never read a book and instead spend your time watching the Orwellian mind-control device, our main stream media on the IDIOT box. If you're too stupid to realize that the elite of this world have always oppressed the masses for their own self-ser [cont.]
Answered by Bill and Carey S - Thu Apr 3 15:37:24 2008

Could someone help with this proof on measure theory?
Q. Let (X, M u) be a measure space, where X is a set, M is a sigma-algebra on X and u is a measure defined on M. Let f_n be a sequence of functions defined on X and with values on [0, oo] such that lim f_n = f. Suppose that lim Integral f_n du = Integral f du < oo (the integrals taken over X). Show that, for every set E of M, Integral_E f_n du = Integral_E f du, where Integral_E means integral over E. Also, show that this conclusion may fail if we have lim Integral f_n du = Integral f du = oo Thank you for any help.
Asked by Gabi - Mon Jun 25 12:35:19 2007 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments

A. I'll assume you know the basics of measure theory and Lebesgue integral. Well, since you asked this question, you sure know the basics. The given conditions imply that, for sufficiently large n, f_n is integrable over X and, therefore, over each set E of M. So, we can assume, without loss of generality, that such conditions hold for every n (if necessary, discard a finite number of values of n). Since f_n is a sequence in L+ (the space of measurable functions on X with values on [0, oo]), for every n we have 0 <= Int_E f_n du <= Int f_n du. Since the sequence (Int f_n du) is bounded (for it converges on R), these inequalities show (Int_E f_n du) is bounded and, therefore, contains convergent subsequences (Bolzano Weierstrass Theorem). [cont.]
Answered by Steiner - Mon Jun 25 14:16:12 2007

"Interesting" numbers and the Hangman paradox in proof theory?
Q. First off, wikipedia gives a *decent* discussion of the hangman paradox. If you don't know it, you can find it here: Now, normally, we don't seem to care much about this paradox in mathematics, since there isn't even consensus on where the paradox originates from. However, it occurs to me that a standard proof that appears in mathematical literature may be an instance of this same paradox. --- Proof that all natural numbers are interesting: First, let N be the set of natural numbers and X the set of interesting natural numbers. We want to show that N is a subset of X. Suppose otherwise, that there is an element n of N that isn't interesting, then the set N\X is nonempty. Since N is well-ordered, N\X has a least element - call it y. [cont.]
Asked by Awms A - Mon Oct 13 21:59:19 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Long ago I thought I was interested in logic and philosophy. Now it puzzles me that I once felt that way. That was an interesting proof you gave (which I had seen before), but it reminded me that there are theorems about the length of proofs, so maybe there should be theorems about the interestingness (or not) of proofs. Well, I know nothing about proof theory, so can't possibly answer your question properly. All I can do is make a few comments. It seems to me the similarity to the interesting numbers proof may draw from the fact that there are multiple days in a week. If there are only two days in the week, then at least superficially it seems more like the Russell paradox, or the heterological paradox. And if you have only one day… [cont.]
Answered by JB - Mon Oct 13 22:44:50 2008

Where is the proof for the creationist or "intelligent design" theory?
Q. I just get annoyed that some creationists look at parts of nature that they say are, "too complex to just be chance." But evolution is the opposite of chance, it is adaptation to an environment over time.
Asked by Luke - Mon Aug 17 21:56:16 2009 - - 23 Answers - 0 Comments

A. There is no evidence of creationist theory. That's why virtually all scientists accept evolution.
Answered by unknown - Mon Aug 17 22:00:08 2009

What proof is there to support the theory that Alexander the Great was homosexual?
Q. What proof is there to support the theory that Alexander the Great was homosexual?
Asked by Tyler - Sun Dec 2 13:13:49 2007 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments

A. I believe that Alexander was bisexual. He had wives and mistresses but he also had "boy toys" as well. One in question was a guy named Hephastion (if you see Oliver Stone's crapfest "Alexander," you'll know what I'm talking about).
Answered by chrstnwrtr - Sun Dec 2 13:17:32 2007

Wht proof is there that supports the big bang theory?
Q. What proof is there that indicates it actually happened? My friend claims that it makes no sense, and its just knowledge that exists because there is no other logical explanation. I can't recall any proof of it happening other than the expansion of the universe and some sort of cosmic rays or something which cn be trced to the big bang
Asked by ashwin82 - Tue Apr 14 13:46:35 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments

A. U r dead right.There is evidence of a particular microwave radiation(a particular type of EMR) roughly corresponding to about 2.75MHz which can be perceived(in fact,can actually be detected) uniformly at any point of the universe.This is showing progressive 'red shift'(a phenomenon that supports the theory of continuous 'expansion' of universe & the idea of which is based on the 'Doppler Effect').For details of these facts & more please refer to Stephen Hawkin's 'A brief history of time'.Cheers!!
Answered by som_chem6 - Thu Apr 16 03:20:58 2009

Is there actually any proof in the big bang theory?? Any supporters, could you please convince me?
Q. I am not completely familiar with the big bang theory, but what I know about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I feel that it is a way for rationalists to try to explain the unexplainable. If their were nothing in existence to cause a bang, why was their a bang? What was around before the bang, and how could they figure this out? I am looking for a more philosophical answer as opposed to a scientific answer, although either would be appreciated.
Asked by pjhorton31 - Sat Jul 1 15:49:34 2006 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments

A. FIRST Theories aren't proofs. There is no deductive necessity to the big bang THEORY. It is a plausible explanation of scientific facts. An organization; a cosmology. We see stars , planets, matter moving away from each other. Therefore, among many other things, we infer a center. A starting point. An initial nexus. That doesn't mean there was nothing before it. Nor do we have a firm grasp on what void and nothingness IS. It's possible there is NO starting point. Or causa sui. The dogmatic think it to be a problem. But the question begs the question whether there is a first cause. The religious answer: God is the causa sui. God is always the "answer" to impossible questions. Causa sui is a metaphysical nightmare of a contradiction.… [cont.]
Answered by -.- - Sat Jul 1 17:16:58 2006

What concrete proof do atheists and scientists have that their evolution theory is real and God isnt, and why?
Q. hasnt it been announced on every major cable network. Note: if you say why hasnt God been announced, answer: because we will never see him in our physical form, because he dwells outside of our physical universe, somewhere we wont discover if we had billions of years to do so. and if the Atheist King Richard Dawkins says that you are working on it, what is the timeline for the proof?
Asked by Atheists Nightmare - Tue Sep 29 00:37:17 2009 - - 23 Answers - 0 Comments

A. There is a voluminous amount of evidence for evolution. This evidence has been growing for more than 100 years. The evidence did not all come about all at once. As they are discovered, the bits and pieces of the evidence are occasionally reported if the networks consider it interesting enough. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of a (emphasizing "a") god. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is contrary to the myths that certain primitives living thousands of years ago attributed to their particular god.
Answered by Gilgamesh - Tue Sep 29 19:00:40 2009

A formal number theory proof?
Q. Are there infintiely many primes of the form 6k-1 where k is a positive integer?
Asked by roland d - Fri Jul 17 08:36:50 2009 - - 2 Answers - 1 Comments

A. The answer is NO; since if k = 6 ==> (6k - 1) = (6*6 - 1) = 35 and 35 = 5 * 7 k = 11 ==> 6k - 1) = (6*11 - 1) = 65 and 65 = 5 * 13 and so on (there are so many counter examples to proove) Good Luck!
Answered by wt rd - Fri Jul 17 08:57:36 2009

Can anybody give me a proof to support theory of rebirth or reincarnation??
Q. Can anybody give me a proof to support theory of rebirth or reincarnation??
Asked by Curioustoknow - Sun Jan 6 14:16:42 2008 - - 7 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Everything in nature recycles. We are part of nature. We recycle. :)
Answered by chanideum - Sun Jan 6 14:21:54 2008

Graph Theory Proof?
Q. Ok I have two questions on Graph Theory hw that was not discussed in class and not in our textbook... Any help would be great! THANKS!!! 1) Let u and v be distinct vertices of a graph G. Explain why every u - v walk must contain a u - v path 2) Prove the Triangle Inequality Proposition : Let u,v, and w be distinct vertices of a connected graph G. Then d(u,w) < = d(u,v) + d(v,w) 3) Prove the following, which gives a sufficient condition for a graph to be connected. Propostion : Let G be a simple graph with p vertices such that for each vertex v of G, deg v >= 1/2(p-1). Then G is connected. Hint: Try a proof by contradiction, that is, assume G has more than one component. What can you say about the numbers of vertices in the… [cont.]
Asked by Keith - Mon Oct 8 09:30:31 2007 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments

A. A walk from u to v can be changed to a path from u to v by removing all 'loops.' Basically, if a walk: u=w1,..., wn=v And any wi = wj (i[cont.]
Answered by thomasoa - Mon Oct 8 09:54:30 2007

Could someone point me to the proof of the string theory, or?
Q. a place where I could read a little more about it. Thankyou!
Asked by matrixman9630 - Tue Aug 26 22:33:31 2008 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments

A. the proof for string theory is 100% mathematical. thats why you dont hear the scientific community as a whole embrace it. see, a lot of scientists are attracted to string theory, and they believe it to be true. but you wont hear any of them suggest that it be taught as main stream science, unless in an advanced college course. there proof of string theory is that its extremely elegant. the math works out extremely well, which makes it almost too good to be true which may be the case. even the people that came up with string theory say there is no way to prove its right at the current time, or any time in the far foreseeable future.
Answered by cobirch2 - Tue Aug 26 23:23:01 2008