I'm trying to understand the  and came across this paragraph that seems crazy to me:     when the rocket moves, its thrust acts through the distance it moves. Force multiplied by distance is the definition of mechanical energy or work. So the farther the rocket and payload move during the burn (i.e. the faster they move), the greater the kinetic energy imparted.   It makes sense to me that a force acting against an immovable object doesn't impart any change in kinetic energy- the fixed force of gravity can push the stones of Stonehenge into the ground for thousands of years, but if they don't move there's no energy changing hands.  What makes no sense at all to me is that the change in kinetic energy is directly proportional to the distance the object moves. What if the object just coincidentally happens to be moving anyway? Say you have two objects; one is at rest, and the other is coasting through space at 1000km per second. You impart a tiny little 1 newton force on both objects for a second or so. The first object moves a meter so you've increased its kinetic energy by one joule. But just because the second object happens to be traveling at hypervelocity already, you've imparted the kinetic energy of a stick of dynamite? How do those definitions of work and kinetic energy make sense?  Come to think of it, the Earth is moving around the Sun at 30 km/s so if I stand on one of the stones of Stonehenge around sunrise, is the weight of my body dumping 17 megawatts of energy into it? It seems that the definition of work contains some kind of caveat that the distance the object moves has to be related to the force somehow but that's completely unclear to me.  Also, how does the object moving through space at a constant velocity even "know" that it's moving? There is no universal inertial frame of reference that everything moves relative to; who's to say that the fast-moving object isn't at rest and we are the ones moving at 1000 kilometers per second?
From this  by orlp:     If I strap a rocket booster to a rocket in space and fire it for one second, then the work provided is much higher when the rocket is flying fast compared to when the rocket was stationary. In both cases the rocket fires for the same duration but in the former case the rocket travels a much greater distance during this period. What gives?
Add a transparent image on top of a material I'm designing this animal-type creature, and want to add a transparent .png image to its face with the face features (object has a subsurf). On the left is the image with the features, on the right is the part of the object where I want it to be.    I tried to import the image as a plane, but matching the shape of the plane with the face didn't work, and the lines of the face left shadows on the head, and could be seen as a different object from some angles (although it's the closest I've gotten yet). It looked like this:    So , I tried selecting the faces of the head that the features should go over, and create a new material for it. Unfortunately, since the .png is transparent, the result produced was this:    (where it's impossible to tell the transparency from a black background default color, and where I wouldn't know where to start to adjust size and position).  I also tried UV mapping, but then the whole object became black with the features repeated all over.   Is it something I have to go into Nodes for? I'm kind of stuck here. Creating a new material and applying it is simple, but applying a material that is an image is a bit more complex it seems... Ideally, I would reproduce the same technique for the adhesive bandage on its arm (seen on the right of image 1). Inequality $(1+\frac1k)^k \leq 3$ How can I elegantly show that: $(1 + \frac{1}{k})^k \leq 3$ For instance I could use the fact that this is an increasing function and then take $\lim_{ k\to \infty}$ and say that it equals $e$ and therefore is always less than $3$   Is this sufficient? What is a better wording than "increasing function" Absolutely continuity and Lipschitz-like continuity I'm trying to figure out if the following is true or false:  Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be finite measures on Borel subsets of $[0,1]$,and $\nu \ll \mu$ ($\nu$ is absolutely cts with respect to $\mu$). Does there exist always a $C \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\forall A \subseteq [0,1]$ that is Borel, we have $\nu(A)$ $\lt$ $C \mu (A)$.  The Radon-Nykodym theorem seems to almost suggest that is true, if I knew it was bounded, then I could say $\nu (A) \le \int_{A} g \ d\mu \le \int_{A} C \ d\mu \le C\mu (A)$, where $C$ is the bound. However, I don't know if it is bounded and in fact, I could take an unbounded function that is still integrable on $[0,1]$, such as $\frac{1}{\sqrt x}$.  I can't even be sure if it is true or false.   Thank you! Clipping a figure to content Is it possible to clip a figure inserted with \includegraphics to contents? That is, remove all surrounding whitespace. proving topological equivalence How would I show that $$d_E = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-y_i)^2}$$ and $$d_\infty= \sum_{i=1}^n|x_i-y_i|$$ and $$\sup\{|x_1-y_1|,|x_2-y_2|,...,|x_n-y_n|\}$$ are topologically equivalent on $\mathbb{R}^n$? I can do it for $\mathbb{R}^2$, but I'm not sure how a generalization looks like. Why do we use this definition of "algebraic integer"? A number is an &quot;algebraic integer&quot; if it is the root to a monic polynomial with integer coefficients. Artin says (Algebra, p. 411):  The concept of algebraic integer was one of the most important discoveries of number theory. It is not easy to explain quickly why it is the right definition to use, but roughly speaking, we can think of the leading coefficient of the primitive irreducible polynomials $f(x)$ as a &quot;denominator.&quot; If $\alpha$ is the root of an integer polynomial $f(x)=dx^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}...$ then $d\alpha$ is an algebraic integer, because it is a root of the monic integer polynomial $x^n + a_{n-1}x^{n-1} + ... + d^{n-1}a_0$. Thus we can &quot;clear the denominator&quot; in any algebraic number by multiplying it with a suitable integer to get an algebraic integer.  When I first learned of algebraic integers, I looked online and saw some hints that maybe they were used to prove the Abel-Ruffini theorem. So I put off questioning their usage for a while; I now think I understand one proof of this theorem (the one at the end of Artin's Algebra) and it has nothing to do with algebraic integers (that I can tell). So basically: why is it important if a number is an algebraic integer? I think I understand what he's saying about the relationship between roots of integer polynomials and algebraic integers, but I fail to see why this is &quot;one of the most important discoveries of number theory.&quot; PHP errors NOT being displayed in the browser [Ubuntu 10.10] Continuous probability distribution with no first moment but the characteristic function is differentiable I am looking for an example of a continuous distribution function where the first moment does not exist but the characteristic function is differentiable everywhere.  Cauchy distributions do not fulfill this, as their characteristic functions are not differentiable at $0$. Does anybody here have an example? Convolution operator has norm 1 with respect to $L^2$ norm Let $C_c(\mathbb{R})$ be the following:  $$C_c = \{ f \in C(\mathbb{R}) \mid \exists \text{ } T &gt; 0 \text{ s.t. } f(t) = 0  \text{ for } |t| \geq T\}$$  Let $T_n \in L(C_c(\mathbb{R}))$ be a linear operator such that:  $$T_n u = \delta_n *u, \forall u \in C_c(\mathbb{R}),$$  where  $$ \delta_n(t)= \begin{cases}        n^2(t+1/n) &amp; -1/n \leq t \leq 0 \\       -n^2(t-1/n) &amp; 0 &lt; t \leq 1/n \\       0 &amp; \text{elsewhere}     \end{cases} $$  I have to prove that with respect to the 2-norm, the operator $T_n$ has $\|T_n\| = 1$ and I have succeeded in proving that $\|T_nu\|_2 \leq \|u\|_2, \forall u \in C_c(\mathbb{R}).$  Now, I remained  to prove that $\exists \text{ } u \in C_c(\mathbb{R}) \text{ s.t. } \|T_nu\|_2 = \|u\|_2$, but I really don't get how $u$ should be shaped in order to satisfy it. I am being flown out by a company for an on-site visit. Will I earn miles for this trip, or will the company? I noticed the other day when serving the public that when asking for something, people were saying "Can I get an xyz, please". The previous time I had such a job it was "Could I have an xyz", or "May I have..." if they were being very polite.  Does anyone know when this trend started and what caused it? Submitting form elements with the same name I would really like to see all of my questions and answers on the profile page, even if some of them were deleted, and I don't have enough rep to see them on the site. (Note that some questions are  after 30 days or 1 year, and the author might be oblivious about what happened.)   , the &quot;deleted recent [questions/answers]&quot; links in one's own user profile now list all respective posts that were deleted in the past 60 days, rather than just those that were originally posted in the last 60 days. , users with the &quot;access to moderator tools&quot; privilege (10k+ on designed sites, 2k+ on beta and non-designed sites) can use the search operator deleted:1 to see all their own deleted posts. , deleted questions and answers that were posted in the past 60 days, can be seen using the &quot;deleted recent questions&quot; and &quot;deleted recent answers&quot; links on the questions and answers tabs (at the bottom of the tab) in your user profile. For older posts: as of 2013-04-23 you can  if you already have a link to them, but they still aren't linked from the user profiles (not even just for you). Nor do you see inbox notifications for comments on them if you come back a few hours later. You have to have thought to bookmark your question, or you have to go digging for it in your browser history. Progress bar with dynamic text & text color update If $f(0)=0$ then prove that $|f(z)+f(-z)| \leq 2|z|^2$ Let , $\Delta = B(0,1)$.  If $f:\Delta \rightarrow \Delta$ is holomorphic, and $f(0)=0$, prove that $|f(z)+f(-z)| \leq 2|z|^2$.  My attempt so far:  $\displaystyle f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_n z^n = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_{2n} z^{2n} + \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_{2n+1} z^{2n+1}$  $\displaystyle f(-z) = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_n (-z)^n = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_{2n} z^{2n} - \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_{2n+1} z^{2n+1}$  Then, $\displaystyle f(z)+f(-z) = 2  \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} a_{2n} (z^2)^n =: 2 g(z^2)$  If $g(\Delta) \subset \Delta$, as $g(0) = 0$, I can invoke Schwarz Lemma and I win. However, I don't know how to prove this. Could anyone help me? Thanks! Is it possible to activate an iPhone 4 without a SIM? So we bought an iPhone 4 from the Apple store. But we didn't get a micro-SIM as there are no PAYG tariffs on micro-SIM available.  Is there anyway to activate the device without getting hold of a SIM? I don't want to sign up to a contract just to develop with. Replace symbols with values without evaluation How can I enable Hardmode? Changing footnote symbols I've noticed that Visual Studio 2008 is placing square brackets around column names in sql. Do the brackets offer any advantage? When I hand code T-SQL I've never bothered with them.  Example:  Visual Studio:  SELECT [column1], [column2] etc...   My own way:  SELECT column1, column2 etc...