Search results

I'm sorry yorky but: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html you got fucking owned... I didn't read the question properly and i thought that 0.24m was the distance as observed by us...fuck i so bombed that paper..whY god do you have to be like thaT

ok what was the wording of the question?? did the question say that the distance travelled was 0.24m in the reference frame of the particle?

i did it last yr? goodluck :P haha it really does come down to luck actually but you automatically get a silver medal..and that my friend...is sweet

apparently its been trialed in other countries and has directly lead to young doctor suicides... just what i heard... probably take it with a grain of salt... but the point is still there... make your choice wisely? otherwise at the end of the day... you're going to waste alot of time

haha after reading soulsearchers.. i was just about to put the exact same proof as Iruka haha nice work mate

yes they would be... especially when these "brothers" you refer to, are actually married... and have children....

yeh, to use it in the test you have to prove it on the test paper first before you can apply it. thats what he means

well Mr. Ian Woodhouse [the guy who heads and oversees the entire 4 unit marking process] says: if its not in the syllabus, and you want to use it... prove it first... or dont use it.

basically... the accuracy of the measurement values = reliability as proven by the standard error which enables with more data values , greater occurrences of the same data value popping up which is exactly what the BOS definition describes I think pkc the whole thing is that accuracy is...

Yes its all interpretation.. to me the interpretation that reliability is where i can obtain more of the same value in the results is good enough [which is achievable by repetition] but obviously pkc doens't want to deal with it this way ok continuing with the standard deviation, you see...

sorry..theres some discrepancy with mine and your Sd values... try using your calculator? thats what i did, and ieven used the formula, i dont get quite those values... but if we use the values you had before... instead of these new ones? cause this is just too big for my calc.. and my...

you're reducing the spread of data by visually eliminating the outlyers and by drawing the line of best fit... it eliminates all variance, since now that you have the line of best fit... its king and i think theres something wrong with you SD values? read my last post

and with your SD table... lets take the case of your second data result, the 6.99 + 7.02 ... actually when i calculated it.. i get a standard deviation of .0212... how did you get your values? and at the end my SD is 0.018

that certainly is interesting that the SD deviates away from zero as the sample size increases with the results fluctuating random around the general mean... well try this time accounting for random outlyers as well... which i suppose is what repetition is designed to eliminate... i remember...

i know with the standard deviation thing and the numerator... i have done thest calculations with large data sets and believe me when i say its very annoying but simply saying that theres a numerator coefficient is simply not enough... because due to the nature of the equation... its hard to...

oh i think i can use the targets now... OK.. i said repeating.. improves the accuracy of the measurement value... suppose we take the case where the correct value of the experiment.. is 10 but doign it once.. we might yield the value.. 8... not as close as we would like it to be... so if i...

i remember the stupid target charts with the accuracy..and it would hit the centre.. and reliabity.. and they would clump in some random place... [ i particularly liked the one with neither accuracy nor reliability hehe] by improving the accuracy of the data set i meant.. improving the accuracy...

well i dunno.. you click on this thread..and it goes to first post.. and you're like... WTf...and you look at the date... always look at the date folks... remember that stupid hotmail is going to cost you money website on bbc or something? its all cause some idiot exploited the fact that no one...

I'm going to come out and say that repeating an experiment also increases the validity of an experiment, to reduce the fanciful occurrences of freak experimental results... and by doing that ... it improves the accuracy of the data values - which equals to reliability... accuracy relates to the...

btw the way...DC is better for electric chairs..cause the AC current causes your muscles to fibrillate like when you hold a wire in AC your hand opens and closes rapidly... (DONT TRY THIS) while DC it's just continuous and you hand closes..and stAYS CLOSED if you know waht i mean so AC...