Vector calculus being useful XDAccording to the shell theorem (essentially Gauss's law), the only mass that matters should be within a spherical shell at the radius being considered.
Vector calculus being useful XDAccording to the shell theorem (essentially Gauss's law), the only mass that matters should be within a spherical shell at the radius being considered.
Wait hmm I checked the math and this seems correct. I probably screwed up something while doing the math earlier. The mass is porportional to volume which is radius cubed and is divided by radius squared so the force is linearly decreasing.I feel like this is being overthought. According to the shell theorem (essentially Gauss's law), the only mass that matters should be within a spherical shell at the radius being considered. If you do the math, this gives a linearly decreasing force for a linearly decreasing radius. Thus, just taking the ratio of 5/6 (5000 km compared to around 6000 km) gives you fermi 0.Wait a screwed up the question. It is E0 but I should've said something like 3000 where the new mass is around E22 and radius is 1000 where the gravitational force is E1 stronger while on the surface
What is the 273rd Fibonacci number?
To clarify, 0 will be considered the first Fibonacci number.
Using an approximation which I will not disclose, it's RIGHT on the edge between 56 and 57, but I'll say 57.
Using an online calculator, the 273rd Fibonacci number is 5.06*10^56, so yes. Barely 57. Bwahahaha.
Uh it's pretty easy to just googleHmmm... I sort of made that question so the others would be able to learn the method of approximating fibbonacci numbers... (I'm pretty sure I know what you're doing, but I won't disclose it if you don't want it disclosed.)
It's just Stirling's Approximation of Factorials. It's not exactly a trade secret.Uh it's pretty easy to just googleHmmm... I sort of made that question so the others would be able to learn the method of approximating fibbonacci numbers... (I'm pretty sure I know what you're doing, but I won't disclose it if you don't want it disclosed.)
Wait I was thinking of something else... The limit of the ratio between one Fibonacci number and the next is the golden ratio, as you get larger and larger numbers. So you just do (Phi)^(273-1).It's just Stirling's Approximation of Factorials. It's not exactly a trade secret.Uh it's pretty easy to just googleHmmm... I sort of made that question so the others would be able to learn the method of approximating fibbonacci numbers... (I'm pretty sure I know what you're doing, but I won't disclose it if you don't want it disclosed.)
This is how I would do it.Wait I was thinking of something else... The limit of the ratio between one Fibonacci number and the next is the golden ratio, as you get larger and larger numbers. So you just do (Phi)^(273-1).It's just Stirling's Approximation of Factorials. It's not exactly a trade secret.
Uh it's pretty easy to just google
Oops I appear to have read "fibonacci" as "factorial"This is how I would do it.Wait I was thinking of something else... The limit of the ratio between one Fibonacci number and the next is the golden ratio, as you get larger and larger numbers. So you just do (Phi)^(273-1).It's just Stirling's Approximation of Factorials. It's not exactly a trade secret.
Return to “2018 Question Marathons”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests