Let $o$ be a spherical object with mass $m$ and surface $s$.  Let $g$ be the gravitational acceleration and $h$ the height.  Let the gas where we drop $o$ in have density $d$ and pressure $p$ at height $h$.  If we drop $o$ at height $h$ what will be its speed $v(t)$ and height $H(t)$ as a function of time $t$ ?  Note that $g$ is a parameter here, not ness 9,81 as here on earth.  I know here on earth there is a speed limit to falling objects in the air. Do we always get a speed limit?  What if we add an initial velocity to $o$ paralell to the falling direction  $v$ , where the velocity $v$ can be both positive or negative?  What is the logic and justification behind the equations and solution? Is this analogous to sliding on a ramp with friction, or is it more like collosions with particles? Or maybe both are valid and are possible origins of the solution equations?
What is terminal velocity? I've heard the term especially when the Discovery Channel is covering something about sky diving. Also, it is commonly known that HALO (Hi-Altitude, Lo-Opening) infantry reaches terminal velocity before their chutes open.    Can the terminal velocity be different for one individual weighing 180 pounds versus an individual weighing 250 pounds?
prove every connected manifold is path connected manifold .       my thought:      connected space : Let $ X$  be a topological space. A separation of $ X $ is a pair $U, V$ of disjoint    nonempty open subsets of $ X $ whose union is $X$. The space $ X $ is said to be connected    if there does not exist a separation of  $X$ .      Components: Given  $X$ , define an equivalence relation on $X$ by setting x~y if there    is a connected subspace of $X$  containing both $ x$  and $ y$ . The equivalence classes are    called the components (or the "connected components") of $ X$.       Path Component: I define another equivalence relation on the space $ X$  by defining x ~ у    if there is a path in $ X$  from $ x$  to $ y$ . The equivalence classes are called the path components of $ X$ .       Theorem  : The path components of $ X$  are path connected disjoint subspaces    of $X$  whose union is $X$ , such that each nonempty path connected subspace of $X$  intersects only one of them.       thank you so much How to change the shadow color in Blender Cycles? Equivalent of *Nix 'which' command in PowerShell? How do I ask PowerShell where something is?    For instance, "which notepad" and it returns the directory where the notepad.exe is run from according to the current paths. Rogue DHCP Server Can't be found Over the last 3-4 weeks I have been trying to find a rogue DHCP server on my network but have been stumped! It is offering IP Addresses that do not work with my network, so any device that needs a Dynamic Address is getting one from the Rogue DHCP and then that device stops working. I need help to find and destroy this thing! I think it might be a Trojan of some sort.  My Main Router is the only valid DHCP Server and is 192.168.0.1 which offers a range of 192.160.0.150-199, and I have this configured in my AD as Authorized. This ROGUE DHCP claims to be coming from 192.168.0.20 and offering an IP Address in the range of 10.255.255.* which is messing up EVERYTHING on my network unless I assign a static IP Address to it. 192.168.0.20 does not exist on my network.  My network is a single AD Server on Windows 2008R2, 3 other physical servers (1-2008R2 and 2 2012R2) about 4 Hypervisor VM's, 3 laptops and a Windows 7 box.  I can't ping the rogue 192.160.0.20 IP, and I can't see it in the ARP -A output, so I can't get its MAC address. I'm hoping that someone reading this post has come across this before. Can decimal numbers be considered "even" or "odd"? I had always kind of wondered why we didn't see interference in things like windows -- we were taught that the condition is that the thickness of the film/slab/medium just has to be an integral number of wavelengths, $d=m\lambda$. My logic was, if visible light has wavelengths ~400-780nm, any window pane has got to be an integral number of wavelengths (or close to integral) for some of the wavelengths in the visible.  For example, if a window is, $6mm = 6\times10^6nm$ thick, then you should see interference for wavelengths (and some range around them) 200nm, 250nm, 300nm, 400nm, 500nm, 600nm... Because 6mm is an integral number of each of those.  Obviously that would be really annoying and isn't the case. I found  (warning: PDF) source that seems to explain it and I was wondering if what they're saying is sound. On the 10th page (p171 for them), it says that the reason we don't see this interference is that no window is that smooth, it has a variance in the thickness of at least several wavelengths, so the interference effect is effectively average out among all those thicknesses, which usually gets rid of it. They do the math and show that.  Is that the reason?  If so, that leads me to two questions: Could we, if we were really careful and used something like MBE, make a glass window with that sort of accuracy, and then see interference effects in the optical range? I know that quartz crystal monitors can easily give you nanometer accuracy for evaporators and sputterers, but they also have pretty limited growth rates.  My second question is, then, do we see interference effects in glass windows with electromagnetic radiation of a comparable wavelength, like microwaves?  Thanks! Which is correct?   Sheila and Angie are wearing the same shirt today.  Sheila and Angie are wearing the same shirts today. Sheila and Angie are wearing same shirts today. A function that is continuous at the origin but not differentiable there Show that $f(x,y)=\dfrac{xy^2}{x^2+y^2}$ (with $(x,y)\not=(0,0)$ and $f(0,0)=0$) is continuous but not differentiable at $(0,0)$.  I tried to show continuity with an $\epsilon -\delta$ argument but I don't know how to factorize the expression so that I can have something useful.   For differentiability I think I should show that the partials are not continuous at $(0,0)$. But finding the partials is also painful. Property of Entire Functions Aggregate Rating not displayed in Google search results What is the result of $ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \sum^n_{i=1} i^k}{n^{k+1}},\ k \in \mathbb{R} $ and why? What is the result of the next limit:   $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{ \sum^n_{i=1} i^k}{n^{k+1}},\ k \in \mathbb{R} $$  Why (theorem)? How do I set up my studio for shooting large rugs from the ceiling? Differential equation: autonomous system This isn't homework. I have no idea what theorems I should be looking at to solve this. Guidance, partial and total solutions are all welcomed.     Let $f$ be a locally lipschitz function in an open set $G\subseteq \Bbb R^n$. Consider the autonomous system $y'=f(y)$.      Let $y(x,\xi)$ be the value at point $x$ of the maximal solution that satisfies the initial condition $y(0)=\xi$.         Prove that the domain of $y(\cdot, y(s, \xi))$ is $I-s$, where $I$ is the domain of $y(\cdot ,\xi)$.   Prove that for all $s, t$ such that $y(s, \xi)$ and $y(t+s, \xi)$ exist, then $y(t,y(s,\xi))$ also exists and $y(t,y(s,\xi))=y(t+s, \xi)$.   If $y$ is a maximal solution and there exists $T&gt;0$ such that $y(0)=y(T)$ and $f(y(0))\neq 0$, then $y$ is a periodic solution and not constant.   If $y$ is a solution whose domain is $(a,+\infty)$, if $\eta:=\lim _{x\to +\infty}y(x)$ and $\eta \in G$, then $f(\eta)=0$.      EDIT  I found an alternative solution for 3. Please check my proof and give feedback in comments:  let $u$ be the restriction of $y$ to $[0,T]$, now let $\overline u$ be the periodic extension of $u$ to $\mathbb R$. It is easy to see that $\overline u$ is a solution to the given differential equation. But since $f$ is locally lipschitz, $\overline u$ must coincide with $y$ wherever they are both defined. Since $y$ is a maximal solution, it must be $\overline u$, so $y$ is defined on $\mathbb R$. How to use exclamation marks in Minecraft commands? Are threads implemented as processes on Linux? I'm going through , Advanced Linux Programming by Mark Mitchell, Jeffrey Oldham, and Alex Samuel. It's from 2001, so a bit old. But I find it quite good anyhow.  However, I got to a point when it diverges from what my Linux produces in the shell output. On page 92 (116 in the viewer), the chapter 4.5 GNU/Linux Thread Implementation begins with the paragraph containing this statement:     The implementation of POSIX threads on GNU/Linux differs from the   thread implementation on many other UNIX-like systems in an important   way: on GNU/Linux, threads are implemented as processes.   This seems like a key point and is later illustrated with a C code. The output in the book is:  main thread pid is 14608 child thread pid is 14610   And in my Ubuntu 16.04 it is:  main thread pid is 3615 child thread pid is 3615   ps output supports this.  I guess something must have changed between 2001 and now.  The next subchapter on the next page, 4.5.1 Signal Handling, builds up on the previous statement:     The behavior of the interaction between signals and threads varies   from one UNIX-like system to another. In GNU/Linux, the behavior is   dictated by the fact that threads are implemented as processes.   And it looks like this will be even more important later on in the book. Could someone explain what's going on here?  I've seen this one , but it doesn't help much. I'm confused.  This is the C code:  #include &lt;pthread.h&gt; #include &lt;stdio.h&gt; #include &lt;unistd.h&gt;  void* thread_function (void* arg) {     fprintf (stderr, "child thread pid is %d\n", (int) getpid ());     /* Spin forever. */     while (1);     return NULL; }  int main () {     pthread_t thread;     fprintf (stderr, "main thread pid is %d\n", (int) getpid ());     pthread_create (&amp;thread, NULL, &amp;thread_function, NULL);     /* Spin forever. */     while (1);     return 0; } How do you properly use namespaces in C++? It is quite easy to show that (by using residue theorem) $$\int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{1+x^n}dx = \frac{2 \pi i^{1+2/n}}{n(e^{2 \pi i / n} - 1)} $$ for $$n \ge 2$$  Is there any possibility to simplify $$\frac{2 \pi i^{1+2/n}}{n(e^{2 \pi i / n} - 1)}$$ or it is best result?  Thanks in advance! There are  with not having ftp and telnet present in 10.13 now as per Apple's dictate.  Has anyone found a solid way to bring BSD ftp and telnet back to macOS vs using inetutils? Short story (50s? 60s?) with a man trapped inside a sentient cave It seems Microsoft has tried to solve this problem .  In Windows 7, there is no boundary between monitors and the mouse can move freely across the top of the screen between my 3 monitors, provided I had set their heights equal in display settings. Windows 8 introduced sticky corners. See .  Windows 10 got sticky corners as well. There are a few pixels at the top corners of each display where the mouse cannot cross over onto the other display. One must move the cursor down to avoid this region in order to get to the next display.  The image shows roughly the region where mouse movement is not permitted in Windows 10, but is allowed in Windows 7.    Personally, I had no problem with unrestricted mouse movement across the top of my screens - I got used to "aiming" for the x, and the convenience of unrestricted cursor movement. Like all the people who wanted to disable it in W8, I'm wondering if there is a way to disable it in W10.  Edit to address possible duplicate:  Although the problem is identical to the one in , solutions to solve the problem in W8 involving editing the registry key MouseCornerClipLength do not work in W10, since that registry key is not present in W10. Also adding that key and setting the value doesn't work. I searched the entire registry and couldn't find it in another location. No other W10 keys in the node referenced in the W8 solution are obvious replacements.  Edit to address possible solutions in comments  harrymc's  and  that worked for for Windows 8.1 do not work in Windows 10.