[Home] [Archive] [Manage]
[Blackomen] [Cloudcity] [Deepblue] [Electricblue] [Germany] [Greendream] [Hell] [Lasvegas] [Londerground] [Mapleleaf] [Marcabian] [Mesa] [Milw0rm] [Moonlight] [Quebec] [Rainbow] [Redwood] [Scandinavian] [Snowyhills] [Thunderdome] [Trollshido] [Wasteland] [Wirah] [Zeal]

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, FLAC, GIF, JPG, MP3, OGG, PNG, RAR, SWF, TORRENT, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 2048 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Update, October 12th: Physics is now a full board under the Intellectual section.
  • Install the Wakaba Firefox Extension.
  • Read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

File: 1256773757793.jpg -(6275 B, 251x236) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
6275 No.175741   [Reply]

discuss.

57 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.199413  

>>198955 LEARN TO PHYSICS
KE = (gamma-1)*m*c^2
gamma = 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5
AS V ------> C GAMMA -----------> INFINITY
THIS WOULD BRING KE -------------> INFINITY
UNLESS M --------------> 0

WE KNOW KE != INFINITY

THUS PHOTONS HAVE NO GODDAMNED MASS

HOWEVER, WE KNOW THEY HAVE A MOMENTUM EQUIVALENT

WE CAN FIND THIS THROUGH WAVELENGTH = H/P

tl;dr. lick ling to view the boring shit.
>> No.199758  

>>199413
From which we can conclude that the speed of photons is lower than the c in the denominator, if ever so slightly, unless the wavelength is infinite.

>> No.202246  

the weight of one photon
= u(j^u/s)-7*1057(7he)^g(am)3



File: 1258185518899.jpg -(197470 B, 530x344) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
197470 No.182470   [Reply]

Law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant. It is never destroyed or created. I go to the edge of the universe and throw batteries off of it. Fuck you science!
pic very unrelated.

17 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.195078  

>>192067
A common theory on black holes is that it puts things into a different place in time. the energy of that start would still exist, we just wouldn't see the start itself.

>> No.200911  

>>192130

Soz broz. If you want to prove anything, take up mathematics ( \subset philosophy).

>>195078

Er... The stuff in a black hole is still there, it's just compacted down to a point. All of the energy is still present but can't escape the gravity well of the black hole.

>> No.202216  

for every battery you throw off the edge you get an electroshock of equal amount thrown back at you by God.
Conservation of energy still holds.



File: 1261545470235.jpg -(39184 B, 604x483) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
39184 No.198870   [Reply]

Hai /phy/
I don't understand what is going on when a spacecraft does a 'deorbit burn.' Shouldn't it be as simple as dropping some altitude (via thrusters) and letting gravity do the rest of the work? So why are they slowing their forward speed (relative to the planet) instead?
tl;dr: getting from orbit to surface of planet

7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.200991  

>>200191
and prey tell why not?

>> No.201214  

>>200991
Orbital speed of a spacecraft in LEO in a circular orbit ~7 km/s
Velocity of astronaut jumping away from the back of the spacecraft...idk maybe 1 m/s?
So let's make these both vector quantities. We'll make the astronaut's speed the negative quantity here since it's opposite the direction of orbit.
7 km/s - .001 km/s = 6.999 km/s in the spacecraft's direction of orbit.
That's still orbital velocity for LEO.

>> No.201215  

>>200991
Orbital speed of a spacecraft in LEO in a circular orbit ~7 km/s
Velocity of astronaut jumping away from the back of the spacecraft...idk maybe 1 m/s?
So let's make these both vector quantities. We'll make the astronaut's speed the negative quantity here since it's opposite the direction of orbit.
7 km/s - .001 km/s = 6.999 km/s in the spacecraft's direction of orbit.
That's still orbital velocity for LEO.



File: 1253667250671.jpg -(31511 B, 640x512) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
31511 No.156328   [Reply]

Hello /phy/ would you liek to participate in my evil plan to rule the world?
/chem/ is invited too.

2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.198835  

only if it involves robots

>> No.198866  

>>198835
and other scientific abominations

>> No.198933  
File: 1261559114819.jpg -(41739 B, 269x356) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
41739

Genetically engineered killer robots with death rays, preferably from outer space.



File: 1261426523222.jpg -(37502 B, 480x399) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
37502 No.198201   [Reply]

What the deal with string theory? Why is Brian Greene such a douchenozzle? It's pretty stuff but is it truth???

Inb4 butthurt physicists cry like little babies

>> No.198596  

The basic idea of string theory is to create a simple, elegant mathematical framework for the basic forces in nature. Three of them had already been reduced to each other (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force), but not gravity, which is much weaker.

String theorists started out by postulating a particle for gravity, describing it with the same formalisms as other interaction particles. This turned out to be elegant and consistent. The mathematical model was that of strings.

An experiment was now needed to see if this theory was not only consistent, but also correct. Not surprisingly, string theory predicted the existence of gravity. (Duh.) To explain why gravity was weaker than its siblings, additional dimensions had to be introduced, formulating our apparent four-dimensional manifold as a thouroughly warped and twisted Calabi-Yau-space. Thus string theorists contributed greatly to pure mathematics.

To determine what shape our continuum would have to take, and how many dimensions were needed, experiments were conducted to see at what distances gravity would become stronger. Nothing was found so far, so the number of spatial dimensions needed for string theory to remain consistent is somewhere upwards of eleven.

Meanwhile, string theory also provides an elegant possible explanation of where the Big Bang came from, introducing parallel universes. It also doubled the number of possible fundamental particles via the concept of super-symmetry. None of the newly predicted particles have been found so far.

tl;dr. lick ling to view the boring shit.
>> No.201839  

>>198201
Idiot.



File: 1259786433828.jpg -(19891 B, 400x300) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
19891 No.189873   [Reply]

Hey /phy/ I have a question, if you answer it correctly with proof, you will be awarded the Nobel Prize in Astrophysics.

How does gravity propagate?

You must answer this equation with proof, with an equation, or some other proof.

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.195066  

F=G * m1+m2/d²

>> No.195312  

Through a possible vibrational mode called a gravitron, if you're a believer in the strings.

>> No.198106  
File: 1261402940709.png -(1004 B, 190x41) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
1004

proof:
trivial



File: 1260042585466.jpg -(178292 B, 570x427) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
178292 No.191329   [Reply]

Does anyone know how, or if it is possible to build a radar jammer that will jam police radar?

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.193646  

>>193382
The fuck? Get the fuck out faggot.

Like I said OP, figure out how to build a high power transmitter that radiates on the same frequency that a police jammer does (probably microwave spectrum). Only problem is, this will interfere with other shit, like your cellphone. Add to that, doing this sort of shit is illegal, the FCC fines are in the thousands of dollars.
>>193435
That won't fucking work at all. Do you understand how radar works? It's a signal intended to bunch off a surface. It will just bounce of the reflector instead of your car, providing the exact same effect.

The other problem is that police radars aren't constantly on, they pull the trigger and aim it at your car for a second or 2, and get the speed reading. That's why "radar detectors" you see advertised are mostly bullshit, because by the time you detect it, they've already got you.

>> No.193648  

>>191329

use your MIND

>> No.197218  

Will this work on a police radar?
http://anonym.to/?http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A637535
I yes, the idea is to make a jammer that uses Range Gate Pull-Off to simulate a legal low speed target while the actual target is fast as shit.



File: 1253236104875.jpg -(24964 B, 512x384) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
24964 No.152353   [Reply]

prove me wrong

30 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.195849  
File: 1260818452022.jpg -(196411 B, 652x979) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
196411

>>195460

>intellectual discussion
>> No.196080  
File: 1260905306501.jpg -(15886 B, 220x288) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
15886

>>195259
I bet you're from the UK, in which case I will lol.
Pic related, average British "woman" (and I use that term...lightly DOHOHOHO)

>> No.196598  
File: 1261074227982.jpg -(18991 B, 331x321) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
18991

>>196080
>>195849
>>195460

lol



File: 1259535871376.jpg -(99545 B, 421x512) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
99545 No.188225   [Reply]
Hey, any people good with quantum physics, could you please explain this:
The other day i was watching TV and these people were talking about some shit i wasn't too interested in and they said something about a theory that atoms could be in two places at once and there was an experiment where there was a detector that picked up photons given off by atomic decay which released poison into a cat's milk, so somehow the cat could be alive and dead at the same time. At this point i was pretty stumped and i have been thinking about it for a bit, sorry for the vagueness it was a week or two ago i don't remember the details.
So could somebody please explain wtf?
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.192600  

>>192160

Wich is why normal people call it The Schrodingers Cat Thought Experiment....

>> No.193434  

Schrodinger proved mathmaticaly that with an isolated event (as is with schrodingers cat) that both things do happen simultaneously for all eternity (assuming that the cat doesnt age, or need food ect.) essentaily because scince is qualitative/quantitative, if a tree fell in the woods and nothing was around to hear it it did and didn't make a sound, or hell it could have be singing the american anthem.

>> No.193437  

And the original form is there is a unstable atom with a radiation detector pointed, which is conected a motorized hammer. the hammer is pointed at a bottle full of gas poison.
point is at any given time the atom may have split (nuclear decay) or it didn't. depending on which the cat is either dead or alive



File: 1259714893241.gif -(5312 B, 320x253) Thumbnail displayed, click the ling for full size.
5312 No.189239   [Reply]

Hey, I'm new to relativity and I'm trying to understand it. I figure Einstein's Train Paradox is a decent enough place to start, but I can't quite wrap my head around it.

The basics:
a train is moving at some speed near c.
one observer(1) is standing on the midpoint of the train
another observer(2) is standing on the side of the track
as the observers are in front of each other, lightning strikes the front and rear of the train.

The problem:
there is a sensor on the midpoint of the train(aka observer 1), if it sees the flash of lightning at the same time, nothing happens, if they are off by the slightest amount of time, the train explodes.

The question:
Does the train explode?

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No.191461  

the speed of light is the same for all observers. the train won't explode because the light from both events will, if they really are equidistant, will reach observer (1) at the same time.

i'm not sure how observer (2) factors into your question tbh.

does observer (2) have a sensor, and you're saying that both sensors have to see the flash at the same time relative to each other?

also note the train will be incredibly lorentz-contracted along the direction of its motion.

im good with the ideas behind physics but i suck at math >_>

>> No.193080  

they will explode... it still takes time 4 light to reach observer 1... by which time he will be off center from the 2 points where lightning struck

>> No.193122  

>>193080
You assume that lightning strikes at the same time in the frame of reference of observer 2, but not observer 1. In that case, the train explodes.

If, however, lightning strikes simultaneously in the frame of reference of observer 1, but not observer 2, the train does not explode.



Delete Post []
Password
Previous [0] [1] [2] [3]