Jump to content

Bufofrog

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Bufofrog last won the day on September 25

Bufofrog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

2 Followers

About Bufofrog

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 07/13/1955

Profile Information

  • Location
    Upstate NY
  • College Major/Degree
    chemical Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Engineering / Physics
  • Occupation
    Process Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There is no theory I know of that even postulates that. Cross posted with Swansont.
  2. Along those same lines, many people don't realize that those beautiful pictures of nebulae, like the Orion nebula, are not something that a person could see no matter their location in space. Even if you were relatively close to the Orion nebula it would just look like a diffuse haziness in the night sky. Time lapsed and stacking of images makes the really nice pictures.
  3. Correct. As Sensei pointed out the net charge is zero. At an rate electrical charge has nothing to do directly with mass-energy equivalency.
  4. -1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules. Really bad form, kartazion!
  5. I still would like to know why 'it would it be impossible to reveal to the general public'?
  6. What do you mean? There is no virus? The covid-19 virus has been misidentified?
  7. This a good thing. Being wrong is not bad but refusing to admit you are wrong is terrible. All the greatest physicist and scientists were wrong about many things, and learned from their errors. There is no doubt you have learned a lot of mechanics in this thread, I know I have. Thanks for the discussion.
  8. I have been following this thread with interest and I would like thank the participants. I never really got the idea of a fictitious force, but thanks to this thread the concept now seems clear to me. It also looks like John2020 has long ago reached the point where he should have admitted his idea was wrong, if he was ever going to.
  9. You changed the scenario to eliminate acceleration so the only thing we had to work with is 2 inertial frames, so my answer was based on that. Maybe if you stop trying to complicate or change the scenario it would be less confusing for you. You said: Now, if you keep in mind that the situation must be so that you cannot know who is the "moving" and who is the "at rest", you get the confusion I struggle with. This is wrong! We know exactly who has accelerated to a new reference frame and who stayed in the same reference (who is the "moving" and who is the "at rest") We know the rocket accelerated and the earth did not. An astronaut on the rocket would almost lose consciousness from the acceleration and the earth would feel no acceleration. The rocket is 'moving' and the earth is not*. This is based on the origin of the coordinate system being starting frame of the rocket on the earth. Do you understand this? If you don't understand, then please don't say you do!
  10. Skeptic and a helluva magician.
  11. [math]\Delta t' = \frac{\Delta t} {\sqrt{1 - \frac {v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] Where [math]\Delta t [/math] is the clock rate of the observer (stationary frame).
  12. There is no paradox here since on the outbound leg the traveling twin must accelerate to another reference frame. The traveling twins clock will indicate less time has passed than the clock on planet X, as he flies by. If the ship and the planet's weren't ever in the same reference frame and just flew by each other, then both would see the other time dilated. There would be no useful comparing of elapsed time since they are never in the same reference frame.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.